11.4 C
Thursday, June 20, 2024

Former head of the CBA, Paweł Wojtunik, asks questions to the head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Administration, Mariusz Kamiński. Journalists’ comments

Must read

- Advertisement -

Former head of the CBA, Paweł Wojtunik, asked the head of the Ministry of Interior and Administration and the coordinator of special services, Mariusz Kamiński, on TVN24 whether the services started eavesdropping on the opposition just before the elections. – Wojtunik’s questions are justified, but none of us will make a firm thesis because we do not have access to the documents or the course of what happened – said Mariusz Gierszewski, a journalist from Radio Zet, on TVN24. The case was also commented on by Wojciech Czuchnowski, a journalist from “Gazeta Wyborcza”. – This would be a recidivism on the part of people in power – he said.

Ex-boss CBA Paweł Wojtunik said in Saturday’s edition of “Fakty po Faktach” on TVN24 four questions to the head of the Ministry of Interior and AdministrationMinister Coordinator of Special Services Mariusz Kamiński. In one of them, he asked if it was true that “during the briefing in Lucień (a village in Masovia, where the CBA center is located – ed.) two days before the elections, decisions, instructions were made, and recommendations were given that in the context of the parliamentary elections massively use operational control against representatives of opposition groups with special emphasis on one of the groups forming the pre-election coalition. It is about the Third Way.

Read also: “We need answers to know whether the situation was serious or extremely serious.”

Is it true that during the briefing in Lucień, two days before the elections, decisions were made and recommendations were issued to massively apply operational control to representatives of opposition groups in the context of the parliamentary elections, with particular emphasis placed on one of the groups forming the pre-election coalition?

Did the coordinators, coordinator or deputy (of special services) participate in such a meeting? Were these recommendations coming from above, did they know about such possible recommendations and ideas, did they accept them, or did they agree to them?

Were similar recommendations and ideas for the mass use of operational control, I would like to remind you on the basis of five-day wiretapping, in which no court consent is obtained, but only acceptance from the Prosecutor General, were transmitted and such wiretapping were carried out by the Internal Security Agency, the Military Counterintelligence Service, the police or other services with operational powers?

Was the information from these operational controls, if it is true that they were used, passed on to other politicians and used in ongoing negotiations and political activities?

Gierszewski: Wojtunik’s questions are justified

- Advertisement -

On Sunday morning, the case was commented on by Radio Zet investigative journalist Mariusz Gierszewski on TVN24, who said that it was “of a very high calibre”.

In his opinion, “it was not about eavesdropping during the elections.” – This was about eavesdropping after electionsi.e. at a time when the new coalition wants to form a government, wants to reach an agreement and this information may influence the shape of the future political scene – he said.

– This is about shifting the emphasis a bit so that we don’t understand it clearly that it’s just eavesdropping during the elections, because then we could actually ask what the sense is. If we say that it started last week and was supposed to continue now, when we talk about it, it takes on a completely different meaning – he explained.

The journalist confirmed that the information provided by Wojtunik also reached him last week. – Based on this, I can say that Wojtunik’s questions are justified, but none of us will make a firm thesis because we do not have access to the documents or to what happened during the meeting in Lucień – he noted.

Gierszewski was further asked what the function of the center mentioned by Wojtunik, where the meeting was to take place, was.

– This is a training center that once belonged to the Chancellery of the President, from the times of the deep Polish People’s Republic. Beautifully located, in the forest, by a beautiful lake, fenced, no access for curious people. In 2013, under Paweł Wojtunik, when he was in charge of the CBA, it was handed over to the CBA and a training center was established there – he described. – From what I know, it is used very much at the moment, used for training, but also, above all, for meetings where no one will interfere and see what happened there – he added.

Gierszewski was further asked what traces could be looked for regarding the five-day wiretapping. – It’s definitely the court, it’s definitely the prosecutor general’s evidence, it’s definitely also the telecoms. It didn’t have to be just wiretaps, there could also be phone records to see who was in contact with whom or who was where, he replied.

– We hope that evidence will emerge, and above all, that if there is a change of power, then those who will take over the ministries of force will actually check what happened in Lucień – he concluded.

Czuchnowski: this is an old number of this authority

Wojciech Czuchnowski, a journalist from “Gazeta Wyborcza”, also commented on Wojtunik’s statement on TVN24. “It was electrifying,” he admitted. – It was in the form of questions, but they were information-based, very specific questions – he noted.

The journalist said that because of the statements made by the former head of the CBA, he talked to him – I perfectly understand his motivation – he said.

– Paweł Wojtunik said that he could not go to the secret services commission because the commission did not work. He couldn’t go to the prosecutor general about it, because it was the prosecutor general who approved the wiretapping. And he couldn’t inform opposition politicians about it, because it would be very risky, because he could expose himself to revealing secret information to politicians, he explained.

As he summed up, Wojtunik “did the only thing that could be done at that moment, which was simply asking public questions and stating that he had much more knowledge and that these were not actually questions, just statements.”

– I’m sure the answer to each of these questions is yes. There are two reasons for my confidence. The first is that Paweł Wojtunik was not only the head of the CBA, he had previously founded the Central Bureau of Investigation, he has his people in various services, from the Central Bureau of Investigation, through the Internal Security Agency, the military services to the Central Anticorruption Bureau. If he talks about several independent sources, he knows perfectly well what he is talking about, the journalist pointed out.

He also said that “it would be a recidivism on the part of people in power.” – Mariusz Kamiński i Maciej Wąsik were convicted for similar actions during the first term PiS – he mentioned.

Mariusz KamińskiLeszek Szymański/PAP

He also recalled the eavesdropping of Krzysztof Brejza by the Pegasus software. – Senator (elect – ed.) Brejza, then still an MP, was intercepted by Pegasus as the head of the election campaign of the Civic Platform, the largest opposition group. Wąsik and Kamiński never commented on it, he recalled.

Czuchnowski: Wojtunik asked questions publicly and said that they were not actually questions, but statementsTVN24

Czuchnowski pointed out that “using the materials and wiretapping obtained during these operational activities, the services may try to influence the coalition talks and quarrel the opposition, which in a moment will not be the opposition, but the government.”

When reminded that Wojtunik said that the orders concerned five-day wiretapping, for which court consent was not required, Czuchnowski reminded that such five-day wiretapping leaves a trace.

– This is the old number of this authority. During the first PiS government, these “five-day packages” were very popular. Back then, when we wrote about it, there were, among other things, wiretapping of journalists and politicians. The trace remained. There are no transcripts, he mentioned.

He emphasized that this is not only about the electronic trace. – The trace remained in the materials. If the prosecutor general gave consent, this consent was given in writing, he said. – It seems to me that the evidence cannot be hidden here – he added. He also pointed out that destroying this type of material “is a very serious crime.”

READ ALSO: Briefing in Lucień, operational control of the opposition? Questions for the head of the Ministry of Interior and Administration. The reaction of his deputies

Main photo source: TVN24

Source link

More articles

- Advertisement -

Latest article