SYRIZA: ND carried out a strategy of driving the media with public money

“The New Democracy government has carried out a strategy of driving the media, using public money as a reward for public praise of her and the Prime Minister personally and at the same time as a means of silencing the opposition voices,” said the SYRIZA MPs, members of the commission to investigate the political manipulation of public opinion, the degradation of institutions and the squandering of public money.

The conclusion of SYRIZA, which was made public today, also notes that “public money was also used for on-demand polls, as was typically proven in the case of the polling company Opinion Poll, which conducted polls in violation of any notion of ethics, reliability. and scientism, with the sole aim of serving the political goals of the Government and the Prime Minister personally for the formation of specific political tendencies and the manipulation of the citizens “.

The SYRIZA MPs who accuse their fellow MPs of the majority that their responsibility has significantly limited the scope of the investigative and examination possibilities of the examination committee since they were excluded from the list of witnesses, persons whose testimony would be critical, and the access was limited. in crucial documentary evidence, they emphasize that nevertheless, “from all the evidence that emerged, from the testimony of witnesses, from the documents that came into the hands of the commission and from their interrelationship, not only political responsibilities or mere infringements arose by government and official agents, but there were indications that could support the crisis of reasonable suspicion that criminal offenses were committed and that of these acts “. In view of this, the SYRIZA MPs propose to the Commission, and through it and to the Plenary, the transmission of all the information that has emerged to the competent judicial authorities, so that they can further fully and fully investigate all the information that already has emerge and establish the existence of criminal liability.

In particular, as stated in the conclusion of SYRIZA:

“It was exclusively the Government, as the contracting authority, that decided and approved the media that joined the Petsa List and the campaign – the campaign for the coronavirus. The contractor was the one that simply proposed part of the media and in no case was it According to a number of witnesses, the Petsa list was finally formed without criteria and rules, as well as without a public invitation to the media to state that they wish to participate in the campaign for the coronavirus.

The investigated decisions and practices, which were taken in clear and direct breach of EU and national law, the general principles of competition, transparency and impartiality in the award of public supply and service contracts, showed that the Government had implemented a strategy of The media, using public money as a reward for publicly praising her and the Prime Minister personally and at the same time as a means of effectively silencing opposition voices and holding back criticism for their policies.

Under the above conditions of influence and coercion, the policy of the Opposition and its criticism of the government and the elections of the Prime Minister were personally marginalized in terms of short-term coverage or formal reports, while phenomena of important political interventions, important social interventions and mobilizations of major political interest were insufficiently promoted.

In this context of the media manipulation operation and hence the attempt to formulate specific political attitudes among Greek citizens, public money was used for on-demand polls, as was typically proven in the case of the polling company Opinion Poll, which conducted polls in violation of each ethics, credibility and scientificity, with the sole aim of serving the political goals of the Government and the Prime Minister personally for the formation of specific political tendencies and the manipulation of the citizens.

B. From what has already been extensively developed, it appears that a committee of inquiry is generally not set up to carry out a preliminary examination (as is the case with the so-called pre-trial committee), but in exercising its powers it has all the powers of a pre-trial body. prosecutor. This means that even if it is not intended to investigate criminal liability, in practice, when he is allowed to freely investigate the object he has undertaken, he may, because he uses investigative tools similar to those used by the prosecution, come to find and even highlight evidence of criminal liability. Practically, this is interesting because according to article 38 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, all civil servants have the obligation to report without delay to the competent prosecutor criminal acts that are prosecuted ex officio which they were informed in the exercise of their duties. In this case, even a criminal proceeding could subsequently be triggered.

However, in this case, the majority of the Committee acted early in a way that falsified the work of the Committee and anxiously limited the range of research and examination possibilities it would have if it faithfully exercised the powers given to it by the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament. In particular, this was done by restricting the list of witnesses and excluding the examination of critical politicians, alone or in opposition to other persons, but also by deliberately restricting access to critical evidence. Moreover, the committee, under this majority, did not take any other pre-investigative action, from those it had at its disposal and could act, such as e.g. the surveys.

In any case, even so, it was not possible to conceal the information that has already been detailed in the relevant chapters, which suggests the existence of heavy responsibilities.

From all the evidence that emerged, from the testimonies of the witnesses, from the documents that came into the hands of the committee and from their interrelationship, not only political responsibilities or simple breaches of service rules by government and officials emerged, but evidence that could support the judgment of the existence of reasonable suspicions for the commission of criminal offenses and cause, after a special investigation, by the competent prosecutorial and judicial authorities, criminal prosecution against the perpetrators of these acts.

In view of this, the members of the Commission, who are the authors of this opinion, propose to the Commission, and through it and to the Plenary, the transmission of all information which has full extent of all the evidence that has already emerged and substantiates the existence of criminal liability.

Besides, in relation to the ministers of the government, in terms of the acts that fall under article 86 par. 1 Coll., This competence can be exercised only by the Plenary Session of the Parliament itself. In addition to the transmission of critical information to the ordinary judiciary, the transmission of this finding to the Plenary Session of the Parliament itself, without any restriction on the statute of limitations for criminal acts, constitutes a clear justification of the SYRIZA-PS initiative to amend Article 86 of the Constitution. This is because it is a repository of data that the National Delegation will be able to use at any time from now on, when it can really claim the role to prosecute all cases of embezzlement of public money made by the current government in order to manipulate public opinion, as well as any related act “.

Source: AMPE