Former Finance Minister Thomas Schmid was questioned on Monday as a witness in the trial of ex-Chancellor Sebastian Kurz (ÖVP) for making false statements in the Ibiza Commission of Inquiry. In concrete terms, it mainly concerned his role in the occupation of the state holding company ÖBAG. And Schmid delivered what the WKStA expected: he placed a heavy burden on the ex-chancellor. An excerpt from his most explosive statements.
The most prominent witness in the short trial had to testify truthfully for eight hours. Sebastian Kurz stared at Thomas Schmid’s back for eight hours.
Because directly behind Schmid, less than a meter away, is the dock in the Grand Jury Courtroom – where the former Chancellor sits.
Schmid away from Kurz
Kurz followed every answer closely and took notes on the statements that his greatest enemy Schmid made to judge Michael Radasztics. Schmid started distancing himself.
Judge Radasztic was interested in how Schmid would describe the relationship with Kurz. “See, that’s the thing about friendships. Such professional relationships are of course highly dependent on where you want to go professionally. I made a fresh start after the allegations came out publicly. Today I no longer have anything to do with Mr. