Stupid Watergate Involved Domestic Spy Agency

This brings up many more questions about the inbred cabal and Correctiv's role in these shenanigans

This is yet another instalment related to the ongoing absurdity masquerading as ‘politicking’ in Germany. Reference is thus made to a piece I posted yesterday:

Stupid Watergate, Now Confirmed

Right now, a lot of things are in motion, it would appear. Last week, independent journalist Roland Tichy (who is, as a matter of course, labelled a ‘right-winger’) alerted people to the possible—and plausible—role played by Germany’s domestic intelligence service in this entire affair. While it took a few days before he published his piece over at Tichys Einblick—which made the juste milieu consider his claims ‘fake’—here comes now a longish exposé about precisely these ties.

This is part two of a three-part series (as far as I planned this), with this part dealing with the serious issue of Germany’s domestic intelligence service having masterminded what looks like an entrapment op, with the third instalment focusing on some of the people at Correctiv and their motivation.

Given the overly dynamic nature of these developments, it might be necessary to split esp. part three in more parts; we’ll see.

Translation, emphases, and bottom lines mine.

---

A Secret Service Chief Spills the Beans and a Journalists' Organisation Wants to Keep it Quiet

By Roland Tichy, Tichys Einblick, 4 Feb. 2024 [source]

The Correctiv case reveals a kind of controlled communication cycle. First and foremost: the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution and its communication policy. How deeply is the office involved in the investigation of the private meeting in Potsdam? How does the interplay between the state, political parties and NGOs come about?

Confidentiality is a valuable asset—and usually the opposite of journalism, whose task is to publish, not to conceal. It becomes particularly explosive when secret services use journalistic confidentiality to publicise their views. The current Correctiv case and the Deutsche Presseclub [a de facto cartel of legacy media enjoying preferential access to politicians] illustrate the profound change in the self-image of the media and journalists.

Three Numbers Define What We [‘the People’] are Permitted to Know

Journalists like to use three numbers for conversations with politicians and public officials that mean nothing to most people outside the industry: 1, 2, and 3. If a journalist receives information ‘labelled 1’, he or she may name the content and source. If the journalist and the interviewer shout ‘2’ to each other, the news may be mentioned, but not the source. By ‘3’ is meant that nothing may be written. And ‘beyond 3’ means: exclusion of the public. Why do these so-called background discussions take place at-all if reporting is not allowed?

These discussions can certainly be of value to both sides: politicians have the opportunity to talk about thoughts and strategies relatively freely away from the political infighting in which every word can become a target for rivals [isn’t late-stage ‘democracy’ wonderful? /sarcasm]. Conversely, journalists experience politicians who, for once, do not speak in standard phrases that minimise risk. At least that's how it used to be.

Under Merkel [in office 2005-21], however, exclusive background discussions increasingly became circles of a political-media complex without a clear separation [which I find hardly surprising given Ms. Merkel’s upbringing in the GDR]. They served to publicise certain language rules. Capital city editors who took part in these small rounds were allowed to feel a bit like co-rulers [in US parlance, this is ‘the swamp’ or ‘the blob’]. Is it permissible to break the promised confidentiality of ‘beyond 3’? The FAZ certainly took the liberty once.

‘[AfD deputy co-chair Alexander] Gauland insults [football (soccer) player Jerome] Boateng’ was the headline of the weekend edition of the Frankfurter Allgemeine in May 2016. ‘People think he's a good footballer, but they don't want Boateng as a neighbour’, Gauland is reported to have told the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung (FAS).

It was one of those scandals that cast the AfD in a racist light. The then-AfD party chairwoman Frauke Petry apologised graciously for the racist Boateng insult by her deputy. Gauland, however, denied the exact wording; moreover, the sentence had been uttered ‘beyond 3’. Perhaps. ‘Beyond 3’ is suitable for formulating things more sharply than usual in order to emphasise facts by exaggerating them. The FAZ editors denied the confidentiality; it only referred to internal AfD processes. Perhaps.

Or had the FAZ deliberately deceived Gauland for a cracking headline and then used Petry as an opportunity to damage a rival for power in the internal party power struggle? In politics, truth and legend become blurred; journalists, however, should clarify, not cover up [amen].

