Paula Piechotta and her intended interview with the star

Paula piechottaist opposition pure. The 38-year-old specialist in radiology has represented the Saxon Greens in the Bundestag since 2021. Piechotta is a member of the budget committee, chairwoman in the auditing committee and is committed to dealing with the Corona pandemic. This also includes and above all the mask procurement controversial due to their billion-out costs by the then Federal Minister of Health and today’s chairman of the CDU/CSU parliamentary group, Jens Spahn.

The Union parliamentary group leader in particular regularly attacks the green deputy. In a parliamentary speech, she indicated that he could have enriched himself on masking shops. On the X platform X, however, she also accused Bundestag President Julia Klöckner indirectly corruption.

Is that the new style, the new strategy of the Greens in the opposition? How important is the deputy to the political culture that is always highly held up by your party? And don’t the specific suggestions go too far in some places?

He wanted the questions about these questions star Talk to Piechotta. The MP gladly agreed to an interview. The 45-minute conversation took place on August 25th in the Berlin Bundestag in a friendly atmosphere. The MP then agreed to a rapid authorization of the wording interview. The procedure common in German journalism stipulates that the interviewer, often much longer after the transcription and then sends the interviewee for approval. This is intended to prevent misunderstandings and help to avoid mistakes.

Paula Piechotta received the edited conversation the same evening. However, she then refused approval. As the reason, she cited that her answers were reproduced. She did not enter into indications that, like any other politician – she could clarify or add to the authorization process, like any other politician. Later she explained several times, unfortunately she doesn’t find time to work on the conversation.

Only after a week, Piechotta’s office reacted to an intervention by the management of the star-Plitic resorts and announced processing by the end of the week. In the discussion now released, however, entire passages including the questions of the star have been deleted – which completely contradicts the common authorization practice. When asked whether it was a misunderstanding, an employee of the Member of the Member replied accordingly that it already had its correctness.

This explains the unusual and partially difficult -to -read form of the authorized interview text. The editors have nevertheless decided to document it, including the questions censored by Piechotta.

Ms. Piechotta, is a chancellor Friedrich Merz An asshole?
Answer not released.

I asked for safety’s sake because she was predecessor Merz Olaf Scholz have called. And with that they were even in a coalition …
Answer not released.

So the media are to blame.
Answer not released.

And then they apologized to Scholz.
Answer not released.

They will also be at Julia Klöckner excuse?
Answer not released.

You wrote to Klöckner on the net: “If you are corrupt externally, you will also try to get your own party and the data of your members.” So you think the President of the German Bundestag is corrupt?
We have been dealing with the Union, the masking deals for over a year and also observes the apparently close connection between Julia Klöckner and Frank Gotthardt, the financier and majority owner of the ultra-right pseudo-media portal “nius”. There are questions. Why were there discussions that this entrepreneur should take over the entire membership communication etc. for the CDU? The report by Michael Bröcker at “Table Media “ According to a financial commitment, Gotthardt would have been practical as a majority shareholder, since the capital injection, unlike party donations, would not be subject to notification. What role did the then CDU treasurer Klöckner play, who wanted to advance this project according to media reports?

The business did not come about in 2023. You meager many questions about the possibility of a possibility. Where are your evidence?
Yes, we ask questions. And if there is no convincing answer, you ask. So you do it in the opposition. At Friedrich Merz we just sent a catalog with 90 questions about the masking shafts.

Everything you have just made has never happened. Isn’t that hard on the border to defamation?
Incorrect. The conversations between the CDU and Gotthardt obviously took place. We Greens were touched much more rustic during the traffic light government and individual green politicians tackled much more.

So it’s about revenge?
No, it’s about what the opposition’s task is: control. Now Julia Klöckner, who is now, appears at events in Gotthardt’s premises. This also raises questions.

She was a guest.
She has greatly upgraded the event on Gotthardt’s company premises. As President of the Bundestag, she is the second most powerful person in the country. And according to media reports, she upgraded the pseudomedia portal “Nius” in her speech by equating it with the “daily” working according to journalistic standards. This can mean a monetary advantage for Gotthardt because a portal of Julia Klöckner has been upgraded here that belongs to Gotthardt.

