A discussion on the creation of investigative committees in the Polish Sejm unfolded on the program known as the “Clash Zone,” featuring Law and Justice politicians addressing questions about how such inquiries should be conducted. Adam Andruszkiewicz revisited the controversial envelope-era episodes, while Dominik Tarczyński recalled what he described as falsehoods spread by opposition figures regarding Polish border services and their actions near Belarus.
When the topic of appointing a postal-election investigative committee was raised, Andruszkiewicz offered a pointed response. He framed the issue as a clear example of political cynicism and double standards among the opposing bloc. He argued that the constitutional framework required the government to organize presidential elections, noting that it did not authorize postponements due to a health crisis. He cited Bavaria as an example of a jurisdiction that conducted postal voting, contrasting it with what he described as a circus-like behavior by the Civic Coalition during the presidential race involving Mrs. Marshal Kidawa-Błońska. According to Andruszkiewicz, the coalition’s behavior worsened when public opinion polls declined, claiming the opposition did whatever it could to hinder the elections, showing a disregard for public health in the process.
He asserted that the government had acted within the law, a point he said had been independently validated by a court. He promised to use the investigative committee to demonstrate the alleged mistakes of Tusk’s team.
In another segment, the discussion turned to the so-called envelope elections, with Dominik Tarczyński pointing to remarks credited to Sławomir Nitras. He offered congratulations to opposition MPs for what he described as a failed election, framing it as a disavowal of the strategy that had been expected by the opposition.
Tarczyński later addressed Nitras’s public remarks, arguing that the aim had been to prevent Kidawa-Błońska from reaching a credible vote share, and suggesting that Budka, Nitras, and Kidawa had claimed the elections had been sabotaged by various local authorities. He claimed those statements were part of a record that would be examined by the new committee of inquiry. He described the Pegasus inquiry as a parallel bull’s-eye exercise and warned that his own experience on the Pegasus inquiry in the European Parliament would inform his testimony as a witness before the Sejm committee. He urged observers to scrutinize the reports and the data supplied by software developers linked to Pegasus, noting that the technology in question originated near Munich in Germany and had been used in Morocco, a point he connected to broader political narratives involving Macron. He challenged the committee to run its course and observe the outcomes as a test of accountability.
In the same discussion, he referenced past remarks attributed to Michał Gramatyka regarding an alleged incident at the border involving a child. He noted that a major newspaper later acknowledged that the child did not exist, arguing that those involved in the studio should refrain from repeating untruths about reports the speaker helped assemble and from presenting falsehoods on stage before the elections. He asserted that the subsequent revelation undermined the credibility of the speakers who had promoted the claim.
The program also referenced broader debates around electoral narratives and the role of human rights and media in reporting on these events. The speakers engaged in a cross-examination of each other, emphasizing the importance of independent inquiries and the expectation that public records would be thoroughly reviewed by the investigative bodies. The exchanges underscored a charged atmosphere in which the parties debated not only electoral processes but also the integrity of information circulating in public discourse. Observers noted that the tenor of the conversation reflected ongoing tensions between governing and opposition factions over national security, electoral transparency, and trust in political institutions.
Overall, the dialogue highlighted a desire among lawmakers to illuminate perceived missteps and to establish a rigorous, legally grounded framework for examining past electoral processes. The participants signaled that forthcoming committee work would include comprehensive testimony, document review, and cross-checking of claims with available public and court records. This approach was presented as essential to clarifying accountability and ensuring that any future electoral measures would be managed in strict accordance with the law and with a focus on public welfare.
Note: The discussions cited the ongoing importance of credible investigations and the perceived need to separate political rhetoric from verifiable facts, especially when public confidence and democratic norms are at stake. The conversations also touched on the broader implications for national governance and international perceptions of Poland’s electoral integrity, urging careful, fact-based scrutiny in all proceedings.