shared this story
On August 28, 2020 the Executive Director of the Puerto Rico Government Ethics Office announced the investigation into the leaked 889-page chat dialog between Rosselló and members of his cabinet was completed. The investigation, which began on July 15, 2019, was closed due to inability to authenticate evidence, an essential element for the imputation of unethical conduct, rendering impossible for the administrative prosecution of its participants. As part of the investigation process, the ethics office’s lawyers interviewed seven witnesses, including chat participants, and six affidavits were taken. Additionally, two other chat participants were contacted, but declined to cooperate with the investigation.
Witnesses that were interviewed admitted the instant-messaging application Telegram was the main form of communication between Rosselló and members of his cabinet but declined to authenticate the content of the leaked document, expressing malevolous alterations were presented on it. The ethics office’s lawyers attempted to prove the authenticity of the content of the conversations through a certification request to the instant-messaging company itself, but were unsuccessful; the company is limited to release information on suspicion of terrorism to relevant authorities, such as IP address and telephone number, and not the content of conversations. The Department of Justice of Puerto Rico was also asked to cooperate in providing extracted information from cell phones of some of the chat’s participants, with the purpose of obtaining unaltered and authentic content directly from the source, but was not shared due to the criminal investigation they’re still conducting.
On November 10, 2020, special prosecutors handed their investigation into the Rosselló administration’s involvement in the chat scandal to the Special Independent Prosecutor’s Panel, after ten days of redacting the document. Ultimately, on November 24, 2020, the panel determined that criminal elements were not set up in the crimes that were described in the report, due to lack of evidence to sustain the accusations, adding that there were no loss of public funds or damage to public property. The panel also didn’t find that the content of the chat led to carrying out a crime.