During the hearing of Paweł Kukiz before the Post-Election Investigative Committee, a tense exchange unfolded that highlighted the sharp contrast in style between KO MP Magdalena Filiks and the leader of Kukiz’15. Filiks opened with pointed inquiries, pressing for quick answers and following up with additional questions before receiving any response. The round of questions became a focal point of friction, underscoring a clash in approach and raising questions about how politicians conduct themselves under scrutiny.
READ ALSO: “Totals” attempted to bribe Kukiz’15?! Kukiz’s startling testimony before the investigative committee. There was a proposal for the position of Chairman of the Sejm
Within the chamber, the question of personal integrity came to the fore. Filiks asked whether Kukiz considered himself an honest person who acted in accordance with the law. The moment hung in the air as Kukiz replied with a composed acknowledgement that sincerity was a priority for him. The exchange, while brief, set the stage for a broader debate about the integrity of political actors and the structure of the state that shapes behavior in public life.
“You are trying to convince public opinion that it is the state system that prevents us from being honest,” Filiks asserted, framing the discussion as a systemic indictment. She suggested that anyone who trusted Kukiz would be led to believe that political honesty and morality were unattainable within the current framework. The remark touched a nerve, and Kukiz countered it by clarifying that he never claimed such a blanket truth about every individual in politics, insisting that his emphasis was on the system’s imperfections rather than the character of any single politician.
I did not say that
– Kukiz emphasized, maintaining a firm stance that the problem lay less with individual virtue and more with the incentives and pressures embedded in contemporary governance.
“Please don’t make an angel of yourself.”
Filiks then asserted a claim that she had been standing for honesty in the public sphere, but Kukiz challenged the rhetoric, asking her to recall the heated moments from the past that colored her current stance. The confrontation illustrated how memories of political rhetoric can shape current perceptions and expectations, adding another layer to the ongoing debate about accountability in public discourse.
“Please don’t make an angel of yourself, because I remember the period of reassembly, what words you shouted at me,”
– said Kukiz, who pressed for a more precise account of past statements while maintaining a steady, patient tone in the chamber.
Filiks shifted the topic to Kukiz’s post on Facebook, which had been cited as a central reason for inviting him before the committee in order to question alleged gangster methods allegedly used by PiS. Kukiz responded that similar critiques were directed at the activities of the PO and PSL, underscoring a pattern of cross-party, polemical exchanges that frequently accompany political inquiry.
I answer all the time: for me this system is gangster…
– replied the leader of Kukiz’15, only to be interrupted by Filiks, who pressed for a sharper articulation of what constitutes gangster methods in the political arena.
“Gangsters are an organization led by the biggest gangster, who has his own soldiers. Every action in this system, regardless of who is in power, is based on the action of capo di tutti capi. When a decision is made at the highest level about envelope elections, the envoys leave because the leader orders so and convince everyone to behave as the leader expects.”
– Kukiz elaborated, articulating a dramatic metaphor to critique centralized control and the hierarchical dynamics that can govern political behavior, and how such dynamics influence electoral processes and the distribution of power.
I have not experienced this, I sympathize with these experiences. You tell me some fairy tales about the mafia, I am not a member of the mafia, you are a member of the Polish parliament! Did PiS use gangster methods?!
– Filiks reacted nervously. She then responded with further aggressive questions, attempting to sharpen the line of inquiry and press for admissions that would support her framing of the issue.
Jesus Mary, I can’t have anything to do with this lady…
– Kukiz finally said, signaling his withdrawal from a line of questioning that had grown too heated for comfortable proceeding in a formal setting.
Neither Jesus nor Mary will help you
– said Filiks, underscoring a moment of blunt frustration and a sense that the debate had strayed into personal territory rather than staying anchored to the policy questions at hand.
tkwl
READ ALSO:
– RELATION. Commission on Postal Elections. Zdzikot: The main bill has not been considered by the Senate for some reason
— Joński got punched in the nose by Kukiz. “You were the pool manager.” Judging from his reaction, the comment must have hurt him
Source: wPolityce