The disclosure of passages of the interview of Jarosev Kaczyñski on the alleged 2 villages evolved into a political and legal test for the camp of power. The prosecution checks the leak, and its spokesperson indicates that access to the full file has Roman Gierty. The state cannot act as the instrument of the organization performance. This is the stake? is trust in the right and safety of the citizen towards the institution.
Recording from the file and the question about the state
The portal of the Bishop published? fragments of the interview of Jarosev Kaczyñski in the investigation concerning the alleged 2 knows. According to Interia's report, the interview took place on 10 June in the Public Prosecutor's Office in Warsaw, and after publication of investigation materials the activity concerning the disclosure of the video.
This is not just a fight about a political video. If the substance from the preparatory act goes online, the citizen has the right to ask if the state is following the procedures, or allows the files to become ammunition in the organization war. To the right, the substance is clear: public institutions have the law, not revenge and media show.
The political context is acute due to the fact that in the center there was Roman Giertych, the seat of the Civic Coalition and full-time Gerald Birgfelner. DN describes earlier the clash of Kaczyñski and Giertych in the SejmBut the current case is more serious. This is not about a repost with a martyr. It is about access to procedural materials and limits of usage of the prosecution in the current fight.
The D.A.'s office hits Giertych.
Advocate of the Prosecutor's Office in Warsaw prok. Piotr Antoni Skiba speaks in conversation with the Facts that he has access to the full act had 1 person: patron Roman Gierty. Add that he will make access and receive it, erstwhile instructed to be liable for Art. 241 of the Criminal Code for the public dissemination of messages from the preparatory proceedings before disclosure in the court. The fact will besides quote a spokesperson that making the evidence public was not in the interests of the prosecution or trial parties.
Do we have to? Clear: indicating access is not a judgment. No games left? convicted of the removal of the video and is bound by the presumption of innocence. But the public has the right to request a precise answer, who had the access, who copied the media, who was liable for the safety of the file and whether the publication was the consequence of deliberate action.
That's why this case is uncomfortable for the government. Coalition, which speaks so much about restoring the regulation of law, must show that its own politician is not above the procedures. If the standard is required? only opponents, it is not right. This is political selection.
Gierty resists the charges
Roman Gierty will reject the prosecution's suggestions. In conversation with the fact that the recording was expected to cut out of the prosecution itself, and the prosecutor's spokesperson does not talk the truth. The Republic of Poland cites its entry, in which they specify? A prosecutor's message as insolent and accusing? Investigating the perpetrator while carrying out checking activities.
It's a strong defense, but the defence itself doesn't close the case. If the recording can actually come out of the prosecutor's office, then a fair explanation is needed. If, in turn, the substance leaves the file another way, the state must name it and show evidence. Without it there is simply a fog, and in it it is best to feel those who want to bring? the dimension of justice to the function of tools in stronger hands.
Poland remembers besides many cases in which the large slogan about repairing the state ended up organization benefit. so it is not adequate present to say that the case concerns opponents of the Law and Justice or opponents of Giertych. The case concerns the rule. It concerns whether any citizen can number that his file will not be included in the political clip.
Tusk tries to cut the problem
Donald Tusk. How to study Interia, the Prime Minister announced that he would ask the lawyer General about the evaluation of the action Romana Giertych and say that if you ask KO to cheat the law, you will endure the consequences. This politically convenient form: conditional, sharp, leaving the gate.
However, it is not possible to pretend that it is just a method issue for investigators. The game for a period has been 1 of the faces of the sharp anti-PiS offensive. His political actions awakened emotions besides in the coalition itself, as evidenced by what? even text DN about how Minister of funds cut off from Giertych. erstwhile a post like that? appears at the material from the file, the government can not hide behind the generalist.
The state of the law learns about how it treats matters uncomfortable for its own back office. It is easy to settle conferences and committees. Harder to use? the same standard against a man of his own majority.
The case of the 2 news has been dropped
The very investigation of Kaczyñski afraid investigation into the alleged 2 knows. Rzeczpospolita reminds that on 25 June the Prosecutor's Office of the territory of Warsaw waived this procedure in view of the uncovering of no signs of prohibited action. According to this description the investigation continued from February 2025 and afraid an underinvestment on the land owned by the Silver Company, connected with the plans for the construction of the towers in Warsaw.
This is simply a valid fact due to the fact that it shows a wider mechanism. The case, which was formally released, inactive lives as political fuel. A condition of the interview is to work? in the emotions of the viewers, building a picture, imposing assessments. This is how the policy of the image works: alternatively of full context we get torn substance and medial inserts.
The right should not be afraid of disclosure, but the right must have a rule. The file is not a folder for any usage by politicians and friendly media. If the procedures are broken, each can pay next day a akin operation. Thanks, Ducks. next day the entrepreneur, self-government, priest, social worker, average citizen.
Rate for Poles
This case is not about sympathy for Jarosev Kaczyñski or not to Roman Giertych. The question is whether you are serious. National business requires hard but predictable institutions. The prosecution can neither be a helpless warehouse of leaks, nor a tool for political grilling the opponent.
If the government truly believes in the right, they should explain the substance to the end. Who had access? Who can copy the video? Is it a violation of the law? Did the procedure fail? There will only be another proof that in Poland the law is sacred only erstwhile it beats the opponent.
Number: Interia, Facts, Virtual Poland, the Republic of Poland.
