The ignorance of the law harms, as the ancient Romans utilized to say, but the prime minister of a serious and large country in the midst of Europe does not request to function in specified ignorance. Paradoxically Donald Tusk most likely has no problems, at least with basic legal knowledgeAnd I'm certain he knows precisely how to behave, so that in the future he doesn't have major problems. Despite this knowledge, he has repeatedly acted against the law and, moreover, has sworn solemnly that he will not pay attention to critical voices that point to illegal actions by the Prime Minister and the government.
The political past of scandals was followed by Donald Tusk's words immediately after the “revocation of the countersignature”, which was 1 of the more striking manifestations of the sense of impunity of the leader of the ruling coalition:
Today, we request to act in terms of fighting democracy. We will most likely make mistakes or actions that any legal authorities believe will be incompatible or not full in line with the laws, but nothing releases us from action all day.
In a country where the regulation of law is indeed an overriding value, and the justice strategy is not compromised and concreted by a post-communist agreement, for these words and deeds the Prime Minister would long have been accused. As we know, this has not happened, and until power changes, no miracles are to be expected either legal or economic. However, the longer position no longer works in Donald Tusk's favor, due to the fact that the "revocation of the countersignature" and the public declaration that the law is being broken, are not the strongest allegations against the head of government. For days or weeks, the show has been moving under the title: State bombing. The first signals about the force being exerted on the Marshal of the Sejm of Simon Holovnia to break up the National Assembly gathering were falling immediately after the election.
It must be admitted that Holownia distanced itself from these ideas, although they were presented by large legal “authorities”, including prof. Andrzej Zoll. Legal interpretations not having much to do with law and simple logic are a common phenomenon, but telling nonsense is completely different from breaking the law, including insisting on committing a crime. This is precisely what Simon Hołownia formulated, although with his legs and hands he defends himself that it was simply a publicist. As shortly as Marshal Holovnia on the air “Polsat News” said that he was being urged to coup, there was immediately speculation who was going to encourage him. Apart from specified irrelevant characters as Roman Gierty, the name of Prime Minister Tusk immediately appeared, who present at TVN24 decided to make an alibi:
I asked the question how they assessed the full situation and whether, therefore, the Marshal (Holownia – ed.) intends to convene the National Assembly and lead to the swearing-in of the President-elect. (...) Marshal Holovnia, but besides Deputy Marshal Czarzasty and Deputy Prime Minister Kosiniak-Kamish, powerfully expressed the opinion that no substance what happens next with the number of the votes, there should be an oath, so for me the subject was closed.
It is interesting how in the future, possibly not far away, a truly independent and independent court will mention to specified “tests”. In doctrine and jurisprudence, it is widely believed that a question suggesting an answer or forcing certain behaviours is simply a prerequisite for the crime, specified as to encourage a change in the constitutional government of the Republic of Poland, as Article 127 of the Code of Conduct says, and which is punishable by 20 years imprisonment. Besides, this is not the only evidence in the case, after all, Donald Tusk repeatedly in talks with the media and entries on the X portal, suggested that the elections were rigged, and The home of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs is not a court And her decisions are not valid. In this context, Donald Tusk's alibi is very weak and definitely the full case is suitable for prosecutorial proceedings, which should, with large probability, end with an indictment.
We don't believe in anyone, we don't believe in anything! We look at facts and draw conclusions!
