Accusations “invented” – Sobotka follows: Schmid is “Baron Münchhausen”

Schmid has testified extensively before the Economic and Corruption Prosecution Service (WKStA) in various cases. The accused said Sobotka intervened with him to stop tax audits at the “Alois Mock Foundation or at the Alois Mock Institute” and at the “Erwin Proell Foundation.” “It was then arranged according to Mag. Sobotka.”

“On 454 pages of protocol, I’m on exactly seven lines”
Sobotka vehemently rejects this: firstly it was “fictional”, secondly “I don’t think the whole nation is interested in that, we have to keep the balance”. According to the President of the National Council, people are currently interested in inflation, the war in Ukraine and economic development. On the 454 pages of the WKStA protocol, Sobotka says he appears on “exactly seven lines” and finds it “somewhat remarkable to make a case of it,” Sobotka criticized.

“You know the character of this man”
“I find that suddenly Mr. Schmid, whose inappropriate and obscene conversations everyone noted with regret and – rightly – mocked with it, is now suddenly apostropheated in his testimony before the WKStA as a guilty verdict or a judge’s verdict remarkable.” Sobotka recalled that Schmid had made an essential requirement for himself at the WKStA “to pull himself out of this quagmire, so to speak,” namely to achieve leniency status, Sobotka recalled. That’s why he describes it as an “all-round blow” that Schmid does. You know “the character of this man”.

‘His gross accusation just doesn’t hold up’
Sobotka also rejected substantive statements by Schmid: “I never intervened with him on tax issues or questions from the Treasury Department,” he claimed. “I couldn’t remember any of the calls.” And that was at a time in 2014 when the “Alois Mock Institute” had only been “on the market in the economic area” for five months. At the time, it was a “small association,” “advertising taxes were always duly paid,” and it was “completely unrealistic to expect a tax audit from the authorities there,” Sobotka argued. “Well, his gross accusation just isn’t enough.”

When asked why Schmid should invent such a thing, Sobotka referred to his chats. Schmid has always excelled “what he would not have done, on the one hand with deceit, on the other as Baron Münchhausen”.

“Then he has to provide the proof”
The phone conversation ex-chancellor Sebastian Kurz secretly recorded with Schmid two weeks after the searches a year ago also shed “an important light” on Schmid, Sobotka believes. To the objection that Schmid only stands a chance of being a leniency witness if his statements are well founded, Sobotka objected: “Then he must provide evidence.”

In addition, Sobotka criticized the fact that Schmid had appeared 15 times at the WKStA, but “never thought it was worth it” to sit on the U-committee. “He would have been obliged to tell the truth,” Sobotka emphasized. “To me, this person is totally implausible,” but if Schmid needs clarification, “he may come to the commission of inquiry and testify under a duty of truth,” the commission chairman confirmed.

Sobotka is unimpressed by calls for his resignation
Sobotka is still unimpressed by the calls for resignation from all opposition parties: “The opposition will use every little seed, no matter how inconspicuous, to somehow force me out of office. I just feel uncomfortable for them, you have to take that into account.” He wanted to hear a “substantial accusation”, “evidence of something”. His reputation has been greatly damaged and he reserves the right to take legal action against Schmid , confirmed Sobotka, who does not see the coalition in danger.