Apart from the fact that the “taz” is actually Greens-savvy as “nius”: do you mean that really seriously?
The “taz” works according to journalistic standards, “nius” is Julian Reichelt’s opinion slingshot without journalistic quality features.

We asked: Do you mean your allegations seriously? So far, neither Spahn nor Klöckner has been determined.
The mills of the judiciary are slowly grinding. Current example: Only now, five years after the alleged act, Andreas Scheuer was charged by the public prosecutor. Even in Scheuer, the prosecutor’s charges would not be possible without the opposition of the opposition that Andi Scheuer and his toll debacle forced to an investigation committee and ceilated many inconsistencies here. Democracy works through the interaction of the powers – which also include quality media – which complement each other. Now we are experiencing again in the masking affair that every information has to be fought for. We and the public are repeatedly lied to. The press spokesman for the Ministry of Health Kautz, who is now finally divorced from the office, has journalists towards untruths about Dr. Margaretha Sudhof spread. The Union prefers to discredit its critics instead of answering the open questions. So she fails, no matter how often she tries.

The Berlin public prosecutor accuses the former CSU Transport Minister of False Minister …
The public prosecutor sees sufficient evidence to prove that Scheuer lied to the Bundestag under oath. When we continued to interview him at the time, we were of course also accused of a campaign. But today we see that we were probably right.

The presumption of innocence applies to Scheuer until a final conviction.
Naturally. But the U-Committee has provided preliminary work for the prosecutor’s charges that have now taken. That is why we also ask the SPD to use an investigation committee together with us and the left to clarify the masking deals.

In this context, will you be presented by Jens Spahn to reveal the interests of the citizens? Why not “traitor” right away?
I said in the Bundestag: “The citizens in this country want to know whether in crisis when it comes to tough, Jens Spahn is one who represents their interests.” If billions of tax money are thrown out of the window – and we still do not know whether due to megalomania, nepotism or other reasons that are then missing in the health system, then this is not in the interest of the citizens in the country.

I read a sentence from a Bundestag debate: “Because nobody accuses Jens Spahn-not even the ‘Bild’ newspaper excitingly-that all of these muffles have led to one to one at the masking shops that he suddenly bought a villa in Berlin, just three months later.” What exactly did you want to say?
There are many questions how exactly Spahn and his husband have financed the villa sold. Incidentally, Jens Spahn said to me that this was not a villa, because: When he lived with his partner, the visit always said that the two had no real driveway, and without a real drive it was not a villa, but a house. I then looked at the definition of “villa” for a very long time and the representative driveway is not part of the definition. But this statement made by Spahn himself in the Bundestag shows quite well which people he surrounds himself. Spahn was understandably asked again and again how this house or this villa was financed. It was then spread that the assets of the late father was used by Spahn’s partner for the financing. However, research then showed that there was probably never such a fortune. The following also applies: if you lie, you don’t believe.

Spahn and his husband, who have ever claimed with the financing. And even if you were right, does that mean that Spahn financed his home purchase with profits from masking shops? Is that the new style of the Greens?
As I said, Spahn’s credibility is about zero when you ask me. We communicate this clearly and in such a way that you hear it.

But we are still talking about the Union?
Notification of the editorial team: The demand referred to statements painted by Piechotta. Answer not released.

He (the Californian governor Gavin Newsom) satirically copies the style of the US president-and trolls back. So you want to reward the same with the same?
Answer not released.

So in addition to the right and left populism, do we now also get green populism?
Times are complicated, so people are increasingly choosing parties with simple answers. However, we Greens have always been the party with complicated and detailed answers. In these times we have to speak even more clearly. Above all, however, we have to regain the sovereignty of interpretation over ourselves. It must stop that Markus Söder defines how the Greens are supposedly. That has to stop. Parties that don’t go over time, the time goes.