José Luis Ábalos Challenges Aldama's Claims in Supreme Court Report
José Luis Ábalos has submitted a detailed report to the Supreme Court that critically analyzes the testimony of Víctor de Aldama, who previously accused him and advisor Koldo García of receiving kickbacks for government contracts. Ábalos's report highlights 25 inconsistencies in Aldama's statements, the first being that Aldama initially approached García, contrary to his assertion that García had contacted him first.
Evidence referenced in the report indicates that Aldama had been proactively reaching out to García, evidenced by messages to his brother Rubén expressing a desire to invite Ábalos out for a meal. Rubén's response, expressing reluctance to accept any invitations, suggests that there was no intention on the part of Ábalos and García to accept gifts or favors from Aldama.
Moreover, Ábalos underscores discrepancies in Aldama's claims about their familiarity and interaction over the years. While Aldama testified that he only met García in 2018 when Ábalos was serving in government, publications had previously reported on their past interactions dating back to the 2000s, when both were involved with businessman Alberto Cortina. This information raises serious questions about the credibility of Aldama's account of when their relationship began.
In a further denial, Ábalos disputes Aldama's assertion that he orchestrated the official trip to Mexico in 2019, which Aldama claimed was based on his contacts and his supposed managerial role in discussions related to the Maya Train project. Ábalos clarifies that the trip's logistics were handled directly by his ministry and the Spanish Embassy, denying Aldama's purported role as a central planner.
Aldama was identified merely as a trade attaché from Oaxaca and not part of the official delegation. His attempts to position himself as an influential figure in discussions about the Maya Train project were also challenged, with evidence suggesting his grasp of the project was tenuous at best. Additionally, Ábalos refutes Aldama's claims regarding interference from the then-Spanish ambassador to Mexico, stating that the ambassador played an active role during the trip.
Regarding Aldama's comments about his relationships with high-level officials, Ábalos points out inconsistencies, like Aldama's assertion of never contacting Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez until 2019. Contrarily, it is noted that Sánchez had engaged with Mexican officials even prior to the trip in question.
Furthermore, Aldama's roles in international dealings, specifically concerning Venezuela, are called into question. He described his conduct as a special envoy, a claim that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs repudiated, stating they had no knowledge of his alleged diplomatic mission nor backed the documents he claimed to possess.
In conclusion, Ábalos emphasizes that Aldama's testimony lacks factual coherence, evidenced by numerous errors concerning timelines and statements about significant events. This situation raises broader concerns about the integrity of the accusations made against him and García. As the legal proceedings continue, the contrasting narratives highlight the complexities of political relationships and the implications of testimony in high-stakes legal scenarios.
Related Sources: