President G.Nausėda blackmailed by special services over undeclared money ?

0

G.Nausėda „hung” by the special services on a „black money” compromise?

G.Nausėda „hung” by the DSS on a „black money” compromise?

Aurimas Drižius

Back in 2019, the State Security Department collected evidence of the use of undeclared, or „shadow” money in the election company of Gitanas Nauseda.

However, the chief of the SSD, Jauniškis, did not use this evidence and did not present it to anyone, but apparently took it to a meeting with Nausėda, because Nausėda immediately after this meeting approved Jauniškis for a new position.

https://www.lrt.lt/naujienos/lietuvoje/2/1066050/vsd-vadovas-jauniskis-po-nausedos-inauguracijos-prasides-rimti-reikalai

Apparently, this hook in Gitanos’s ass is the reason why the President has played the role of a talking puppet for four years, without taking any steps to fight against this law enforcement mafia

The Seimas Provisional Commission stated that „The Commission has received evidence that during the 2019 presidential election campaign, the DSS carried out court-sanctioned actions to collect intelligence information on potentially criminal or other acts threatening national security during the presidential election campaign.
8.4.2.2.2 During the investigation, the Commission received information that the DSS was investigating possible irregularities in the financing of the 2019 election campaign of the presidential candidate Gitanas Nausėda, but the information was not disclosed to the decision-makers – the Government, the Seimas, the Seimas Committee on National Security and Defence, the Supreme Electoral Commission, the Prosecutor General. According to the Commission, the information gathered by the DSS should have been forwarded to the above-mentioned institutions and procedural steps should have been taken.
8.4.2.3. The Commission concludes that the legal regulation in force during the 2019 presidential election campaign allowed the candidates to conceal and fail to declare all the electoral expenses they incurred, as highlighted by the High Electoral Commission and the political advertising monitoring body UAB TNS LT. The Commission was not in a position to analyse and assess in detail the actual financing costs of all the candidates in the 2019 presidential election campaign in comparison with the data on the monitoring of the financing of electoral political campaigns published at the time in the public space.

The Commission also discussed in detail all the circumstances surrounding the discovery of „black money” in the election campaign of Gitanas Nausėda.

At the Commission’s meeting on 6 December 2023, rapporteur Tomas Gailius, answering the question „<…> with regard to the 2019 presidential elections, have you seen, have you seen any indications that a candidate’s campaign might be financed in an opaque manner?”, stated that „Yes, I have seen such information in the course of my work in the department”.
8.4.1.2 At the Commission’s meeting on 13-12-2023, the former Director of the STT, Žydrūnas Bartkus, in response to the question „Did the STT have any, did it receive any information at all about the possible illegal financing of the 2019 presidential election campaign? If there was such information, what did you do?”, he stated that „I have no such information that such information was received”.

8.4.1.3 At the Commission’s meeting on 20/12/2023, referring to the journalistic investigation carried out and the facts observed during the investigation, the journalist B. Davidonytė stated that „It’s again about cash. Then, after the book was published, there was only testimony from staffers that it was known in the headquarters that Mr Nausėda had handed over cash to a member of his staff, probably it should be said, (there was an I. Ulčickaitė, I think it was), and had asked her to deposit the money officially into an account. That was the testimony. Again, we cannot verify that testimony, but if you interview all the people in the headquarters who were present and saw something, I hope that those people will testify to you.”

It was noted that Nausėda’s expenditure on television was almost the same as Šimonytė’s, although officially it was almost three times different.

The advertising monitoring company TNS has given figures of more than EUR 600 000 for the value of Nausėda’s political advertising on television, radio and media.
Although the candidate declared only €290,000 in expenditure, this is more than double the amount.

In response to the question „We have a difference in spending – double, right?”, former VRK Chairwoman L. Matjošaitytė asked. <…> We have monitoring <…> which shows that advertising was more than that amount. <…> There is the TNS monitoring, there are the candidates’ declarations, there are the media declarations, and the figures do not add up everywhere. Plus, when other political campaigners were contacted, the staff of another candidate, they also referred to their monitoring data, which showed the same discrepancy. <…> If someone started a normal investigation, we would now be able to find out whether or not the volume of advertising was in line with the finances. What do you think?”, pointing out that „Basically, after what was there after 2019, the regulation has changed, but in the current regulation we have there the declaration of expenses, as I said, and a broader description of volunteer work, and all the rest of it. That was not a requirement at the time, so we will not apply the current regulation to the past. But to go back again to those campaign finance checks, what, then, should the Electoral Commission, well, again, take all the data, look again, having done the cross-checking, at where there are some differences and what the reasons for those differences are, well, what the reasons are. In theory, that could be looked at.”

