YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → MENTZEN GRILLUJE #109: Zamach stanu

MENTZEN GRILLUJE #109: Zamach stanu — Transcript

by Sławomir Mentzen · 9,305 words · 1,513 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00On October 30th, Donald Tusk decided to
0:02stage a coup. Korwin Potrawska is just a
0:05front. The Civic Platform (PO) party
0:07broke the first law. The Law and Justice
0:09party (PiS) party nailed them
0:10immediately afterward. We'll find
0:11ourselves with two independent tribunals
0:13. All you have to do is agree to the
0:14resolution; you just have to want it.
0:16And unfortunately, they don't want it.
0:18You won't control the Constitutional
0:20Tribunal. The Tribunal belongs to the
0:22Poles, and here, with Kaczyński, he's
0:24trying to steal it from them.
0:26Good morning, everyone. Welcome to
0:29episode 109 of "Mencen Grilluje."
0:34The most important event of recent days
0:36is, of course, the Constitutional
0:38Tribunal and the coup attempt that
0:40Donald Tusk attempted.
0:41And before I go into detail, an
0:43invitation to upcoming events. The
0:46Confederation leaders 'tour is underway
0:48. In the coming days, we have meetings
0:51on November 3rd in Krosno and Przemyśl,
0:53then on November 4th in Sosnowiec, and
0:55November 5th in Mińsk Mazowiecki.
0:58If you live in those areas, I invite you
1:01to the meetings. You will have the
1:02opportunity to talk to our leaders, MPs
1:04, and members of the Confederation
1:06Leaders' Council. Then, of course, I
1:08also invite you to the Independence
1:10March in Warsaw on November 11th,
1:12because the political situation is so
1:15heated, it's unclear what will happen.
1:17I'm counting on a very large turnout.
1:20Perhaps it will be as interesting as it
1:21was at the end of the previous Civic
1:23Platform government. We don't know, it's
1:25better to be there. November 11th
1:27Independence March in Warsaw. A very
1:30large turnout is needed. And of course,
1:33on November 28th, there will be a "
1:34koliber"(hummingbird) in Karpacz, the
1:36largest gathering of libertarian,
1:38conservative, and liberal groups in
1:40Poland. We literally have the last spot
1:42.
1:43If you have time, if you'd like to meet
1:45us in Karpacz on November 28th, this is
1:48the last chance to buy a ticket. As you
1:50all know, we're in the midst of another
1:52installment in the enormous dispute
1:54surrounding the Constitutional Tribunal
1:56.
1:57And before I tell you exactly what
1:59happened over the past few days, perhaps
2:01I should start with how it all started.
2:06What brought us to this point, where
2:08we're essentially on the verge of an
2:10attack and a massive constitutional
2:12crisis in Poland.
2:14Well, all this, this whole mess, this
2:17dispute, this issue of understudy judges
2:20, non-recognition of judgments,
2:22non-publication–it all began back in
2:252015, specifically on October 8, 2015.
2:27Back then, we were in the same situation
2:30as the Civic Platform (PO), a few months
2:33after Bronisław Komorowski lost the
2:35election to Andrzej Duda.
2:38It was 17 days until the parliamentary
2:41elections, and there was a good chance
2:43the Civic Platform would lose power in
2:45those elections. Therefore, the Civic
2:47Platform (PO) party decided to try to
2:49prolong its power somehow, for example,
2:51by holding the Constitutional Tribunal.
2:54At that time, three Constitutional
2:56Tribunal judges had to be elected,
2:57because their terms were ending during
2:59the current term of the Sejm.
3:02However, the terms of two Tribunal
3:04judges were ending in November, after
3:06the elections, during the new term of
3:09the Sejm.
3:11So, if the PO had acted normally, they
3:13would have elected three judges and
3:15waited for the elections.
3:17They lost the election, and then PiS won
3:19, would have chosen two judges, and we
3:21wouldn't have had any problems with the
3:23Constitutional Tribunal. I hope we don't
3:25. However, the Civic Platform (PO)
3:28decided to elect the two November judges
3:30in October as a precaution.
3:33They had the right to elect three judges
3:35, but instead chose five so that PiS and
3:37its potential coalition partners
3:39couldn't elect the other two.
3:41The election took place. The Civic
3:43Platform lost the election. PiS gained
3:45an overall majority in parliament.
3:48It didn't need any additional coalition
3:50partners. And Andrzej Duda refused to
3:52accept the oath of office from the five
3:55judges elected by the Sejm.
3:57So, not only from the three, the two
3:59elected illegally, but also from the
4:01three legally elected.
4:04Then the new PiS Sejm convened and, by
4:07resolution, declared the election of all
4:09five judges by the Civic Platform-led
4:12Sejm invalid.
4:13And again, not only from the two judges
4:15, who were known to have been elected
4:17illegally, because this wasn't the term
4:19, but also from the three legally
4:21elected judges, which, by resolution,
4:23declared this inadmissible. So we can
4:25already see some similarities. That is,
4:27the mechanism of non-recognition of
4:29judges 'appointments by a resolution of
4:31the Sejm. Whether a resolution of the
4:33Sejm states something, for example, that
4:35the Tribunal is inoperative or not, was
4:37already practiced over 10 years ago. So
4:39the Sejm convened, passed a resolution
4:41declaring the election of those five
4:43invalid, and then elected its own five:
4:46two who should have been legally elected
4:48, and three who were elected illegally,
4:50this time because they were legally
4:52elected during the previous term.
4:54Then President Andrzej Duda stepped in
4:56again and quickly took the oath of
4:58office of all five judges during the
5:00night, just hours before the
5:01Constitutional Tribunal's ruling.
5:04The Constitutional Tribunal quickly
5:06convened to assess what had actually
5:08happened.
5:09Which judges were legal and which were
5:11illegal?
5:14And just a few hours after President
5:16Andrzej Duda took the oath, the Tribunal
5:18issued a ruling that the Civic Platform
5:20had the right to elect three judges, but
5:23not these two.
5:25In turn, the Law and Justice party (PiS
5:27) had the right to elect these two
5:28judges, but it did not have the right to
5:30elect the first three judges, who should
5:32have been appointed by the Civic
5:34Platform. The Tribunal's judgment, Fall
5:362015. And what happened then? Prime
5:39Minister Beata Szydło did not print this
5:41judgment. And for a Constitutional
5:43Tribunal judgment to come into force and
5:46be binding, it must be published. The
5:48Prime Minister is responsible for
5:49publication. Prime Minister Beata Szydło
5:52did not publish it. And again, we had
5:54the same situation then as we have now,
5:56that is, for those 10 years, and now for
5:59over 11 years we have had the same
6:01situation. We have the president
6:03refusing to accept the oath. We have a
6:05Sejm that elects judges it has no right
6:07to elect. We have non-recognition of
6:09judgments, non-publication of judgments
6:11, and the illegal election of
6:13Constitutional Tribunal judges. This all
6:15began 11 years ago.
6:17The Civic Platform party broke the law
6:19first, then the Law and Justice party (
6:21PiS) defeated them, and for the next 10
6:23years—I won't go into the details of
6:25this whole story now—how the first party
6:27party broke the law for 10 years, then
6:29the Civic Platform party broke the law
6:31again. In any case, this culmination of
6:34this illegal behavior, this destruction
6:36of the Constitutional Tribunal, has been
6:39going on for 11 years.
6:41And for this very reason, I remind you
6:43ad nauseam that the only way out of this
6:45mess is a constitutional reset.
6:48Now, however, we have another chapter in
6:50this war, a new beginning, because
6:52Donald Tusk's government has decided to
6:54break the law and go even further than
6:56anyone before it. So, just as there were
6:59many illegal acts before, now there are
7:01even more illegal acts. There have been
7:03new innovations, creativity in breaking
7:05the law in the fight for the
7:07Constitutional Tribunal.
7:09As you probably know, since the spring,
7:11we've had five people appointed by the
7:13Sejm to the Constitutional Tribunal, and
7:15the president has refused to accept
7:17their oath.
7:19So, instead of taking the oath before
7:21the president, because they couldn't,
7:23they took the oath before a notary and
7:25the Speaker of the Sejm in the Sejm,
7:26claiming they are now judges of the
7:28Constitutional Tribunal, even though
7:30they aren't, because they didn't take
7:32the oath before the president. It's
7:34clear that in most of their cases, the
7:36president should have accepted the oath
7:38, but he didn't. And so, this only
7:40continues the dispute.
7:43One of the five, Anna Korwin Piotrowska
7:45, suddenly issued an order on the
7:47afternoon of October 30th granting a
7:49one-month break from official duties for
7:52the President of the Constitutional
7:54Tribunal, Bogdan Święczkowski, and for
7:56Vice-President Bartłomiej Sochański.
8:01And now begins a bit of legal muddle, a
8:03bit of legal deliberation.
8:05It will be complicated, but I hope we
8:07won't get lost.
8:10How did this woman issue this order?
8:12On what basis did she issue it? Yes,
8:14there is a legal basis for this, the
8:16woman who claims to be a judge of the
8:18Constitutional Tribunal, even though she
8:20isn't—and let's even assume she is,
8:22because for the purposes of these
8:24considerations it's unfortunately
8:26necessary to acknowledge for a moment
8:27that she is—even though she isn't, let's
8:30even assume she is a judge of this
8:31Constitutional Tribunal. So what
8:33provision allows an ordinary judge to
8:35suspend the president and vice president
8:37of the Constitutional Tribunal?
8:41The basis she cites is Article 130 of
8:43the Act on the System of Common Courts.
8:48This article states that in special
8:50cases, the president of the court or the
8:52Minister of Justice may suspend a judge
8:54for a month.
8:56In special cases, let's even assume that
8:58we have these special cases, that there
9:00is an exceptional situation and it is
9:02indeed necessary to suspend the
9:04president of the court. Well, let's move
9:06on.
9:07And there's another point there, which
9:09states that if it is necessary to
9:11suspend not an ordinary judge, but a
9:13president of the court, then such a
9:15president of the court must be suspended
9:17by the Minister of Justice, not some
9:19senior judge, anyone.
9:22The Minister of Justice.
9:24So you're citing Article 130 of the Act
9:26on the System of Common Courts. The
9:28Constitutional Tribunal is not a common
9:31court. It's a different category of
9:32court.
9:35But even if we were to assume that these
9:37provisions apply, because the provisions
9:39concerning the Constitutional Tribunal
9:41include Article 30, which states that in
9:44unregulated cases, the provisions of the
9:46Act on the System of Common Courts apply
9:48to disciplinary proceedings.
9:52Even though these provisions are
9:53regulated, they don't apply.
9:55But let's even assume that this entire
9:57structure makes sense and the provisions
9:59concerning common court judges could be
10:01applied to the President of the
10:03Constitutional Tribunal.
10:07It explicitly states that the President
10:09of the Constitutional Tribunal should be
10:11suspended by the Minister of Justice,
10:13not Anna Korwin Piotrowska.
10:17So even if this structure were
10:18reasonable, it makes absolutely no sense
10:21.
10:22Besides, what's the argument for not
10:24invoking these provisions?
10:27Imagine a situation where we have a
10:29truly independent Constitutional
10:31Tribunal, a constitutional body whose
10:33powers are described in the Constitution
10:36, including its independence.
10:39And yet we have a law that simply allows
10:41any Minister of Justice, whenever he
10:43deems it appropriate, to suspend the
10:45President of the Constitutional Tribunal
10:47. Where is the separation of powers? How
10:50is it even possible that the executive
10:52branch could suspend the President of
10:54the Constitutional Tribunal at will?
10:56That would be absolutely ridiculous.
10:58Obviously, the mere fact that it states
11:00that the Minister of Justice acts in
11:02such a case is proof that these
11:04provisions have no right to apply to the
11:06Constitutional Tribunal.
11:09More arguments are not really needed
11:10here. So the provisions she cites do not
11:13give her the right to suspend the
11:14President of the Constitutional Tribunal
11:16, even if she were a judge of the
11:18Constitutional Tribunal. So what else is
11:20she citing? What is she even claiming?
11:23She claims she can do so because she has
11:25the longest tenure, as calculated under
11:27the Constitutional Tribunal Act.
11:31And now there are regulations stating
11:32that in the absence of a President of
11:34the Constitutional Tribunal, the work of
11:36the court is headed by the judge with
11:38the longest service.
11:41And the exact wording of this regulation
11:43is Article 11 of the Act on the
11:45Organization and Procedure of the
11:47Constitutional Tribunal.
11:49Section two.
11:51From the date of the vacancy until the
11:53appointment of the President of the
11:54Tribunal, the work of the Tribunal is
11:56headed by the judge with the longest
11:58cumulative service.
12:00How was this service counted, how is it
12:02calculated, because that's also
12:03important. As a judge of the Tribunal,
12:06as a trainee, as an assistant judge, as
12:08a judge of the Common Court in the
12:10central state administration. And now,
12:12considering this strange algorithm, I'll
12:14explain in a moment why it's strange.
12:17Ms. Korwień Potrowska stated that of all
12:19the Constitutional Tribunal judges, she
12:22has the longest tenure. This means she
12:24replaces the President of the
12:26Constitutional Tribunal, who is absent.
12:29Because she replaces him, she can assume
12:31the powers of that President and suspend
12:34the President, or rather, the Judge, or
12:36Vice-President of the Constitutional
12:38Tribunal.
12:39But what's the fundamental problem?
12:42For her to be considered the
12:43longest-serving judge and thus assume
12:45the powers of the President, to lead the
12:47Tribunal? The President of the Tribunal
12:50would first have to be absent, and he is
12:52. She assumes he no longer exists. Then
12:54she steps into his shoes, issues an
12:56order
12:59suspending the President of the Tribunal
13:01, and then he's gone. And after this
13:03suspension, she truly does.
13:05If she were a judge, she would have the
13:07longest tenure and could only then issue
13:09the order she's already issued. So, to
13:11be able to sign this order, Anna Korwin
13:13Piotrowska would have to be in a reality
13:16where the President of the
13:17Constitutional Tribunal is absent, who
13:19is only absent when the order is signed
13:21. That is, she would have to travel back
13:24in time at some point, appear in a
13:25situation where the order has already
13:27been signed, then go back and, having
13:29the power, sign it. I know it's very
13:31complicated, so I thought I'd draw it
13:33out for you so everyone can clearly
13:35understand what really happened here.
13:42I have a table like this, and I think
13:44that once we draw it, the whole thing
13:46will suddenly become much clearer and
13:48easier to visualize.
13:51It's 5:00 PM on October 30th.
13:55Ms. Anna Korwin Piotrowska
14:02is an ordinary person who thinks she's a
14:04judge of the Constitutional Tribunal.
14:07She has no special powers at this point
14:09.
14:09Therefore, she must travel back in time
14:12to 6:00 PM
14:14and appear in a reality where the
14:16President of the Constitutional Tribunal
14:18is no longer present. She is the
14:20longest-serving judge of the
14:21Constitutional Tribunal. So here we have
14:24Ms. Korwin Piotrowska.
14:26She's smiling brightly and is the most
14:28senior judge of the Constitutional
14:30Tribunal, which is why she directs the
14:32work of the Constitutional Tribunal, as
14:34there is no longer a President of the
14:36Constitutional Tribunal. Then she must
14:39return, let's say by 5:10 PM,
14:44and reappear in our world
14:52with the crown of the most senior judge
14:53of the Constitutional Tribunal.
14:56She already has this authority, acquired
14:58it there in the future, possesses it now
15:00, and since she already has it, at that
15:03moment she signs her order
15:06removing the President of the
15:08Constitutional Tribunal. At that moment
15:10, at 5:00 PM, let's say 12 PM, the
15:12President of the Constitutional Tribunal
15:15disappears, and Ms. Anna Korwin
15:17Piotrowska
15:21is the most senior judge of the
15:22Constitutional Tribunal, replacing the
15:24President of the Constitutional Tribunal
15:27, who has disappeared here.
15:30Thanks to this, at 6:00 PM, when she
15:32appeared after that first teleportation
15:34in time, she was able to return to sign
15:36the order establishing her as the most
15:39senior judge of the Constitutional
15:41Tribunal and directing its work.
15:44I hope this is very clear to you.
15:47Now that we all understand everything, I
15:49can set aside the board explaining what
15:51happened here.
15:59Now that we have that cleared up, let's
16:01move on, because this is not the end of
16:03the doubts.
16:04Some have raised doubts, but why is
16:06Judge Anna Korwin Piotrowska the most
16:08senior judge, when everything indicates
16:10that Wojciech Sych has longer experience
16:13as a judge than Ms. Korwin Piotrowska?
16:16And here, Ms. Korwin Piotrowska is right
16:19. Let's get back to that provision. How
16:21is seniority counted? As a judge of the
16:23Tribunal, as a trainee judge, as an
16:24assistant judge in the Common Court, or
16:26in the central government administration
16:28. What's missing here? Well, there's no
16:30Supreme Court. And it just so happens
16:33that Mr. Wojciech Sych was a Supreme
16:34Court judge for some time. And imagine
16:37that being a Supreme Court judge doesn't
16:39count towards a Constitutional Tribunal
16:41judge's seniority, because the Supreme
16:43Court isn't a common court.
16:47Being an assistant judge in some court
16:49counts, being a central-level official
16:51counts.
16:53Everything counts, but being a Supreme
16:55Court judge doesn't. Joanna Korwin
16:57Potrowska wasn't a Supreme Court judge.
17:00Wojciech Sychł. Therefore, although he
17:02actually has longer seniority, when
17:04reading the Constitutional Tribunal Act
17:07, his seniority is shorter.
17:10This raises the question of who and why
17:12constructed these regulations so
17:14absurdly, so that serving as an
17:16assistant judge in a district court
17:17doesn't count towards seniority.
17:21These regulations were cleverly
17:23constructed by the Law and Justice party
17:25(PiS) themselves in 2016, because they
17:26were looking for a method of calculating
17:28seniority that would result in Julia
17:30Przyłębska, Jarosław Kaczyński's Social
17:32Discovery, having the longest seniority
17:34in the entire Constitutional Tribunal.
17:36If you don't count, she didn't have the
17:38longest tenure, so they devised a method
17:39of calculating it so she had the longest
17:41tenure, and to make that possible, they
17:43had to mow down the Supreme Court and
17:44all those other things. And now, 10
17:46years later, we still have absurd
17:48regulations written haphazardly by PiS
17:50supporters for Julia Przyłębska, and now
17:52Anna Korwin Piotrowska has benefited
17:54from those regulations for Julia
17:56Przyłębska. Thanks to the PiS supporters
17:58, because they created these regulations
17:59themselves. To summarize the issue of
18:02Anna Korwin Piotrowska's order, it's so
18:04absurd, so poorly sewn, that practically
18:07all the lawyers are giving up and saying
18:09, "No, this can't go on." Because this
18:12is a situation in which Ms. Korwin
18:14Potrowska first recognized herself as a
18:16judge of the Constitutional Tribunal,
18:18then decided that she could apply the
18:20Act on Common Court Judges to
18:21Constitutional Tribunal judges, but in a
18:24manner inconsistent with that Act—
18:25because that's where the Minister of
18:27Justice is designated—and then decided
18:30that since she has the most seniority,
18:32she could direct the work of the
18:33Constitutional Tribunal and issue an
18:35order that would make her the most
18:37senior judge, because as a result of
18:39this order, the President of the
18:41Constitutional Tribunal disappears. And
18:43all this without even being a judge of
18:45the Constitutional Tribunal. Fine, but
18:47if Korwin Piotrowska can suspend
18:49Święczkowski in this way, because she
18:51has the most seniority, and take over
18:53his role, then Wojciech Sych, who has
18:55seniority right after her—as I
18:57understand it—based on exactly the same
19:00provisions, applying exactly the same
19:02provisions as she, can suspend Korwin
19:04Piotrowska and become the head of the
19:06Constitutional Tribunal himself, because
19:08why not?
19:09If she did it, then of course he can too
19:11. What's more, he has a better point
19:13here, because he himself is a judge of
19:15the Constitutional Tribunal, and she
19:17isn't, so if anyone could do it, it
19:18would probably be him. But let's move on
19:20. Surely there's another judge, the
19:22longest-serving one after Sych. So he
19:24too could suspend Sych now and take over
19:26as head of the Tribunal himself. Then he
19:29could be suspended by the
19:30fourth-longest-serving judge, and so we
19:32would reach the end, where only one
19:34judge of the Constitutional Tribunal
19:36would remain, the youngest in seniority
19:38, who would suspend the second-to-last
19:39judge and become the sole judge of the
19:41Constitutional Tribunal, presiding over
19:43cases, presiding over the Constitutional
19:46Tribunal, whom, surprise, no one could
19:47suspend, because there would be no one
19:49younger than him in seniority. And all
19:51of this would be consistent with the
19:53logic of Anna Korwin-Piotrowska.
19:56Okay, now that we have the legal basis
19:58Korwin Piotrowska used to suspend
20:00Święczkowski and Suchański, the question
20:03is, why did she do it?
20:06Because we know what regulations,
20:08regulations, but what was the reason,
20:10how does she justify it, why did she use
20:12these so-called regulations?
20:15She suspended Święczkowski because, as
20:17president of the Tribunal, he repeatedly
20:20violated the law, the statute, and
20:22hand-picked judges and adjudicating
20:24panels. Besides, Żurek wants to press
20:26charges against him for this.
20:29This whole affair also has another side
20:31effect: they want to strip their
20:32immunity so they can press charges
20:34against him.
20:35So let's assume there's even some basis
20:37. Okay, but what does Suchański have to
20:39do with this? Why was Suchański
20:41suspended? According to Korwin
20:43Piotrowska, that is, in the
20:45justification of his, her, order,
20:46Szukalski was suspended for failing to
20:49respond to the actions of the President
20:51of the Constitutional Tribunal as
20:53Vice-President of the Constitutional
20:55Tribunal. Święczkowski, according to
20:57Korwin Piotrowska, was breaking the law
20:59, and Suchański did nothing about it.
21:01Therefore, he himself has now begun
21:03breaking the law and should be suspended
21:05. However, if we look at the regulations
21:08governing the Constitutional Tribunal,
21:10the Vice-President has absolutely no
21:12authority greater than that of an
21:14ordinary Constitutional Tribunal judge.
21:16He can do exactly the same as any other
21:18member of the Tribunal. And he did
21:20nothing. And the other judges of the
21:22Tribunal did nothing either. The
21:23question is what they could possibly do
21:25. But then again, they all did nothing.
21:27So, since Anna Korwin Piotrowska has
21:29considered herself a judge of the
21:31Constitutional Tribunal since April 26,
21:332016, she took the oath of office
21:36alongside Czerzasty, a notary, and some
21:38other strange people, and was that judge
21:40.
21:41According to her, just like Szukalski
21:43and Suchański, she did nothing, and they
21:46had exactly the same authority to do
21:48anything.
21:49Well, that means she's probably breaking
21:51the law, just like Suchański, which
21:53means Judge Wojciech Sych, as the senior
21:56judge, can suspend her and assume
21:58leadership of the Constitutional
21:59Tribunal, and Ms. Korwin Piotrowska
22:01won't be able to squeal that anything is
22:03wrong, because she herself used the same
22:06exact provisions. I mean, how she
22:08suspended Suchański is one step ahead of
22:10Such now suspending Korwin Piotrowska—
22:12everything is correct, even better put
22:14together than how she put it together.
22:17And one more thing, because we keep
22:19saying: Korwin Piotrowska, Korwin
22:21Piotrowska. She already published the
22:23order suspending Święczkowski and
22:25Szukański.
22:27Someone accessed the file properties and
22:29read who the author of the document was
22:31, and the author turned out to be Maciej
22:33Berek. So Korwin Potrowska is just a
22:35front, Berek is doing everything, and
22:37Korwin Potrowska is just making a fool
22:39of herself by endorsing what Berek wrote
22:42in this management. And so, simply put,
22:44we found ourselves on October 30th,
22:47around 6:00 PM, when it turned out that
22:49Ms. Korwin Piotrowska was illegally
22:51trying to take over the Constitutional
22:53Tribunal.
22:55Moreover, in addition to suspending the
22:57two judges, she refused to allow the
22:59judges to enter the Constitutional
23:01Tribunal, issued some sort of order for
23:04the rest to work remotely, and asked the
23:06police to guard and secure the
23:08Constitutional Tribunal.
23:10Then, when President Karol Nawrocki
23:12learned what was happening, he turned
23:14his plane around over Spain because he
23:17was flying to Senegal for a visit and
23:19began returning to Poland. We had about
23:21two or three hours when it was still
23:23unclear what the president would do when
23:25he returned to Poland.
23:27And people and politicians began
23:28gathering in front of the Constitutional
23:31Tribunal.
23:32A small town of PiS and Gazeta Polska
23:34supporters had long existed in front of
23:37the Tribunal. But now, significantly
23:39more people showed up, not just PiS
23:41supporters. Among the party leaders,
23:44Kaczyński, Morawiecki, Braun, and Bosak
23:46came to the Constitutional Tribunal that
23:48evening.
23:50I was there too.
23:51And why did we show up on October 30th?
23:53We weren't there for the previous, I
23:55don't know, several years, when various
23:57other people were protesting there. Well
23:59, the reason was that until now, it was
24:01a war between PiS and Civic Platform. I
24:04said it started in 2015, and since 2015
24:06, both Civic Platform and PiS have been
24:08trying to take over the Constitutional
24:11Tribunal in various ways, more or less
24:13legally. I'm not on either side. I mean
24:16, both are breaking the law.
24:18Both are trying to subjugate the
24:19Constitutional Tribunal and do
24:21everything to prevent it from being an
24:23independent institution.
24:25And I don't feel like I should be on one
24:27side or the other. When PiS supporters
24:29clash with Civic Platform supporters,
24:31I'm on the side. I don't belong to
24:33either family, or the other, to this
24:35mafia, or to this sect. I have no stake
24:37in this fight. However, on October 30th
24:39, it was no longer a fight between PiS
24:41and Civic Platform. On October 30th,
24:43Donald Tusk decided to carry out a coup
24:46d'état, an attack on the constitutional
24:48body of our country. There's no room
24:50here for any legal interpretations, for
24:52viewing this provision from this
24:53perspective. One lawyer sees it one way
24:56, another another another.
24:58No. Some people entered the tribunal,
25:01expelled the legal judges from it,
25:03stationed police there, and denied entry
25:05to the legal judges, usurping the right
25:08to control a constitutional body in
25:10Poland, the Constitutional Tribunal.
25:14This cannot be.
25:15I wasn't there to defend PiS or the PiS
25:17Tribunal. I was there to defend our
25:20constitution, our country, against a
25:22violent attempt to take over the
25:24Constitutional Tribunal. Who would want
25:26to take it over there? Whether it was
25:27PiS or Civic Platform, it wouldn't
25:29matter, and at this point, Donald Tusk
25:31crossed that red line. Besides, in my
25:34speech, I emphasized that I disagree
25:36with those people there on many issues.
25:38I will continue to disagree with them.
25:40We, of course, have one common goal: to
25:42oust Donald Tusk right now, to overthrow
25:44his harmful government, because no one
25:46has any doubt that Prime Minister Tusk
25:48should resign as prime minister as soon
25:51as possible. Which doesn't mean we've
25:52started to agree on other issues. We
25:55still disagree on other issues. We agree
25:57that Donald Tusk shouldn't be there.
26:00During my speech, I also noted that it's
26:02not like Donald Tusk currently has a
26:04majority. He has a majority with his
26:06coalition partners, with Szymon Hołownia
26:08, with Władysław Kośniak-Kamysz. And the
26:11question is whether they're both signing
26:13up for this coup, because when I read
26:15their coalition agreement, it didn't say
26:17they'd jointly stage a coup d'état and
26:18forcefully take over the Constitutional
26:20Tribunal. It was said that they would
26:22restore the rule of law. What we are
26:24witnessing here is absolutely not
26:26restoring the rule of law. You can call
26:28it many things, but it is not restoring
26:30the rule of law. And if the key to
26:32overthrowing Donald Tusk, for which we
26:34need a majority in the Sejm, lies
26:36somewhere in this moment, with Hołownia
26:38and Kośniak-Kamysz, who must finally
26:40decide. Do they, along with Tusk, want
26:42to be responsible for this coup d'état,
26:44or do they want to stop the coup d'état
26:47by stopping Donald Tusk from what he is
26:49currently doing? Well, it lasted several
26:51hours in the middle of the night—I don't
26:53remember the first one now, something
26:54like that. Karol Nawrocki, who had
26:56previously spoken with the President of
26:58the Supreme Court and the President of
26:59the Constitutional Tribunal at the
27:01Presidential Palace, finally arrived at
27:03the Tribunal. He arrived with a SOPU
27:05guard, forced his way through the police
27:07, and forced his way into the
27:09Constitutional Tribunal building. You've
27:11all undoubtedly seen these videos, so I
27:13won't discuss them in detail now.
