2024-03-31 21:06:58
However, after the emotions subsided, the politicians split into different camps – while some defend the president and accuse the commission of politicking, others also talk about the idea of impeachment.
On the “Lietuvos ryto” TV show “Lietuva rytos” Bronislovas Matelis, a conservative, one of the members of the assembled commission, and Agnė Širinskienė, an elder of the Mixed Seimas group, also showed different ideas on how to really evaluate the so-called history of the speaker.
You have your own explanation
When asked which of the 70 questions presented to President G. Nausėda is the most relevant to him and which answers he would like the most, B. Matelis considered that each of them is important for Lithuania, and now we are left without any answer.
“The question is, do we want fair and just elections?” Left, right, center, black, white – do we want a fair and just election?
For that to happen, the president needs to answer those questions and dispel all doubts. One question may be about the president’s relations with importers of Belarusian fertilizers, another – how did he manage to convince the head of the VSD to check the members of his future election staff? Those questions are everywhere and each one is very important,” explained the conservative.
When considering why G. Nausėda decided not to testify about the VSD speaker’s story to the Seimas commission, one of its members raised the version that it could have harmed the country’s leader even more.
“We had previously interviewed several staff members from the office of the president, and from the questions that we asked those staff members, from the 70 questions that we asked the president, I think he, if you talked to the public relations specialists, maybe realized that, if he starts to answer, maybe he sensed that the commission has enough evidence that it is not the way he would answer.
And then he was afraid to get stuck even deeper, and if he got stuck even deeper, then it would be lying and so on, then that investigation would go very far,” said B. Matelis.
According to the conservative, if the president really did not want to testify against himself, he should have come to the commission or after taking the questions, written under each of them that he does not want to answer it, because it concerns him personally, according to the relevant law.
“But out of those 70 questions, there are certainly some that are not related to him – it’s just that he, as the head of the Presidency, needs to know about the relationships of his office staff, with whom he communicates.” Let’s talk about others. It was the president’s duty to try to answer each question, and where he can’t about him, he can use that provision and write that I will not testify against myself.
But he chose a way of not talking at all – he didn’t write us a single letter, we invited him to come – no reaction. This is not an ordinary police officer, but what is his status, and if the head of state himself refuses to testify…
Dalia Grybauskaitė went, Rolandas Paksas went to testify – we have the first president who refuses to answer questions, and the worst thing is that those questions will remain even after those elections, and we will have a potentially vulnerable president”, explained B. Matelis.
The sting of the past
For her part, A. Širinskienė said that “everyone has a political memory”, so they probably remembered what had already happened with such commissions and testimonies in the past.
“I remember Gabrielias Landsbergis and Ingrid Šimonytė, who did not testify to the commissions of the previous term, the legality of which was still unchallenged at that time, just as the legality of this commission has not yet been challenged anywhere in the Constitutional Court. And at that time, I did not hear that the conservatives talked about the fact that G. Landsbergis or I. Šimonytė broke the Constitution and that perhaps they should be impeached and considered very seriously.
Apparently, Mr. Nausėda learned such pretexts from the example of G. Landsbergis. I am, of course, being a bit sarcastic and ironic,” A. Širinskienė assessed.
According to Mishris, the elder of the group of Seimas members, perhaps G. Nausėda realized that no matter what he answered to the commission, additional questions would still arise, which is why he avoided this procedure.
“Just like now, people are sincerely offended that he didn’t answer, then it would be said that oh, he tried to answer, but he didn’t answer fully, and here somewhere his words and the assistant’s words did not match. This is in order to sway politically before the elections, because I see I.Šimonytė’s great desire to use this commission for the election campaign, so in order to swing, you can always get attached to a lot of things.
It’s just that, apparently, the president decided not to participate in I. Šimonytė’s election campaign – he is participating in his own campaign,” the parliamentarian assessed.
True, B. Matelis also had a response to that, defending the chairman of the TS-LKD party.
“I could say here what we have to talk about – who was G. Landsbergis in the last term?” Member of the parliament. Yes, maybe he had to come, but you had to take some measures. We took measures – the president did not answer, we sent him questions. Did you send it?” he asked A. Širinskienė.
“I see those situations as identical situations in terms of movement, but not identical situations in terms of drama and evaluation. Where there was an attempt to cover it up and say that we do not participate in politicized actions, a different standard is being set for the competitor in the elections,” answered the member of the Seimas.
According to B. Matelis, in this case it doesn’t matter who would be in the place of the president, but more will always be demanded from the highest leader of the country.
“This is the first person in the state, and there will always be more drama here,” the conservative countered.
“You see that drama bigger everywhere, where it is not your question. I will just remind you: during the elections, Mr. S. Skvernelis was offered to resign several times, because he cannot participate in the presidential elections and be the prime minister at the same time – I do not hear such calls from you to I. Šimonyte. (…) Those double standards that your party applies, they look pathetic”, emphasized A. Širinskienė.
The member of the Seimas assured that G. Nausėda could basically refuse not to testify before the special commission, because everyone has the right not to testify against themselves.
“There is a general rule that is universal – the right of a person not to testify against himself. Such a thing is universal”, emphasized A. Širinskienė, who also noticed one more complaint about the history of the VSD reporter to the assembled commission.
“If we look at your decision, in some places the commission states that the general prosecutor violated the code of criminal procedure. This is not the business of the Seimas – it is the business of the court to establish whether the prosecutor has violated something or not.
“This commission of yours goes so far beyond the legal limits that are set for commissions that students can be shown examples here,” explained the politician.
2024-03-31 21:06:58