In response to the question „This story about the discrepancies in President Nausėda’s report first came to light, I think, when 15min wrote an article about it. Well, the media took note of the fact that the discrepancies, which were, well, very inadequate, were really coming to light, and they wrote. But they wrote no more than we now know – in the sense of stating the fact, in the sense of actually raising questions. Not many people wanted to comment.

The „journalists” laundered Gitanos Nausėda’s millions and disappeared

But we did gather information, we contacted journalists, we got information from them, we contacted Idea Prima, we contacted Mr Tamulionis and we contacted the candidate, we got some information, but, unfortunately, because it did not even happen in 2019, when the elections were held, it happened in 2020, a year and a half after the elections, we were very disappointed by the answers.

Specifically, what did not help us is that they no longer have those e-mails. They had leased their own domain where they did all the campaigning, the planning. They could not even produce any correspondence that would have given us some kind of thread end. And the investigation hadn’t started, so it was… There was really not much information. We did look, those expenses, those presentations were declared. As far as possible, we looked, we saw, we looked at the invoices too, we just didn’t have the tools, because from the information that was in the public domain and from what they provided, there was no indication, there was no indication, that there was anything more to find. Unless there was some non-public information”.

At the Commission’s meeting on 15 January 2024, the head of Idea Prima UAB, Mr Paulius Tamulionis, in response to the question „What were you responsible for in President Nausėda’s 2019 election campaign, what were your main responsibilities and services provided?”, stated that „During the campaign, I was the head of the officially hired agency, who made visits, went to the headquarters and communicated, talked, had conversations on the campaign and waited for tasks. When they got them, they completed them. <…> We had signed a contract with Nausėda as an agency. Then, on the one hand, I represented the agency under it. On the other hand, I have been in contact with Mr Nausėda for a long time, both before the start of the election campaign and long before that. In that earlier period, my activities, contributions and volumes were much greater than they were during the campaign. <…> We started communicating in January 2018. I became more active in March, April 2018, throughout the summer until the autumn. And when that intention to run for the elections was announced, I was very active during that period. And then, towards the election campaign, my contribution there decreased considerably and then disappeared, so to speak, in the final stage, because the electoral staff team was formed, the decision was taken to work, as I understood it, with an internal team, without hiring, well, like, hiring an agency, but with a minimum of purchasing services. A lot of people volunteered and agreed to work, and the services of the agency, well, were not needed as much as I imagined they would be.”

In response to the question „But what kind of work did you do? You say that you handed over a lot of work to Mr Zabarauskas. What kind of work? What did you do? What is your contribution? <…> What was it? A concept was prepared, some sociological research?, Mr Tamulionis pointed out that „What was invented, what was started to be thought about <…> There was a hint of this welfare state that was already presented before the election campaign. Before the election campaign, it was being thought about, both about the welfare state and about various technical things, what to do where. <…> Zabarauskas and the other team came in, and they had just agreed that they would work full time, all day long. I couldn’t afford it. They didn’t give me an estimate and I didn’t have the means”.
P. Tamulionis stated that „I, as a natural person, in my spare time, during my lunch break or after work or when I had free time, we would meet and we would communicate, I was just interested in contributing to it, thinking, creating and sharing some insights and without any reward, because I saw that just a person does not have the money, the possibilities and I would not be able to do it and then, after I would ask for some money to settle some things for me, we would not be able to communicate. <…> After it became clear that we were going to go to the elections after all, because before that, in the summer of 2018, especially in the spring, it wasn’t even clear that we were going to go to the elections. When it was decided to go for the elections and the campaign started to get closer, naturally I came up with an estimate because, as I said, that is one of my activities”.
In answer to the question „So the EUR 100 000 where you say the estimate, was that the remuneration to the company for organising the campaign? What was included in that 100,000, what services?<…> What should have been included?”, P. Tamulionis pointed out that „Well, there are a lot of lines here, and lines…<…> Some of them, I see, are there for research: qualitative, quantitative research, strategic consultancy, copywriting, media work, creative solutions, monthly social media work, campaign, visuals, photographer, video for social media, well, all kinds of memes, influencers, social teams, conference organisation, website, regional communication, online solutions, merchandising, newspaper, well, he had planned for one. There is a variety”.

In her written answer to the question „How can you explain that according to the monitoring data the communication budget of the election campaign of other presidential candidates exceeded the budget of the entire election campaign declared by Gitanos Nausėda by almost two times?” on 8 March 2024-0324, Ms Budryte stated that „We had such a budget as the amount of the donations we collected from natural persons. We were not supported by political parties. The high visibility of our candidate is first and foremost due to the professional media planners and their well-designed grid of advertising media. We also did a lot of our own work at HQ, as we did not have the luxury of using professionals. The irresponsible use of funds was reflected in the poor quality of our advertising.

Parašykite komentarą

El. pašto adresas nebus skelbiamas. Būtini laukeliai pažymėti *

0
    0
    Jūsų krepšelis
    Jūsų krepšelis tuščias