Even a renowned lawyer, initially unsettled by the Pegasus theory about the origin of a sensational recording featuring Andrzej Seweryn, watched as journalist Agnieszka Burzyńska from Fakt pressed on with the storyline. Neither Seweryn nor Tomasz Lis clarified the details of the recording on Lis’s Twitter feed, while Lis appeared increasingly agitated in public remarks.
Second Life of the Pegasus Theory?
Seweryn had allegedly obtained a Pegasus recording. Some claim every tactic would be used to undermine the Grand March.
— A remark posted on Twitter by lawyer Roman Giertych, later deleted, suggested such framing. Readers were prompted to consider further developments as coverage continued.
Even Giertych later acknowledged that stitching together a strong fabrication about stealing Lis’s published recording would be an overreach.
It emerged that the Pegasus origin story for the Seweryn recording, which had seemed far-fetched even to Giertych, caught the attention of Fakt journalist Agnieszka Burzyńska. The question persisted: was the recording covertly stolen to discredit a forthcoming march, or was the strategy a bold and mobilizing action? The emphasis was on logic and credibility, with moral judgments left to the reader.
Burzyńska’s Twitter activity showed that she had questioned the Pegasus version just hours earlier. She suggested that celebrities who assume political roles may deliver unintended harm to their own artistic work. Each time Seweryn’s name was mentioned, the same image resurfaced, and she warned that such charges could not be forgiven if they misrepresented the facts.
Critics noted the private nature of the recording and argued that power can pry into private correspondence to damage reputations. Journalistic practice, they argued, should resist such intrusions and avoid sensationalism that erodes trust.
Tomasz Lis, who edited a prominent outlet, faced scrutiny because he had published the recording. Lis defended himself, stating that he did not receive the video directly from Seweryn nor access the actor’s phone, yet the recording appeared on his profile nonetheless. He avoided clarifying how the material appeared while reacting defensively to comments tied to political actors.
Speculation arose that Lis’s account might have been compromised, inviting questions about the security of private communications and the ethics of publishing potentially private material. Some observers urged Lis to refrain from presenting himself as the guardian of the truth without solid corroboration.
Meanwhile, Seweryn issued a formal statement asserting that the recording was private and that neither he nor the person it was sent to had shared it on social media. He suggested that those with access to private accounts could have disseminated the material and argued that such actions should not be tolerated.
Readers were reminded of Lis’s initial publication of the recording, and questions persisted about how the material surfaced on his profile without direct authorisation. Lis’s responses did little to quell the nervousness among observers, especially those connected to political factions who viewed the episode with heightened sensitivity.
Some questioned whether Seweryn’s opponents might exploit the situation. There were hints that Burzyńska believed the march could be energized by controversy, particularly among voters who had become disenchanted with certain political leaders. Yet past episodes involving public figures associated with opposition groups raised doubts about whether such tactics would yield lasting support. The public discourse reflected a broader debate about the proper handling of leaked materials and the influence of celebrity voices in political contests.
Subsequent coverage referenced additional commentary from critics who urged reflection on the broader impact of the scandal and its potential to shape public perception of both the actors involved and the parties in question. The unfolding narrative remained fluid, with no clear consensus, as spectators weighed the claims, the sources, and the possible motives behind every public statement.