27:16In any case, a photo was even posted by
27:18Paweł Olszewski showing Karol Nawrocki
27:21grabbing a woman as he entered the
27:23Constitutional Tribunal.
27:26And Paweł Olszewski posted this photo.
27:28This is the Deputy Minister of Digital
27:30Affairs, and he captioned it: "The
27:32experience I gained while working as a
27:34goalkeeper at a club wasn't wasted.
27:36Hashag, ladies' boxer." And he posts a
27:39photo of Nawrocki grabbing a woman.
27:42But what's the problem? This photo was
27:44taken in an egg. There's no such frame.
27:46I mean, the situation you're seeing in
27:48the photo you're seeing now didn't
27:50actually happen. This is disinformation
27:52. And you know, the funniest thing about
27:55this is that Paweł Olszewski, who's not
27:57only the Deputy Minister of Digital
27:59Affairs, is posting this disinformation
28:01.
28:02This guy recently became the head of the
28:04government center for combating
28:05disinformation.
28:07The head of the government center for
28:09combating disinformation is feeding us
28:11disinformation.
28:13He's feeding us fakes made at the AIU,
28:15in a situation where emotions are
28:17running high. I don't know if anything
28:19better describes our country. Well, this
28:21is the situation from literally a month
28:23ago, when this center was established,
28:25and when it was being created, Krzysztof
28:27Gawkowski, the Minister of Digital
28:29Affairs, said this: Information warfare
28:31has become one of the most important
28:33challenges for modern democratic states
28:35. The spread of false or manipulated
28:38content can affect national security,
28:40democratic processes, public health, and
28:43citizens 'trust in state institutions.
28:46That's why Prime Minister Donald Tusk
28:48established a government center to
28:50combat disinformation, and the head of
28:52this center to combat disinformation
28:54himself is spreading fake disinformation
28:56created in a graphic egg. Poland 2026,
28:59Donald Tusk's government. No one will
29:01disinform you more than our Polish
29:03government. But Karol Nawrocki went in.
29:06Some of the Sopo members protecting him
29:08went in with him. Zbigniew Bogucki came
29:11in, that very Tribunal judge, Suchański
29:13, who Korwin Piotrowska, for some
29:15unknown reason, refused entry to the
29:17Constitutional Tribunal, and they sat
29:20there for several hours. Imagine,
29:22suddenly, Bartłomiej Sochański walking
29:24out of the Tribunal. The President was
29:26left there alone with his men. And I
29:28don't understand it. This whole action,
29:30the President's entrance, was to get
29:31Sochaski into the Tribunal, because the
29:33Tribunal was occupied by Korwin
29:35Piotrowska at that moment, who had been
29:37there for several days, occupying the
29:38Tribunal because, I don't know, if she
29:40left, they wouldn't let her in, never
29:42mind. And it seemed that Sochański
29:44should also be there and occupy the
29:46Tribunal, to make it clear who had the
29:48right to enter the Tribunal. And this
29:50guy, I don't know, sat there for an hour
29:51with the President and then left because
29:53it was the middle of the night, he must
29:54have felt tired, I don't know, he had
29:56some important business to attend to in
29:58the morning in the city, he needed to
29:59get some sleep. I don't know. The
30:00president, along with his Sop members,
30:02forces his way into the tribunal through
30:04the police. Once inside, he has to force
30:05his way through some people. There are
30:07two SOP teams on site, one protecting
30:08the president, the other protecting
30:10Korwin Piotrowska.
30:13The prime minister seems to have
30:14assigned other SOP members to defend
30:15Korwin Piotrowska. They're pushing and
30:17shoving. I don't know if the Sop members
30:19should have been pushing and shoving
30:20each other at that moment. And Sochański
30:22left, leaving the president alone with
30:24Bogucki. Why did he go in there if he
30:26left immediately afterward? The whole
30:28operation is pointless if Sochański
30:30isn't in the Constitutional Tribunal. I
30:32really don't understand that. Where did
30:34this man get there and why did he leave
30:36when he should have been there.
30:38But he left after some time, I don't
30:40know, 4:00 or 5:00 a.m. The president
30:43also left and called a meeting with
30:45party leaders at his Presidential Palace
30:47the next day, October 31st.
30:50There were meetings with Hołownia,
30:53Kośniak, Kamysz, Morawiecki, Zandberg,
30:56Kaczyński, Kukiz, Braun, and I was also
30:58with Bosak. And after leaving the
31:00president's office, these politicians
31:02said all sorts of things, some of them
31:04more or less amusing. Szymon Hołownia,
31:06for example, stated after leaving that
31:08he believed Donald Tusk didn't know
31:10about the action at the tribunal, that
31:12it had somehow happened without Donald
31:13Tusk's knowledge. Hołownia, however,
31:15believes that the prime minister and the
31:17president should reach an agreement as
31:18soon as possible. We need to reset the
31:20system, because this can't continue.
31:22Kosiniak said something similar, saying
31:24that a constitutional reset is needed.
31:26Zandberg and Morawiecki also supported
31:28the reset, so basically everyone except
31:30PiS and Civic Platform believes this
31:32situation needs to be reset. I went to
31:35the president with a specific proposal
31:37for what such a constitutional reset
31:39could look like. I'll tell you about it
31:41later. And what I liked was that the
31:43president admitted that yes, some kind
31:45of reset is indeed necessary, perhaps
31:47first by statute, if a constitutional
31:49majority doesn't gather, but yes—the
31:51Tribunal needs to be reset, and he will
31:53strive for that, which I very much
31:55appreciate, because we need as many
31:57groups as possible, as many political
31:59leaders as possible, who understand that
32:01it's not worth getting involved in the
32:03PiS-Civic Platform war. We simply need
32:05to clean things up there one way or
32:07another. However, anyone who disagrees
32:09with the idea of a reset, who wants this
32:12mess, this absurdity that's constantly
32:14taking place there, to continue, well,
32:16then PiS, for example, disagrees. At one
32:18point on that evening, on the 30th,
32:20Przemysław Czarnek took the stage in
32:22front of the Tribunal and started
32:24shouting that there will be no reset,
32:26that there will be no reset with bandits
32:28, that Tusk must be chased out and the
32:30Constitutional Tribunal taken over.
32:32>> And Prime Minister Mawiecki, there will
32:35be no reset. Who do you want to reset
32:37with? Who do you want to reset with?
32:39Deputies.
32:43>> So he doesn't want a functioning
32:45Constitutional Tribunal, an independent
32:47Constitutional Tribunal. Czarnek wants a
32:50PiS-led Constitutional Tribunal, and I
32:52see no reason to support him in this,
32:54because the Tribunal shouldn't be
32:56PiS-led or Civic Platform-led.
32:58It should be independent, and both teams
33:01fighting over this tribunal are simply
33:03wrong.
33:04However, this view isn't just Czarnek's
33:06; it's not just the view of the entire
33:08PiS party; it's the view of the entire
33:10PiS media base as well. A tweet from
33:13Rachoń from Republika.
33:15There can be no resets with coup d'état
33:17.
33:17We must learn from our own recent
33:19history. There has already been a
33:21roundtable. Karnowski put it more calmly
33:23.
33:24He wrote this as a quote from my tweet.
33:26Do you know what this provision of the
33:28compromise proposal means? The election
33:30of 15 Constitutional Tribunal judges by
33:32a 3/5 majority? That the chosen people
33:34will be so bland that they are
33:36completely vulnerable to social
33:37pressures. There will never be any
33:39reforms again, and certainly not in the
33:41spirit of the Confederation. They'll
33:42block everything. The tribunal didn't
33:44come out of nowhere. It arose from the
33:46realization that it was a blockade of
33:48all fundamental changes, driven into the
33:50system and the Republic of Poland. I, of
33:52course, disagree with Karnowski.
33:55Just because a judge isn't some
33:56political soldier of one side or the
33:58other doesn't mean they're bland.
34:01They can be judges who don't care about
34:03the will of Tusk or Kaczyński; what
34:05matters, you won't believe it, is the
34:07constitution, because that should be
34:09important to the judges of the
34:11Constitutional Tribunal. Not whether
34:13they're from the census or the Civic
34:15Platform, not what Tusk or Kaczyński
34:16wants, but what the Polish constitution
34:18wants.
34:19That should only matter to these people
34:21, and that's why we need a three-fifths
34:23majority election, so that neither side
34:25sends their party, political soldiers
34:27there, who are only there to perpetuate
34:30the will of Tusk or Kaczyński.
34:32And what kind of argument is this that
34:34the Constitutional Tribunal must be
34:36politicized? Otherwise, it blocks all
34:39change, it blocks reforms. For how many
34:42years have you had the Tribunal
34:43completely subordinated to you, and
34:45where are your reforms? What have you
34:47done? Because you overran the
34:48Constitutional Tribunal. Where are your
34:51grand reforms that are transforming our
34:53country? There aren't any. You took over
34:54the Tribunal and did nothing with it,
34:56and now you're spouting nonsense that
34:57you need to take over the Tribunal again
34:59so that anything can be done. You had a
35:01majority in the Sejm, the Senate, you
35:02had a president and the Constitutional
35:04Tribunal, and you didn't accomplish
35:06anything good. Both the PiS media and
35:08PiS itself must finally understand. The
35:10time has passed when you were the
35:12hegemon on the right, when you dictate
35:14what happens and the rest must submit.
35:15That has been and will not return. You
35:17are one of the few right-wing parties,
35:19and finally come to terms with your
35:21situation. The time of the great PiS,
35:23dictating terms and telling everyone
35:25what to do, is over. You're not one
35:28party among many; you'll have as much
35:30say as one party among many.
35:32You won't control the Sejm, you won't
35:34control the Senate, you won't control
35:36the Constitutional Tribunal.
35:38That will never happen again.
35:41The day consultations with party leaders
35:43were taking place, Donald Tusk announced
35:46his address for 8:00 PM.
35:48And rumors started circulating. And what
35:50will he say? How will he get out of this
35:53situation when he sees so many people
35:55against him, when even his own
35:57supporters are turning against him, when
35:59even TVN doubts whether this coup made
36:01any sense, when prominent lawyers who
36:03previously supported Donald Tusk
36:05suddenly say it's all illegal. When we
36:07have statements from the Supreme Court,
36:09the Supreme Administrative Court, and
36:11the Bar Council, everyone claims it's
36:13illegal. Except perhaps for the biggest
36:15Civic Platform supporters, everyone sees
36:17what's happening. So what will Donald
36:20Tusk do?
36:21Some people were gossiping that he might
36:23withdraw some referendum on the future
36:25of the Constitutional Tribunal, maybe
36:27he'd agree to this reset, but no.
36:30Donald Tusk delivered a speech that was
36:32literally several minutes long, and it
36:34was exceptionally weak. Not only was it
36:37exceptionally weak for Tusk, it was
36:39simply exceptionally weak.
36:41Tusk was visibly nervous, uncertain,
36:44somewhat stressed, but he was also
36:46exceptionally brazen, even for him.
36:49And he claims he's right, that he's
36:51acting in accordance with the law, that
36:53there's a state of constitutional
36:55necessity, and then you have to do
36:57various things. And these are the
36:59various things he does.
37:01If you watch this five-minute speech,
37:04the most important conclusion is how
37:06brazen this man is, how he's
37:07manipulating things, how he's basically
37:09lying about what actually happened.
37:13For example, he compared the situation
37:16to a woman walking down the sidewalk,
37:18carrying a purse, and a thug, a tough
37:21guy, runs up, snatches the purse, and
37:23runs, until he gets caught.
37:25And then the symmetryists appear.
37:28Referring to us, among others, who want
37:31a reset in this situation.
37:34And the reset is supposed to mean that
37:36we divide the contents of the purse
37:37between the robber and the woman, to
37:39make it a fair solution.
37:41That's how he presented the idea of a
37:43constitutional reset.
37:45It's sharing the loot with the robber.
37:48No, because if someone snatched
37:50someone's purse, it's you. PiS and Civic
37:52Platform, at this point, rather the
37:53Civic Platform, because the Civic
37:55Platform is now forcibly snatching
37:56something that it previously snatched
37:58from the PiS people. Because this purse
38:00, this Constitutional Tribunal, belongs
38:02neither to PiS nor to the Civic Platform
38:04. Neither of you are the woman carrying
38:06this purse.
38:07The woman carrying this purse are Poles
38:09. And the purse belongs to the Poles,
38:11not you. And you take turns snatching
38:13this purse from us, and now you want to
38:15share this purse with each other. That's
38:17how the metaphor should look: you stole
38:19it from us, and we don't want you to
38:21steal it from us. That's it. And if Tusk
38:23believes he has the right to possess
38:25this bag, I don't know, on our behalf,
38:27then who are you, Tusk, to snatch this
38:29bag from us? No, the tribunal belongs to
38:31the Poles, and here Kaczyński is trying
38:34to steal it from them. And that's how
38:36the metaphor should work. In any case,
38:38Tusko announced that he will go hard,
38:39that he won't back down, that he will
38:41continue to take over this tribunal, so
38:43there's no hope at this point that the
38:45Civic Platform will support some kind of
38:47reset, that the Civic Platform will care
38:49about getting out of this situation. At
38:51this point, there's no hope.
38:53This is the situation we have for
38:55Saturday evening. Unfortunately, this
38:57isn't the end of what awaits us in the
38:59coming days, because Anna Korwin
39:01Piotrowska, now claiming to be the head
39:03of the Constitutional Tribunal, has
39:05convened a general assembly of the
39:07Constitutional Tribunal judges for
39:09Tuesday, November 3rd. And she didn't
39:11meet the seven-day deadline required for
39:13convening the meeting, as required by
39:14the Constitutional Tribunal's
39:15regulations. Of course, there's a
39:17provision there that states that in
39:18exceptional circumstances, she will
39:20consider that a special situation exists
39:21, so a general assembly of judges is to
39:23be held on November 3rd. So what's the
39:25problem? The problem is, for it to be
39:27valid, there must be a quorum.
39:29A quorum is two-thirds of the total
39:31number of judges, or 15, so there had to
39:34be 10. And everything points to there
39:36not being 10. And now journalists asked
39:39Piotrowska, "What if there aren't 10
39:41judges there, because there probably
39:43won't be?"
39:45And she replied that if they were to
39:47count the quorum, they'd consider it on
39:48the spot. "So, in a completely obvious
39:51situation, that there must be 10,
39:53because 15—2/3 of 15—then they'll start
39:56thinking:" And if there are eight of us
39:58, then 8 is 2/3 of 12, "and they'll
40:00start thinking how to justify that this
40:03time, exceptionally, due to a higher
40:05constitutional necessity, we should
40:08count from 12, not 15. And something
40:10that's already seriously messed up is
40:12serious. Starting Tuesday, it'll get
40:14even more messed up, and it'll get even
40:16worse, because it turns out that in
40:18addition to the illegal Mrs. Piotrowska
40:20, we'll have an illegal general assembly
40:22that will make some decisions. For
40:24example, stripping Święczkowski of his
40:26immunity, probably aiming to strip him
40:28of it, so Żurek can press charges. And
40:30we'll find ourselves in a situation
40:32where we'll have two independent
40:34tribunals: these judges, posing as
40:35judges, elected currently, and these
40:37previous judges.
40:39Neither of them will have a quorum, and
40:41both will claim they are the true
40:43Constitutional Tribunal. Korwin
40:45Piotrowska also started giving
40:46interviews—meaning she didn't start
40:48appearing on television, but only
40:49remotely from the very tribunal she
40:51occupies. For example, she replied that
40:53," Why isn't Święczkowski allowed into
40:54the Constitutional Tribunal at all? "
40:56Let's assume she suspended him. I showed
40:58you the diagram of how she suspended him
41:00, but he's still a Constitutional
41:02Tribunal judge, why can't he get in?
41:04And this woman said that the basis for
41:06not letting Święczkowski into the
41:08Tribunal was that it was in his best
41:10interest, that if he did, his safety and
41:12the safety of others in the Tribunal
41:14would be at risk.
41:16So, for his own good, to ensure he
41:18doesn't get hurt, she decided to ban him
41:21from the Constitutional Tribunal. So,
41:23what don't you understand? This whole
41:25circus, I'll repeat it to you ad nauseam
41:28. Besides, look at how ad nauseam
41:30>> this constitutional reset is. An
41:32immediate constitutional reset.
41:33>> Ideas for a constitutional reset. We
41:35propose a constitutional reset. We need
41:37to achieve a constitutional reset. A
41:39constitutional reset. A constitutional
41:41reset into a constitutional reset. A
41:43>> constitutional reset. A constitutional
41:45reset. A constitutional reset. A
41:46constitutional reset. A constitutional
41:48reset. A constitutional reset. A
41:49>> constitutional reset. A constitutional
41:50reset. A constitutional reset. A
41:51constitutional
41:52>> reset. A constitutional
41:53>> reset. If someone wants a functioning
41:55tribunal, they must support a
41:56constitutional reset. So I've said it so
41:57many times. You've just heard it. I'll
41:59keep saying it. I hope I don't have to
42:01talk about this for another 10 years,
42:03that politicians will finally be able to
42:05agree that a constitutional reset is
42:07necessary, and that, in fact, it should
42:09encompass the entire judiciary. The
42:10Supreme Court, the National Council of
42:12the Judiciary, the Constitutional
42:14Tribunal—everything needs a reset, but
42:15we have to start somewhere. Right now,
42:17the most pressing issue is the
42:19Constitutional Tribunal, and that needs
42:21to be reset. So I presented the
42:23president with a few assumptions for
42:25such a reset.
42:26I'll tell you about them in a moment,
42:28which would put these matters behind us
42:30. What's more, they would prevent us
42:32from having the problems we have now in
42:34the future. What are these assumptions
42:36for this reset? First, the election of
42:38judges by a qualified majority, meaning
42:41a three-fifths majority. This is to
42:43avoid electing judges like Berek, or
42:45even Święczkowski, or Przyłębska, or
42:47Pawłowicz, so that politicians don't go
42:50to the Constitutional Tribunal, but
42:52rather independent people who will be
42:54able to gather such a majority in the
42:56Sejm simply because everyone knows he's
42:58not affiliated with the other side. This
43:00is the only solution. So from now on, we
43:03should elect by a three-fifths majority
43:05, ending the terms of all current judges
43:08—people posing as judges, understudies,
43:10usurpers—irrelevant. They're all gone.
43:14We're re-electing 15 judges of the
43:16Constitutional Tribunal. We're electing
43:19them for nine-year terms. However, to
43:21ensure that all 15 don't have to be
43:22elected at the beginning. To prevent all
43:2415 from having their terms expire in
43:26nine years, we'll draw lots for each
43:28judge to determine whether they have a
43:30term of one, two, three, four, five, six
43:32, seven, eight, nine. So that every year
43:34, some judges of the Constitutional
43:36Tribunal are elected. That means we
43:38select 15, draw lots for the length of
43:40their term, and then each year we elect
43:42one or two judges of the Constitutional
43:44Tribunal. Then we have the problem that
43:46the Sejm elects a judge, and the
43:48president, for example, refuses to take
43:50the oath. Let's end this. The judge
43:53takes the oath before the Sejm. Since
43:54the Sejm gave him a majority, and a
43:56three-fifths majority, the Sejm will
43:58accept the oath without any problem, and
44:00the matter is settled. There's no room
44:02for any future controversy. Furthermore
44:04, since we also have a problem with the
44:07government sometimes failing to publish
44:09Constitutional Tribunal judgments, let's
44:11change that. Let the Constitutional
44:13Tribunal judgments be directly printed,
44:15published by the President of the
44:17Constitutional Tribunal, and then
44:18another problem disappears. Another
44:20source of conflict disappears. And the
44:23fifth, very important assumption of this
44:25constitutional reset: If a three-fifths
44:27majority is required, it might not be
44:29met. And what then? And then we would
44:31have no tribunal again. We would have to
44:33wait years for a majority to gather for
44:35a Constitutional Tribunal meeting. And
44:37that's not the point. So there must be a
44:38way to break the deadlock.
44:40And my proposal is this: If the Sejm is
44:43unable to elect a judge within 60 days,
44:45we will draw that judge.
44:48On what basis? To nominate a judge for
44:50this drawing, 46 MPs will be needed.
44:53Each MP can only support one judge,
44:56meaning a maximum of 10 will be
44:58nominated.
44:59And we'll draw lots among them.
45:01Now we know that a party with 100
45:03members will be able to nominate two. A
45:06party with 50 will nominate one, and a
45:08party with 15 will find two other
45:10parties with 15 each, and they'll
45:11jointly nominate one, and perhaps that
45:13judge will be nominated. And then we'll
45:15end this problem.
45:17We always have 15 judges, because even
45:19if the Sejm can't gather a three-fifths
45:22majority, one will definitely be
45:23nominated, and the matter will be
45:25settled.
45:27It's not difficult. I think most of
45:29these points are uncontroversial.
45:31Adopting this constitutional reset means
45:33we don't have a problem with the
45:34Constitutional Tribunal.
45:37What's more, all the current problems
45:39will not recur, because these methods
45:41prevent them from arising.
45:44Perhaps other problems will arise
45:46someday—the creativity of evil people is
45:49obviously very great, so they can
45:50perhaps invent new problems—but the ones
45:53they've invented so far, by amending our
45:55constitution, we're preventing them from
45:58reappearing.
45:59And right now, we're in a situation
46:01where such a reset—I'm not saying
46:03exactly this one, but it's a point for
46:05discussion. However, the idea of a reset
46:07is supported by the Polish People's
46:08Party (PSL) Confederation, Poland 2050,
46:10Zandberg, and Rozwój Plus, while the
46:12Civic Platform (PO) and Law and Justice
46:14(PiS) are against it, meaning everyone
46:16who isn't part of one of those two camps
46:18. And why don't the Civic Platform and
46:20PiS want a reset? Because they don't
46:22care about a functioning tribunal. I've
46:24been telling you this for years. They
46:26care about the controversy, and they
46:27don't want this controversy to end. And
46:30both parties could completely shut down
46:32the Constitutional Tribunal at this
46:34point. All they have to do is agree to a
46:36reset. It's very simple. It can be
46:38closed within a week. You just have to
46:40want it. And unfortunately, they don't
46:42want it. They prioritize their own party
46:44interests over the good of our country.
46:46That's why I hope that the process we've
46:48been observing for a long time—the
46:50decline in combined support for PiS and
46:52Civic Platform—will continue, and that a
46:54growing number of Poles will recognize
46:56that these two parties don't mean well
46:58for Poland, but only for themselves at
47:00our country's expense.
47:02This is particularly scandalous in the
47:04current international situation, when we
47:07face a threat from Russia, and they
47:09continue to destabilize our country, toy
47:11with coups, engage in some kind of
47:13circus, and refuse to give up simply
47:15because they feel—I don't know if they
47:17are right—that it benefits their party
47:20interests.
47:21Okay, so what are the other options
47:23besides a constitutional reset? Because
47:25everyone can see that we have a serious
47:27problem, and indeed, without the
47:28agreement of PiS and Civic Platform, a
47:30reset won't happen at this point. What
47:32else can be done? A constructive vote of
47:34no confidence. For that, a simple
47:35majority in the Sejm is needed. If we
47:37could find someone everyone from PiS to
47:39Morawiecki, the Confederation, and the
47:41Polish People's Party (PSL), for example
47:43, would agree to vote for, not to
47:45mention Hołownia, then we would have a
47:47majority in the Sejm and could appoint a
47:49technical prime minister. Donald Tusk
47:51would then cease to be prime minister,
47:53and the problem of a coup d'état would
47:54disappear. Many other problems remain,
47:56but the problem of a coup d'état would
47:58disappear. This new technical prime
48:00minister could seek to have the tribunal
48:02operational. This could be achieved with
48:05a simple majority in the Sejm. All
48:07that's needed is for Donald Tusk's
48:08current coalition partners, at least
48:10some of them, to acknowledge that
48:12they're not ready for a coup. They'd
48:14rather normalize the situation and
48:16increase the stability of our country
48:18than continue playing Donald Tusk's
48:20games. I believe such a scenario is
48:22possible.
48:23We need to convince these people not to
48:25sign up for a coup d'état with Tusk,
48:27because they will also suffer the
48:29consequences if something bad happens.
48:32What's next?
48:33A statutory reset could involve all, or
48:36almost all, current judges, along with
48:38those claiming to be judges, resigning.
48:41The Sejm then elects and amends the
48:43Constitutional Tribunal Act, for example
48:46, by a three-fifths majority, settling
48:48the matter and electing judges. The
48:50advantage of this is that a simple
48:51majority is once again sufficient. The
48:53disadvantage is that if we elect a
48:55three-fifths majority and insert it into
48:57a statute rather than the constitution,
48:58the statute can then be amended again by
49:00a simple majority. Therefore, in the
49:03future, someone with the president on
49:05their side will change the statute
49:07instead of electing judges by a
49:08three-fifths majority. The president
49:11will sign it, and they will elect judges
49:13by a simple majority. This rectifies the
49:15situation in the short term, very
49:17quickly, but leads to a crisis only
49:19postponed for a few years.
49:21It's not a perfect solution, but it's
49:24also more likely than a constitutional
49:26reset. There's also a very interesting
49:28proposal from Marcin Fioo, a journalist
49:30for Polsat. He tweeted today that since
49:32everyone is supposed to take a step back
49:34as part of the reset, or compromise,
49:36then let everyone actually take a step
49:38back. So, yes, according to Fijołek, the
49:40president could accept the oath of
49:41office from four Constitutional Tribunal
49:43judges elected by the Sejm this year.
49:45Mr. Berek isn't among those four,
49:47because it's clear he doesn't have the
49:49experience required by law. So Berek
49:52resigns. He can return to government
49:54wherever he wants, but he won't be a
49:56Constitutional Tribunal judge, as he
49:58likely doesn't meet the formal
49:59requirements. Then the Sejm would elect
50:01two Constitutional Tribunal judges by a
50:03three-fifths majority, one for Berek,
50:05because Berek can't be elected, and the
50:07one scheduled for election in January.
50:09And then we have 15 Constitutional
50:11Tribunal judges elected by the Sejm,
50:13sworn in by the president, and we can
50:15print the judgments of such a tribunal.
50:17The advantage of this solution is that
50:19everyone is dissatisfied with him. The
50:21president must back down, the Law and
50:22Justice party must back down, and the
50:24Civic Platform must back down. And these
50:26three centers retreat, and suddenly we
50:28have room for compromise. So that's a
50:30major advantage of this solution. The
50:32disadvantage is that it doesn't solve
50:34the problem either, that it will
50:36resurface in the future, that it only
50:38postpones another battle over the
50:40tribunal, because it doesn't amend the
50:42constitution.
50:44And unfortunately, the problem is that
50:46we have a flawed constitution that
50:48allows for such an easy way to trigger
50:50our constitutional crisis.
50:53There's also the proposal to dissolve
50:56the Sejm, but of all these improbable
50:58solutions, it's the most improbable,
51:00because dissolving the Sejm requires 307
51:02members, which means that Civic Platform
51:04members alone would be enough to prevent
51:07the Sejm from dissolving itself.
51:10So, with all these solutions requiring a
51:13simple, simple majority, the one that
51:15requires the consent of everyone,
51:17including the Civic Platform, makes it
51:19essentially impossible.
51:22I mean, I don't see any reason why
51:24Donald Tusk would agree to simply
51:26dissolving the Sejm right now, so I
51:28think this idea definitely won't pass.
51:31That's all for today.
51:32I have no doubt the situation is
51:34developing, and we'll see more than one
51:36installment of the fight for the
51:38tribunal, so there will be plenty of
51:40material. I won't touch on any other
51:42topics besides the tribunal today,
51:43because nothing else of significance is
51:46happening, so we'll definitely return to
51:48it. And finally, of course, invitations
51:51. November 28th, Hummingbird Karpacz,
51:53the largest gathering of conservative
51:56freedom activists. November 11th,
51:58Independence March. We want the highest
52:01possible turnout. Contact our local
52:03leaders. They are also organizing buses
52:05from all over Poland to ensure as many
52:07of us as possible are in Warsaw on
52:08November 11th. I also remind you about
52:10the route of the Confederation leaders.
52:12The next meeting is in Krossna. On
52:14November 3rd at 4:15 PM, Bartosz
52:16Bocheńczak, Bartłomiej Pejo, and Adam
52:18Berkowicz will be there. On the evening
52:21of November 3rd at 7:00 PM, the same
52:23three will be at a meeting in Przemyśl.
52:26Sosnowiec on November 4th at 7:00 PM,
52:29Łukasz Rzepecki and MP Ryszard Wilkno.
52:32And Mińsk Mazowiecki on November 5th at
52:356:30 PM, Wojciech Machulski, Grzegorz
52:37Płaczek, and Kamil Piurkowski. If you're
52:40nearby, I invite you to these meetings.
52:42That's all for today. See you soon. Yeah
52:44.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of MENTZEN GRILLUJE #109: Zamach stanu by Sławomir Mentzen, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 9,305 words across 1,513 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.