translated from Spanish: Velásquez Deputy acknowledges second complaint against him but defends himself: all they want is to “get money”

A new complaint was against Mr. Pedro Velasquez (IND-FRVS), who was already being investigated for sexual harassment against a former adviser.
In an interview with the newspaper La Tercera, Velasquez noted that “only on Tuesday I was notified of the first complaint, and at that time, the secretary of the House (Miguel Landeros) points out to me that there is another complaint”. The new complaint, which he acknowledges that he does not “know the tenor,” he said that the only goal he has is to “make money.”
“In the paperwork I was given for the first complaint, the first defendant names this other person two or three times and is consistent with this strategy that was rumored in my district. For them, I think it’s a way to make money,” he explained.
“I think their strategy is that, if this came to Congress, my reaction was going to be to ask them to withdraw the complaint and hand them money, but that’s not going to be the case,” Velasquez added.
The DEPUTY explained that, with regard to his whistleblowers, “the first (Angelo Giovine) is fired because he is not going to work. Besides, he calls me his ex-cohabitant and gives me a history of crime, including a 300-day conviction for threatening a woman, who was his partner. Upon learning of this, I ask for your resignation, but he did not agree. Therefore, this person is disassociated by the ‘loss of confidence’ clause and I think that’s why he starts this plan to make this complaint.”
On the removal of MEP Gael Yeomans as a designated prosecutor for the investigation of the first sexual harassment complaint, Velasquez, who requested her departure due to old statements, said: “When she is notified as a prosecutor, at least there could be made a call or in the same Congress, which we’re almost next door, could have come close or said something. When this became public, I made a press point to deliver background slam disensuain and defend myself, and she criticized me. Then, in various statements, she says that I should not have spoken, mentions this person almost as being friends, comments on the case and, on television, even says that this was so serious that it should pass to the Prosecutor’s Office. And without ever asking for my version! I was prejudged by MeP Yeomans and, moreover, did not maintain the strict reservation that corresponds. Deep down, he crucified me without me even knowing what I was being accused of.”

Original source in Spanish