When a Secret Service Chief Chats Freely

At the height of the Correctiv campaign, the President of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, Thomas Haldewang [a member of the Christian Democratic Union, or CDU, Germany’s mainstream ‘conservative-in-name-only faction of the uniparty], invited two groups of journalists to confidential discussion groups, apparently in the expectation that those invited would convey his view of the world in their media. According to information available to Tichys Einblick, around 80 renowned Berlin journalists took advantage of the opportunity, and some even attended both events. Tichys Einblick was not invited, but received information about a conversation, and wrote:

In a circle of well-meaning journalists, Verfassungsschutz president Thomas Haldenwang (CDU) chatted that his service was well aware of the who, when, and where even before the supposedly right-wing secret meeting at Potsdam's 'Landhaus Adlon' hotel.

And further:

After the discussion, left-wing journalists gathered around the president of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, participants reported. They heard that Haldenwang's Office for the Protection of the Constitution had been very well informed about the group of people invited to the Potsdam hotel since the beginning of November, i.e., before the so-called 'secret meeting' with a lecture by a controversial author.

Haldenwang's people found out who was coming there, when, and where: 'We know them all.’

It became clear: Haldenwang is extremely proud of his agency, which has its eavesdroppers everywhere.

Actually, this is nothing special. In Helmut Kohl's [Ms. Merkel’s political mentor, CDU grandmaster, and chancellor from 1982-98] day, for example, Der Spiegel, which then used to be critical of the government at the time, was never invited to talks with the chancellor. For the less well-paid colleagues at smaller daily newspapers, this was a good opportunity to earn some extra money. Der Spiegel was able to defend its reputation as the best-informed medium [by bribing other journalists to preferentially divulge information; there, I fixed the sentence for you; line break added].

Confidentiality must be maintained—but not when it comes to criminal endeavours or dramatic state abuse. Then the journalist's duty to report outweighs the interest in covering up. In Berlin, however, journalism has become more state-supporting and closer to the state.

The ‘German Press Club’ Gets in Touch

I quickly received a strange letter from the chairman of the German Press Club, who had organised one of the two meetings. We are reproducing an extract because it shows how many journalists see themselves.

Although the text mentions that President Haldenwang himself had invited to a background discussion and that this had taken place in the afternoon, we suspect that our regular Clubabend [organised by the Deutscher Presseclub] may have been meant here and only made unrecognisable for the sake of form. Although you, as our member, did not attend, you bear editorial responsibility for the article. [oh, my, this is like my children pointing fingers at each other claiming ‘she made me do it’]

So I wasn't there, but I'm supposed to have spilled the beans? Boy, boy. It's a remarkable view when editors-in-chief are supposed to prevent important news from appearing that capable editors dig up. The ‘German Press Club’ effectively claims authority to decide what is allowed to appear—of course, in no case what you hope to keep exclusive knowledge by invoking a number ‘beyond 3’ and to please the information provider. What is said in Berlin should not appear in the media. That is its ‘business plan’.

And it goes on. It was demanded that Tichys Einblick ‘depublish’ the article immediately. Astonished, we observe a cartel of silence at work [the word to use here is, of course, omertà; how do I know? It’s the bloody same shit-show in academia]. Of course, the few with preferential access may learn a lot from the back rooms of the powerful. But writing about it? Not at all [line break added].

Remarkably, the ‘German Press Club’ did not criticise our piece in terms of its content. One could draw the conclusion that this is an endorsement of the article’s veracity. A credible correction in terms of content—Tichys Einblick would of course have reproduced it. No denial is also a statement. And so we will not ‘depublish’ [more proof that these gatekeepers don’t know ‘the internet’ that, being ‘a series of tubes’, is also an archive].

‘The Office for the Protection of the Constitution knew almost everything’, said participants [at that informal Berlin chat with Mr. Haldenwang], including the fact that those invited to the Potsdam meeting had expressly agreed not to record anything. The Press Club’s demand has no formal substance. Only participants in an interview can guarantee confidentiality. Those who were not present and obtained their information in another way are not subject to a vow of confidentiality [which is Mr. Tichy’s very worded way to say ‘f*** you’ to his assailants—chapeau!]. Moreover, the whole situation seems rather comical: the same media representatives who see no problem in spying on a private event in Potsdam, or at least cheering it on, ‘discover’ a scandal when a medium that does not belong to their circle quotes the words of a head of the authorities on a highly political affair. And apparently even accurately. Correctiv may have obtained its information illegally. Tichys Einblick did not.

Where Does Correctiv Get its Insights From?

According to security insiders, as Tichys Einblick was informed confidentially, the SPD- and Green-affiliated Correctiv has its own transcripts of the meeting. This suggests that the participants' communication was recorded [which is also illegal under domestic and, perhaps even more importantly, EU ‘law’ (the General Data Protection Regulation)]. Correctiv also claimed itself to be in possession of verbatim transcripts. However, the alleged memory logs were supposedly taken by participants. Or did Haldenwang pass the material on to Correctiv?

This is not about a little secrecy here and there, which some journalists like to boast about. It is about central questions of the behaviour of the head of the German domestic secret service, who is subject to strict restrictions when it comes to obtaining information from private meetings and passing it on. Further minutes that have since been made available to Tichys Einblick from one of the participants [in the regular meetings at the Presseclub] reveal a questionable understanding of [Mr. Halndewang’s] duties—and yes, Tichys Einblick admits that we do not conceal such relevant information.

For example, the head of the domestic intelligence service casually chats about which ‘new-right’ journalists have been approached (‘PI-News, 1 per cent’); that domestic intelligence services were monitoring members of various fraternities and individual members of the Werteunion [a more truly conservative faction once in the CDU], which is currently being reorganised as a party. It has since become known that one of these members is Haldenwang's predecessor, Hans-Georg Maaßen. According to Haldenwang, they get their information from Twitter and then create files [if so, this is too ridiculous to take seriously; it might be true, though, that some of their ‘files’ are created this way].

This all seems rather ridiculous when you look at the Maaßen case and see what is supposed to be ‘anti-constitutional’. For example, it is considered anti-constitutional if a dangerous Austrian such as the leader of the Identitarian Party, Martin Sellner, repeats a statement made by Maassen on Twitter. As we have seen in recent weeks in the wider media landscape, he will probably soon be having fun quoting Friedrich Merz or Nancy Faeser. Quickly, cite Merz and Faeser.

Even more dangerous is Haldenwang's basic conviction that 10% of AfD voters are regular voters. You can't get anything past their convictions. But with the other 10% [AfD is currently polling at approx. 20%], it would be possible to achieve a ‘closing of the ranks with the government’ [orig. geschlossenes Verhalten der Regierung] as the large demonstrations under the slogan ‘Against the Right’ have shown. The domestic intelligence service is a kind of early warning system that must warn citizens, especially before elections, of what individual parties ‘could do if put in office’. This is because bans take too long and there is no guarantee that they will be imposed, ‘even in the Höcke case’. [Mr. Haldenwang] is therefore pleased about the [pro-gov’t] demonstrations.

The Office for the Protection of the Constitution as an Organ of the Party-State?

That is a dangerous self-image. Certainly, the task of the domestic intelligence service is to gather information. But to influence elections? To target individual parties and conduct public relations work in order to influence voters by mobilising the public? This is where state organs become service providers for the parties [I agree with Mr. Tichy, but he’s also hopelessly naive in this regard]. This is where the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution oversteps its authority. And this is where the public's right to know about every presumed ‘beyond 3’ rule [sic] prevails. Here, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution is operating far beyond its mandate and wants to use a journalist rule to suppress news about its behaviour from leaking.

And it goes even further. When the ‘Reichsbürger’ [a small group of people who claim the Federal Republic of Germany is illegitimate and swear allegiance to a still-existing ‘German Empire’] were arrested, dozens of journalists were informed in advance—about places, times and people. In the classic sense, it was a betrayal of secrets in order to buy journalistic goodwill. Because anyone who doesn't play along will be excluded next time. Journalists fear nothing more.

In case of the dubious Correctiv affair, many other questions also arise: to whom did the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution pass on the complete information it had? Who planned the campaign that emerged from the private event at the Hotel Adlon-Villa in Potsdam last November and who supplied the ingredients? In any case, the Federal Government will not deny that the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, which it explicitly mentioned by name without being asked, was involved in Potsdam.

A talkative Verfassungsschutz president presents himself, making his employer, Interior Minister Nancy Faeser, appear somewhat naive: it would be her job to inform parliament and the public about this, instead of having the innards of an authority subordinate to her trotted out by her subordinate. Has he interpreted his new powers somewhat extensively? The necessarily separate spheres of state and parties, NGOs and government, journalism and secret service, private and public are overlapping; the necessary mutual control is becoming blurred [how does one spell ‘separation of power’? Asking for a friend…]

Are the Intel’s New Powers Excessive?

The legal basis for the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution to pass on information was only extended in November 2023. Originally, the ‘Act on the 1st Part of the Reform of the Intelligence Service Law’ envisaged that teachers, school headmasters, and entrepreneurs should also be warned about alleged radicals; a kind of totalitarian surveillance state was to be created that would leave no area of life unobserved. However, this general surveillance function of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution was only partially extended.

Professor Dietrich Murswiek, a constitutional law expert who has dealt with this issue intensively, sees no legal basis for disclosure in the current case [by which is meant that the Verfassungsschutz lacked a mandate to wiretap the Potsdam meeting]. So did Correctiv wiretap and make illegal videos themselves? So far, Correctiv has refused to provide the relevant files. Why? Would the person who made them be recognisable? Or do the statements in these files not correspond with the adventurous claims that Correctiv accuses the participants of making? The courts will have to decide on this in the future; as Tichys Einblick has reported, corresponding lawsuits are underway.

Nevertheless, one of the employees of Correctiv is Jean Peters, who offers to ‘make up stories’ in order to intervene politically, whereby ‘technical means’ are also used [according to his website]. Correctiv even relativises its own ethics committee, which it staffed with the renowned former data protection officer Peter Schaar. However, when asked by Tichys Einblick, he has not been involved in the case since November 2023. Data protection only after illegal publication?

This reinforces an unpleasant thought: new inconsistencies in the story presented by Correctiv continue to emerge, culminating in the involvement of the domestic secret service in the affair. The macabre: Brandenburg's Minister of the Interior, Michael Stübgen, complained that the secret services from outside the state were making an unannounced rendezvous in his area of responsibility—without informing him as the responsible minister: ‘I would have wished, especially if the information was older, that we had been made aware of it earlier.’

‘The Federal Office had sent an extensive collection of data in connection with the event in November and the property where the meeting took place, said the Brandenburg Interior Minister’, as reported by [state broadcaster ARD’s] ‘Tagesschau’ [nightly news program].

Secrecy wherever you look—and huge protests are then organised across Germany on the basis of this questionable information. Claims are to be repeated so often until they are irrefutably anchored in the public consciousness as supposed facts. And a Presseclub that now scrutinises all its members to see whether they have ever written for Tichys Einblick or are acquainted with our editors fits in with this [which, to me, further proves the incompetence of this inbred cabal]. Journalists are spying on journalists [muahahahaha].

It is remarkable that a journalists' association sees secrecy in the service of the government as its ‘business plan’, which must be defended at all costs. In any case, journalism used to be something else.

---

Bottom Lines

A long and painful read, isn’t it?

We did learn something—that Germany’s domestic intelligence services were involved in this matter, although the details about the degree of this meddling are still fuzzy.

Moreover, as we’ll discuss in the next part, the member of Correctiv mentioned here, one Jean Peter, has a history of left-wing-radical activism and is prone to ‘making up stuff’ to further his cause (I’ve checked out his private website yesterday, but he changed it upon alt-media documenting his ‘work’).

Moreover, I’m more and more reminded of the late-stage Soviet era, in particular its ‘East German’ offshoot, the German Democratic [sic] Republic, which existed from 1949-90. If you haven’t done so, please read Elena Louisa Lange’s commentary:

The GDRization of Germany

Finally, although I cannot remember where I first saw someone posting the below image, I think it’s fitting:

Neues Deutschland: Socialist Daily for the GDR, 4 Jan. 1990

Our Country Right Now Needs a Broad United Front Against the Right

To be continued…