YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Szok Co Braun Ujawnił! To Nagranie Otwiera Oczy! - Analiza Ator

Szok Co Braun Ujawnił! To Nagranie Otwiera Oczy! - Analiza Ator — Transcript

by wideoprezentacje · 6,385 words · 999 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00Good morning, everyone. A warm welcome
0:02to you. In this material, we will watch
0:05extensive segments of MP Braun’s
0:06trial together. We will pause, comment,
0:10and address them. Why not the whole
0:13thing? Because the whole thing is over
0:155 hours long, so naturally, we can't
0:17address all of it. We will take the
0:20segment that is most important. And I
0:26will tell you right away that MP
0:28Braun's trial should probably be a
0:29subject, if not mandatory, then an
0:31elective in law school. When I was
0:38studying law, I certainly think it
0:39would have been cool to have such a
0:41subject. Why? Because law students
0:48learn theory; they learn how the system
0:50is supposed to look. But here, we see
0:53the practice. And practice relates to
0:56theory like a fist to the nose. Ladies
0:59and gentlemen, all sorts of truly
1:06strange things have happened in this
1:08courtroom, including a situation where
1:10Mr. Braun revealed and publicized that
1:12the prosecutor was quite freely
1:13operating with experts in such a way
1:15that the prosecutor appointed an expert
1:17, and that expert issued an opinion
1:19that didn't suit the prosecutor because
1:21it was in favor of MP Braun. So the
1:30prosecutor fired that expert and
1:32appointed another one who issued an
1:34opinion that was favorable to him,
1:35which supported the indictment the
1:37prosecutor wanted to file, and the
1:39prosecutor decided, "Oh, this expert is
1:41the better expert." We won't take that
1:46other expert into account. Instead of
1:49taking, for example, a third expert to
1:51determine which of those two experts
1:53was wrong. So, ladies and gentlemen,
1:58taking into account that a prosecutor,
2:00after all, should seek some truth and
2:01prosecute people who are guilty, and
2:03not just those he happens to think of
2:05prosecuting. It seems to me that if a
2:13prosecutor hires an expert, and that
2:15expert is supposed to assess whether
2:17what someone did is a crime at all, and
2:19the expert says: "No, that was not a
2:21crime." And they argue why the act that
2:27was committed was not a crime. Then the
2:33prosecutor should not take a second
2:35expert who will state something else,
2:37but should instead conclude: "Okay, it
2:39wasn't a crime, so there is no case,"
2:41because otherwise, it looks like the
2:43prosecutor is acting on a political
2:45order and has decided in advance to
2:47accuse someone of a specific act, and
2:48then searches until a paragraph is
2:50found. There is an old saying from the
2:57times of real socialism, the Polish
2:58People's Republic: that there are no
3:00innocent people, a paragraph can be
3:02found for everyone. So, ladies and
3:05gentlemen, it's a bit like that. I will
3:09link to this material and the previous
3:11materials regarding what happened at MP
3:13Braun's court hearings in the
3:14description. But I invite you to watch
3:19today's video as well. Today, however,
3:21well, today it is so intense, damn, it
3:23probably couldn't get any more intense.
3:26Ladies and gentlemen, according to what
3:28MP Braun stated, and interestingly,
3:30what follows from the recordings we are
3:32about to watch, the court does not deny
3:34it. I even have the impression that the
3:41court confirms it, and the whole matter
3:43revolves around a tug-of-war to get the
3:45court to order the prosecution of those
3:46responsible. I would put it that way.
3:52Well, a situation occurred where
3:54interrogation protocols were forged.
3:56Roughly speaking. Roughly. Basically,
4:03it mentions that people testified at
4:05the police station once, meaning there
4:07can physically only be one protocol,
4:09but suddenly two protocols appeared,
4:11and a witness comes to court, and the
4:12court always asks if they uphold their
4:14previous testimony given during the
4:16preparatory proceedings. So, either
4:22testimony given before the police or
4:24testimony given before the prosecutor.
4:29And this is where it gets messy because
4:31the witness claims they don't remember
4:32one of those testimonies at all. Wait,
4:37there is a protocol for testimony that
4:39never happened. Heavy, right? Let me
4:43remind you that witness testimony is
4:45evidence in a case. So if there is a
4:48protocol for testimony that never
4:50happened, then what the hell is that?
4:53That's not even tampering with evidence
4:56; that is forging evidence, fabricating
4:58evidence. You know, this is a serious
5:11matter because an interrogation
5:12protocol can be used as evidence in a
5:17case. For example, if someone testified
5:24in preparatory proceedings at the
5:26police or prosecutor's office and then
5:28had an accident and didn't live to see
5:29the trial, the court can, and usually
5:31does, admit the witness testimony given
5:33in the preparatory proceedings as if it
5:35were given before the court. So, what
5:44is in the files as having been recorded
5:46in a police or prosecutor protocol is
5:48accepted as fact. You cannot
5:52cross-examine such a witness, you
5:53cannot ask them questions, you cannot
5:55confront them with facts that you know.
5:58You can't do absolutely anything about
6:00it. It is already a fact. And in this
6:03case, there is a suspicion that at
6:05least one protocol of the interrogation
6:10was forged, that it is a forgery. Not
6:14even that it was manipulated, not even
6:15that things appeared there that the
6:17witness didn't say. Not even that it
6:21doesn't contain everything the witness
6:23said, but that the interrogation simply
6:24never happened. And now, if it is true
6:28—I must stress, if it is true—
6:30because we are dealing here with a
6:32trial battle. Well, until we determine
6:40beyond any doubt—we must say: if so,
6:42but if it is true, then we are dealing
6:44with a scandal that even in the Third
6:46Republic of the Po-PiS era we haven't
6:48seen yet, because a situation where
6:50someone forced someone to give false
6:52testimony, or coerced them, or
6:53pressured them, like for example in the
6:56case of Mr. Komenda. You might remember
7:05that as a result of political—well,
7:07generally there was a high-profile case
7:09, and the prosecutor—I won't say who
7:11it was. Because he is no longer alive,
7:18but he was strongly connected to PiS.
7:22Well, he insisted on catching the
7:24perpetrator because elections were
7:26approaching soon. The case was very
7:29high-profile, people were killed and so
7:31on and so forth, and the police
7:33couldn't find the perpetrator, so they
7:35took a poor, not-very-bright boy and
7:36framed him. They simply framed him,
7:41among other things, by pressuring him
7:42into giving false testimony against his
7:44own interests. There was fabrication of
7:47evidence going on there, and so on and
7:49so forth. As a result of this, they
7:51sentenced—I don't remember if it was
7:5325 years or life—an innocent boy.
7:55Then, fortunately, it was managed to be
7:57overturned. Thanks to reporters, and
8:00interestingly enough, from TVN. TVN is
8:02also capable of doing something good
8:04sometimes. Unfortunately, they damaged
8:06the guy's health so much in prison that
8:08not long after he got out, he died.
8:11Therefore, well, such falsification of
8:13evidence is a terrible thing. But even
8:15back then, ladies and gentlemen, well,
8:17at least some appearances were
8:18maintained. For example, they would
8:22take a person in for testimony. And the
8:26testimony actually took place, but the
8:27transcript just said something
8:29different than what the person actually
8:31testified. Or, for example, during an
8:35interrogation, they would intimidate,
8:37deceive, or in some other way
8:38manipulate the person to give false
8:40testimony. But at least there was a
8:44testimony. Whereas here, a witness
8:46comes in and says: "Your Honor, this
8:48interrogation never happened." The
8:51transcript certifies a testimony that
8:53never occurred. And we are dealing here
9:00, if it is true—I emphasize, if it is
9:02true—with a new level of total
9:03absurdity, because it no longer just
9:05means that the Polish police, or
9:07possibly the prosecutor's office, can
9:09frame someone and forge evidence, but
9:11it means they are doing it with total
9:12audacity, that they couldn't even be
9:14bothered to call someone in as a
9:16witness and then forge the transcript,
9:18they just forged the transcript
9:19outright. I will emphasize again, if it
9:26is true, these are the accusations of
9:28Mr. Grzegorz Braun, and Mr. Braun is
9:30demanding that these accusations be
9:32verified, that they be confronted with
9:34the facts. What Mr. Grzegorz Braun is
9:36saying looks very credible, so, well, I
9:38fear that it might be true. But look, I
9:41am not a court, I am not going to judge
9:43what is the truth and what isn't. But
9:45unfortunately, it does look, damn it,
9:48very much legit, in the sense that Mr.
9:50Braun is likely right, you know? Well,
9:52my friends, realize that if this is the
9:54case, then in Poland anyone can be put
9:56behind bars. You know, it’ll be like
10:06in that poem soon, they wake you at
10:08night, pound on your door with their
10:10rifle butts, and say: "Get dressed, man
10:12, you're coming with us, you're going
10:13to prison." And why? Well, such and
10:16such a person filed a report, testified
10:19that you killed them. But how could
10:22they file a report that I killed them?
10:25Because if I killed them, they couldn't
10:27have testified because they were dead.
10:29Don't sass back, let's go. You see, my
10:32friends, I was joking a bit just now,
10:34but for example, what if...they forge
10:40the testimonies completely, like, I
10:42don't know, forge your neighbor's
10:43testimony that your neighbor reported
10:45you harmed them, and your neighbor
10:47might not even know about it. And, you
10:51know, if you don't talk to that
10:53neighbor of yours—and that will be
10:55hard to do from a remand center—they
10:56won't even know someone was convicted
10:58based on their testimony. Do you get
11:02what I mean? That if they forge
11:08protocols, if they create protocols
11:10confirming not just falsehoods
11:12regarding the content, but also
11:13falsehoods regarding the very fact of
11:15the testimony, they can just take
11:17contact details, I don't know, from
11:19some PESEL database or buy them from
11:21hackers from a leak. Make a fake
11:29testimony protocol, right? A fake
11:31testimony protocol. On the basis of
11:35this fake protocol, order an arrest.
11:40Then, I don't know, tell the court that
11:42the witness requests not to be summoned
11:43or something. You will be convicted
11:48based on the testimony of a person who
11:50won't even know they testified against
11:52you, because they never did. There is
11:55simply a falsehood in the documents. Do
11:57you understand how serious this
11:59situation is? To avoid any doubt, I am
12:03not claiming that a protocol was forged
12:05. I mean, I'm not claiming that an
12:08untruthful protocol was created. I am
12:16only claiming that Mr. Grzegorz Braun,
12:17along with a whole host of other people
12:19, claims so, and he claims this after
12:21what witnesses testified in court
12:23regarding when and under what
12:24circumstances they testified before the
12:26police. So Mr. Braun claims this based
12:34on what he heard from the witnesses. So
12:37, my friends, it’s, well, super heavy
12:40. This, you know, so you don't
12:43misunderstand, this is, this is already
12:46that level of absurdity that for an
12:47honest person it just defies perception
12:57, understanding, because this is, you
12:59know, the level as if, for example, you
13:01witnessed someone beating a woman in
13:03the street, and you see someone beating
13:05a woman in the street, you call the
13:07police, saying please police, some man
13:09here is beating a woman in the street,
13:10and then that man who was beating the
13:12woman in the street is let go, and you
13:14are being dragged around the police
13:16stations. But damn it, something like
13:21that actually happened. Yes, that black
13:23man last weekend, who was beating that
13:25lady. By the way, the matter is very
13:27strange, because this is already the
13:29second video. A different place, a
13:30different person, a different video.
13:32The same situation, it looks like they
13:34are pulling some intense provocations.
13:36So what, dear ladies and gentlemen,
13:38shall we go? I will read it from the
13:47beginning again, because I didn't play
13:49the material loud enough, for which I
13:51apologize. Your Honor, well, I think
14:00this is a serious matter, certifying
14:02untruth in such documents as
14:04interrogation protocols. And here, Mr.
14:09Braun, who obviously approaches all of
14:11this formally, is right, 100%right,
14:13because I was approaching it from a
14:15purely common-sense perspective, right?
14:19But Mr. Braun also gives it a legal
14:21qualification, certifying untruth in
14:23documents. Because someone, damn it,
14:26certified in documents that an
14:28interrogation took place, which didn't
14:30take place. You know, there is a fake
14:33protocol. I approach it from the
14:36perspective that a fake deposition
14:38protocol contains testimonies that are
14:40by definition false, since that
14:41interrogation never happened. And Mr.
14:47Braun also notes that someone certified
14:49an untruth, that they signed this
14:50protocol, that this protocol states the
14:52fact of the interrogation, that this
14:54interrogation was on this and that day,
14:56with this and that person regarding
14:58this and that, that someone certifies
15:00untruth in documents, namely that they
15:02conducted such an interrogation, and
15:03many other things of this type. So well
15:10, serious, serious to the max. Yes,
15:13indeed, apart from the fabrication of
15:16evidence, we also have here—I mean,
15:18potential fabrication of evidence—we
15:20also have certifying untruth in
15:22documents here, right? Supplied,
15:32slipped to the High Court by the
15:34prosecutor's office. This is a serious
15:37matter. And I
15:38once again, because I interrupted it
15:40unnecessarily, for which I apologize.
15:42Let's listen to what Mr. Braun says
15:44from the very beginning. Your Honor,
15:51well, I think this is a serious matter.
15:56Certifying untruth in such documents as
15:58interrogation protocols supplied,
16:00slipped to the High Court by the
16:02prosecutor's office. This is a serious
16:07matter. And I ask the High Court, not
16:12interrupting, God forbid, this
16:14proceeding, that the High Court
16:15immediately issue an arrest warrant for
16:17the people who committed such a crime.
16:23The police, the prosecutor's office,
16:25the advocate for Banderite interests in
16:27Poland, Młynarczyk, should already be
16:29jumping from the bench and impatiently
16:31rushing to prosecute these criminals.
16:37And here, of course, Mr. Braun is
16:39playing to the crowd a bit, and I’ll
16:41say something now that will get me hate
16:43, but I always try to be objective. It
16:46seems to me that the judge presiding
16:48over this case is a wise judge. I have
16:51seen many judges in my life, I have
16:53dealt with many of them. In my opinion,
16:57this judge is a wise and prudent man,
16:59considering the tremendous pressure he
17:01is surely under. At the very least, he
17:07doesn't let it show that he is giving
17:08in to that pressure. You see, to
17:12understand, it’s not the judge who
17:14decides which case ends up on his
17:16docket. Not the judge, it's not the
17:18judge who creates the indictment; the
17:20prosecutor does that, and the
17:22prosecutor defends it. Yes, the judge
17:25has to conduct the trial based on that
17:27indictment, and here the judge is doing
17:29some strange things, so to speak.
17:32However, he is also in a very unusual
17:35situation. Notice, folks, there was a
17:37team of three prosecutors there for
17:39some time. In the media, Mr. Braun has
17:41long since been convicted, probably by
17:44two ministers of justice, if not by the
17:46prime minister and so on. So this court
17:50knows there is a political expectation
17:52to trash, convict, and humiliate Mr.
17:54Braun. Meanwhile, he certainly hasn't
18:00allowed him to be trashed and
18:01humiliated. He also doesn't stop the
18:07prosecution from embarrassing itself,
18:09and the prosecutors have already
18:10embarrassed themselves many times here.
18:15But what I'm getting at—because soon
18:17there will be hate toward the high
18:18court for not issuing an arrest warrant
18:20. Well, dear folks, the procedure
18:25doesn't really work quite like that. In
18:30the procedure, it is the prosecutor who
18:32initiates, and then the court approves
18:33it. The court cannot just issue arrest
18:40warrants on its own, nor detention
18:41orders. No, no. First, there must be a
18:47prosecutor's request for arrest, and
18:49only then does the court consider it.
18:52That is the formal path. However,
18:56indeed, dear folks, regarding this
18:58prosecutor, damn, if I were that
19:00prosecutor and I were publicly accused
19:02of this—after all, he is the one
19:04using all of this, he is the one
19:06supporting the prosecution.
19:10Consequently, he is using everything
19:12that is in the case files. If in my
19:18files, which I sent to the court, there
19:20was a forgery—a fake, meaning a fake
19:22interrogation transcript. I would do
19:27absolutely everything to clear that up.
19:29Why? So that it doesn't hang over my
19:31reputation. Damn, if there is a forgery
19:37in the files, what does the prosecutor
19:39do? Well, he uses the forgery. And I
19:45guess it's not very nice to use a
19:47forgery. So if I were the prosecutor, I
19:51would do absolutely everything possible
19:54to clear myself of any suspicion that I
19:56knowingly and intentionally used this
19:57forgery. Uh, meaning I would do
20:05everything possible to find the culprit
20:07and establish who exactly was behind
20:08this fake document appearing in the
20:10records. And to bring charges against
20:15them and secure a conviction, which is
20:25what everyone expects.
20:27Sir, we will hear all the witnesses
20:29concerned by this matter. It works.
20:32Here Mr. Braun started to speak, and
20:34the court interrupted him, uh, saying
20:36they were set up. Well, yes. Exactly,
20:39Mr. Braun is talking about what I
20:40mentioned, that the prosecutor's office
20:42was framed in this whole operation,
20:43because for instance, I don't believe
20:45the prosecutor is that unwise, as to
20:52knowingly use a forgery or a fake. I am
20:58convinced that the prosecutor is a
20:59victim here, so as a victim, I would do
21:01anything to make sure the truth comes
21:03out. Yes. And at a moment like this,
21:10since he is a prosecutor, he has the
21:12power and the means to bring all of
21:14this to light. So, well, ladies and
21:26gentlemen, I wouldn't hesitate; I would
21:28call the witnesses and then the court
21:30would proceed.
21:32But your Honor, this is a serious
21:34matter, a crime is being committed, in
21:37my opinion, there is a risk of
21:38tampering with evidence. We have
21:42Mr. Braun is right. Dammit, those files
21:46are sitting on the judge's desk right
21:48now. Listen, this is a serious case.
21:53Mr. Braun alleges, that there are
21:57forged documents in the case files.
22:02Forged documents verifying a witness
22:04testimony that never took place,
22:05meaning a false interrogation record. I
22:11assume—no, I am convinced—that they
22:13wouldn't release something that sloppy,
22:15so there must be at least the
22:17interrogator's report, the
22:18interrogator's signature, and the
22:20witness's signature, at the very least.
22:27Now, if this if this interrogation
22:32never happened, then at least the
22:37witness's signature is forged. Because
22:41if—yes, forging a signature, well,
22:43ladies and gentlemen, that’s a major
22:45crime. And now the question is, was the
22:48interrogator's signature forged or not?
22:52If the interrogator's signature is
22:54forged, then the police officer's or
22:56prosecutor's signature was faked,
22:57depending on who conducted the
22:59interrogation, or the prosecutor's or
23:08officer's signature is authentic, which
23:10means one could assume they
23:12participated in the forgery. This is a
23:18really serious matter. Many people must
23:20have been involved in this. The
23:22prosecutor had access to the files
23:24earlier, as did many others. And no one
23:26detected it. So, yes, there is indeed a
23:29risk of evidence tampering. Mr. Braun
23:32is right. The files are now on the High
23:34Court's desk. There are many people in
23:37the courtroom. Prosecutors are present,
23:40Mr. Braun's attorneys, Mr. Braun
23:42himself, the audience, and people
23:44recording. There’s nothing that can
23:46be done with these files here. But if
23:51these files go back to the archives,
23:52well, you know, if it’s true that
23:54there is a group in our country so
23:56powerful that it can forge documents
23:58and place them in the record, it will
23:59also be able to steal those documents
24:06from the record or swap those documents
24:08in the record—I mean, in the case
24:10files. Swap those documents in the
24:12files. So, there is indeed a very
24:14serious fear of tampering here. The
24:19judge should act immediately, without
24:21delay, precisely because of the fear of
24:23tampering. Mr. Braun is completely
24:26right here. Dealing with people
24:34embedded in the police, the
24:36prosecutor's office, and the courts. Is
24:41it really just some, so to speak,
24:43excessive fear on my part that now, at
24:45the moment when the public finds out
24:54about this fact, someone is already
24:56rushing to commit further forgeries,
25:01to commit tampering that will prevent
25:03or effectively hinder the detection of
25:05the criminals. So I specifically move
25:12that the high court order a recess,
25:14during which the high court can take
25:16action in accordance with its own
25:17judgment and understanding of the
25:19gravity of this situation. But could
25:25there be anything more serious in court
25:27proceedings than a witness appearing
25:29who, after the testimony is read out,
25:31explains to the court that they did not
25:33give it? They don’t recall it.
25:36Did you hear that? This is the crux of
25:41this case. This is the crux of this
25:44case. A witness comes in. A witness
25:48comes in to court to testify. The
25:55procedure is such that the court reads
25:57the testimony given earlier to the
25:59police or the prosecutor's office and
26:01asks the witness if they stand by their
26:02testimony. And the witness doesn't say
26:06they don't stand by their testimony.
26:08The witness doesn't say they were
26:10mistaken or say they testified
26:11differently. The witness says, "I
26:14didn't give any testimony, Your Honor."
26:16And that means either the witness is
26:18lying in court right now, which carries
26:20a penalty of, I believe, up to 8 years
26:22in prison—well, no one is that stupid
26:24. Or the court has in its files a
26:32forged record that certifies an untruth
26:34, that these testimonies took place. I
26:39mean, this is such a major issue that
26:41it’s mind-boggling. moment of giving
26:47the second testimony in this case, and
26:48I remind you that at the previous
26:50hearing my defense attorneys already
26:52pointed out this phenomenon, such as
26:53the overlapping of hours by
26:58please prosecute the criminal.
27:03Another thing, the overlapping of
27:05interrogation hours. Well, what is this
27:07, my dear friends, the overlapping of
27:09interrogation hours? Well, either we
27:14are dealing with another bilocation,
27:16just like we had doctors who worked in
27:18two places at once, and the record
27:19holder in three places at once, so we
27:21were dealing with trilocation in
27:23general. Hmm. Same here, if a police
27:30officer or prosecutor is able to
27:32interrogate several people at once,
27:34then either they are some kind of new
27:36Jesus, because previously only Jesus
27:38could bilocate. Or, ladies and
27:44gentlemen, we are dealing here with a
27:46very not only blatant forgery, but a
27:52sloppy forgery at that, ladies and
27:54gentlemen.
27:57And I renew my motion to call for a
27:59recess. After the break, however, I
28:02would like to make a statement
28:03regarding this system. No, I will not
28:07call a recess in this regard, because
28:09at the moment there is no need to take
28:11any actions that would require
28:13immediate documentation. What you were
28:16talking about, some sort of procedure,
28:18sir,
28:19issuing an arrest warrant, contrary to
28:21appearances, the court does not have
28:23such far-reaching powers to just issue
28:25arrest warrants like that. Please, the
28:27witness testimonies
28:28here, unfortunately, the court is right
28:30. I mean, fortunately or unfortunately,
28:32that is the law in Poland. Indeed, in
28:34Poland, the court does not have such
28:36far-reaching powers to just issue
28:37arrest warrants as it pleases. A
28:41prosecutor must participate in the
28:42procedure and request it. And that is
28:48indeed a fact. That is indeed a fact. I
28:51will not so much defend the court here
28:53as simply explain how it happens. That
28:55is how it is. The court convinces me
28:58that there is no fear of tampering with
29:00evidence. Maybe that's too far of a
29:10stance. There are no grounds to issue
29:12any arrest warrants just like that, but
29:17first, notice that the court said yes,
29:19it agrees, it convinces Mr. Braun that
29:21there is no fear of tampering. Well,
29:25then the court backed out of that, as
29:27if after weighing the evidence, the
29:28court concluded that there is, in fact,
29:30a fear of tampering. I remind you that
29:37in Poland we have Prosecutor General
29:38Mr. Ziobro, who can immediately ask the
29:40court to issue this arrest warrant as a
29:42prosecutor, and then the court can
29:44decide just like that. In my opinion,
29:50if Prosecutor Ziobro does not ask the
29:52court to issue such an arrest warrant,
29:54it will be a major issue, because
29:55Prosecutor Ziobro, who is also the
29:57Minister of Justice, should ensure that
29:59such things simply do not happen.
30:10Are there grounds for the court to take
30:12any action in this? As I said, we are
30:14listening to all the witnesses, because
30:17I repeat, this problem concerns, even
30:19today we have four witnesses, and
30:21either all of them or almost all of
30:23them are affected by double records.
30:25Probably all of them.
30:28All or almost all. The court confirms
30:32that there is a problem with double
30:34records. Do you understand? Double
30:42records, where witnesses state that
30:44they do not recall at least the
30:45testimonies from one of these protocols
30:47. And the court approaches this
30:56incredibly lightly, I would say, so
30:58incredibly even grotesquely, I think
31:03that can be said. My actions will be
31:07taken even after these hearings. I am
31:18placing on the record my fear that now
31:20that it is known that the tall,
31:22athletic, dark-haired policewoman in
31:24plain clothes testified to the truth.
31:35And her colleague, who signed the
31:37second report, testified falsely. I
31:43think the day is still young and
31:45knowing the zeal of the officers of
31:52injustice, the Ministry of Interior and
31:54Administration, and in general the
32:03leaders and henchmen of the current
32:05regime. I personally would not rule out
32:09that before the workday ends, quite a
32:16few calls will be made, and perhaps
32:18some operational measures will be taken
32:20that effectively prevent the high court
32:22from establishing the truth in this
32:24case. That is my fear.
32:30I share Mr. Braun's concern. I have
32:35seen enough things in life to
32:36unfortunately agree that Mr. Braun
32:38might be right. Um, unfortunately, we
32:46cannot be sure, um, that we live in a
32:48country where there is no, um, how
32:50should I put it, um, external pressure
32:59on the judiciary—let's call it that.
33:06The fact that, for example, the Prime
33:08Minister or the Deputy Minister of the
33:10Interior de facto publicly issues a
33:12verdict on someone, saying someone is
33:14guilty or innocent, and it passes. Well
33:21, it's really hard to believe that
33:22everything is okay with our justice
33:24system. Well, no, it simply is not. And
33:37just as they found some fake reports
33:39now, or they—well, Mr. Braun, Your
33:41Honor, witnesses, sorry, I didn't mean
33:43to be familiar, I apologize—some fake
33:45reports were found in the files, which
33:47even the judge notes seem to be fake,
33:49well, that in a moment they will either
33:51be swapped or a common version will be
33:53established to explain to everyone that
33:55they aren't fake. I don't know, maybe
34:03they just multiplied by themselves. The
34:06same thing was photocopied twice. Damn,
34:08well I know I'm saying absolute
34:12absurdities now, but we are in a
34:15country where absurdities happen
34:17regularly, because when it's necessary
34:22to defend Poles from threats, the
34:34prosecutor's office and other services
34:36can show any degree of dilatoriness.
34:44However, when it's necessary to
34:45persecute Polish patriots, as well as
34:47conceal the details of previous schemes
34:50, well then, the ministers, speakers,
34:59and prosecutors proceed at the speed of
35:01light, which I am a witness to in this
35:03case myself, because I am a victim.
35:09Does the court remember, it is in the
35:11records, that the pace of processing
35:13immunity requests in my case—the
35:15witness was supposed to speak—
35:21the pace of processing, several letters
35:23. And that actually checks out, that
35:28the pace of handling this case is some
35:30kind of, Listen, here they are holding
35:35two, three hearings a month. Usually,
35:38there is one or two hearings a year.
35:42This is happening at light speed, and
35:44in my opinion, it is a fact that there
35:46is immense pressure to have Mr.
35:47Grzegorz Braun convicted by a final
35:49judgment before next year's autumn
35:51elections, so that he cannot run. In my
35:54opinion, this is simply an indisputable
35:56fact. witness I appeal I will revoke
36:06the right to speak
36:09I appeal to the high court
36:16I appeal not to ignore reality the
36:18witness who just finished testifying is
36:31yet another witness who confirms all
36:37the facts crucial for establishing my
36:39innocence in this case, facts, which
36:52make the charge brought against me in
36:58the context of my parliamentary
37:00intervention at the National Institute
37:02of Cardiology in Anin render these
37:08charges completely groundless. People
37:15exactly like Mrs. Kadrowa Zanina, such
37:21people are the everyday reality of
37:23totalitarianism. Contrary to
37:30appearances, formations that later go
37:32down in history as the vanguard and
37:34pillars.
37:36Sir, if these are political statements,
37:38I will take away your right to speak. I
37:40am capable of identifying a political
37:42statement. I will distinguish it from
37:43the witness's testimony. I will revoke
37:45your right to speak. Truly the last
37:47warning.
37:48Your Honor, not the last, but another
37:50reminder from me regarding my right to
37:52a defense.
37:53Regarding the witness's testimony.
37:55Regarding the testimony.
37:57Mr. Braun has lost his temper. However,
38:02one must pay attention here. I will
38:05take some heat from Mr. Grzegorz
38:07Braun's supporters now, but so be it.
38:12But while the previous testimonies we
38:14heard actually helped Mr. Braun, why on
38:20earth is Mr. Braun telling the judge
38:22this? This is evidently for the cameras
38:26, because the court either knows this
38:28or it doesn't; either the court
38:29interpreted it this way, or it
38:31interpreted it differently, and. And
38:39what...well, Mr. Braun is trying to
38:41tell the court how it should understand
38:43the witness's testimony. Well, I think
38:45it seems to me that Mr. Braun rather
38:51doesn't believe that Mr. Braun will
38:52succeed, that Mr. Braun will succeed.
38:55It seems to me that Mr. Braun knows the
38:57court has simply already made its
38:59decision and that's that. Therefore, he
39:02is quite clearly speaking to the
39:03gallery here. This is clearly a
39:06political statement. The judge is right
39:08.
39:09The witness. The witness represents the
39:12regime against which I tried to defend
39:14Poles, my compatriots, back then and
39:16still try to defend them today. And
39:20therefore, I kindly ask, Your Honor, do
39:24not prevent me, sir, this is not a
39:26political statement, so I will prevent
39:28you from doing so. Please understand
39:30this. Everything has its limits.
39:39Yes, everything has its limits.
39:41Everything has its limits. The high
39:43court is depriving me of my right to a
39:45defense, not for the first time. And
39:49the court is harassing me and
39:51threatening to restrict this right to a
39:53defense even more drastically by
39:54excluding me from this hearing. The
39:58high court is framing me. Mr. Braun was
40:02probably excluded from a hearing once
40:04before, or so it seems to me. We
40:13therefore ask the lady
40:15and I renew my motion to order a recess
40:17. After the break, however, I would
40:20like to make a statement regarding this
40:22system. I will not order a recess for
40:26that, because at this moment there is
40:28no need to take any actions that were
40:31supposed to be taken, nor would it
40:32urgently require what you were talking
40:35about—some sort of mode of, sir,
40:37issuing an arrest warrant; contrary to
40:39appearances, the court does not have
40:41such far-reaching powers to just issue
40:43one.
40:43There will be something else right
40:45after this. What we are watching now is
40:46stitched together from several clips.
40:48Other things will be mentioned in a
40:50moment as well. And we will watch this
40:52segment again, too, so it will stick in
40:54our memory well. Please, as to the
40:56witness's testimony.
40:57And the court is convincing me,
40:59therefore, that there is no fear of
41:01tampering with evidence.
41:09I mean, no, that might be too far of a
41:11stance. There are no grounds for me to
41:13issue any arrest warrants just like
41:14that. And are there grounds for the
41:19court to take any action in this matter
41:21?
41:22As I said, we will hear all the
41:23witnesses, because I repeat, this
41:25problem concerns, we still have four
41:27witnesses today, and either it concerns
41:29all of them, or almost all of them.
41:32Double protocols. I think all of them.
41:36So, after these hearings, my actions
41:38will be taken. I dictate into the
41:49record my fear that now, when it is
41:51known that the tall, athletic,
41:53plainclothes policewoman with dark hair
42:01testified to the truth, and her
42:06colleague who signed the second
42:07protocol testified untruthfully, I
42:16think the day is still young, and
42:18knowing the vigor and zeal of the
42:20officers of the system of injustice, of
42:22the Ministry of Interior and
42:23Administration, and in general, the
42:33leaders and henchmen of the current
42:35regime. I personally would not rule out
42:39that before the workday ends, quite a
42:46few calls will be made, and maybe some
42:48operational actions will be taken that
42:50will effectively prevent the honorable
42:52court from establishing the truth in
42:54this case. This is my fear, because
43:02when it is necessary to defend Poles
43:10against threats, the prosecutor's
43:16office and other services can show
43:18arbitrary sluggishness. However, when
43:24it is necessary to pursue Polish
43:26patriots, including concealing details
43:29of earlier tampering, well, then they
43:31proceed at the speed of light—
43:33ministers, marshals, prosecutors, of
43:42which I am a witness in this case
43:44myself, because I am a victim. The
43:50court remembers, it is in the protocols
43:52, that the pace of processing immunity
43:55motions in my case, the gentleman's
43:57testifying appearances, formations that
44:08then go down in history as an vanguard
44:10and pillars.
44:14Sir, if they are political, I will take
44:16away your voice. I am able to catch a
44:18political statement, distinguish it
44:20from a witness statement. I will take
44:21away your right to speak; it is really
44:23political, so I will prevent you from
44:25doing so. Please understand this.
44:29Everything has its limits.
44:35Yes, everything has its limits.
44:37Everything has its limits. The
44:39honorable court is depriving me of the
44:40right to defense, not for the first
44:42time.
44:44Do you know why Mr. Braun keeps
44:45repeating that he is being deprived of
44:47his right to defense? he will try to
44:52raise this in the appeal, attempting to
44:54invalidate the trial and lead to the
45:01case being sent back for a retrial in
45:03the court of first instance. Just so
45:07there are no doubts. In my opinion, Mr.
45:09Braun will be convicted. I take that
45:12back. There is a high probability that
45:14Mr. Braun will be convicted. Just to be
45:16clear, I am not saying whether I would
45:18want Mr. Braun to be convicted or not.
45:21I think everyone can guess what I think
45:23about it based on my materials. However
45:25, I am not a judge. It seems to me that
45:33there are so many irregularities
45:35revealed in these proceedings that it
45:37is rather obvious there is a political
45:38order to convict Mr. Braun. And that is
45:44why I believe he will be convicted,
45:46because there is a political order
45:47against him. That is my opinion.
45:56However, I do not know if Mr. Braun
45:58should be convicted or not. I haven't
46:01seen the case files, right? So I won't
46:05even try to play the judge. But as a
46:09commentator, I see that this case is
46:10blown out of proportion and there is a
46:15whole mess of irregularities and
46:16political pressure here. I believe the
46:19court is handling it very well, so
46:21there is a good chance it will issue a
46:22fair verdict. However, I believe there
46:27is significant pressure, so there is
46:28also a chance that the court chance
46:34might be the wrong word, a danger that
46:36the court will succumb to this pressure
46:38. Let's hope that doesn't happen. But
46:45what the politicians who want Mr.
46:47Grzegorz Braun convicted are after is
46:49for Mr. Grzegorz Braun not to be able
46:51to testify, not to be able to run in
46:53the elections, the elections next year.
47:02For him not to be able to run in the
47:03elections next year, they must get a
47:05final conviction against him by then.
47:10So it is not enough that it is not
47:18enough that he is convicted in the
47:19first instance. They still have to
47:25convict him in the second instance, and
47:27if they convict him in the first
47:29instance, which I'm not prejudging—
47:31maybe they will, maybe they won't,
47:32we'll see. Yes, but if they convict him
47:38in the first instance, then Mr.
47:40Grzegorz Braun, if he effectively
47:42argues, if he effectively argues that
47:52he was deprived of the right to a
47:54defense, that is grounds for the court
48:00to, for the court to invalidate the
48:08verdict of the first instance and send
48:10the case back for a retrial in the
48:12court of first instance, meaning the
48:13whole trial of Mr. Grzegorz Braun
48:15starts over, and that is enough for Mr.
48:17Grzegorz Braun because then they won't
48:25be able to convict him with a final
48:26verdict before the elections, so he
48:28will run in the elections. And given
48:31the mood in Poland, he has a 100%
48:33guaranteed parliamentary seat. And
48:38considering, how to put it nicely, that
48:43it's rather impossible to form a
48:45government in the next parliament
48:46without the Confederation of the Polish
48:48Crown, then I am convinced that that if
48:58he becomes an MP and joins the
48:59government, he surely won't be
49:01convicted. Pressures, ladies and
49:04gentlemen, in Poland can really go in
49:06various directions. Really in various
49:08directions. I have no doubts that if,
49:14for example, Mr. Ziobro is the Minister
49:16of Justice after 2027, then suddenly a
49:19prosecutor will withdraw the arrest
49:25warrant for Mr. Ziobro, and Mr. Ziobro
49:27will return to Poland, and we will even
49:29pay him. We will even pay him
49:33compensation for what happened. Well,
49:35that's the world we live in. Moving on.
49:40The court is harassing me and
49:41threatening to limit this right to
49:43defense even more drastically by
49:44excluding me from this hearing. Your
49:48Honor is setting me up. So we will ask
49:52the lady.
49:53Well, and there, ladies and gentlemen,
49:55there is more testimony. Heavy, very,
49:58very heavy. Join me for the video at
50:012:00 PM. Take care, ladies and
50:03gentlemen. Best regards, see you later.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Szok Co Braun Ujawnił! To Nagranie Otwiera Oczy! - Analiza Ator by wideoprezentacje, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 6,385 words across 999 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.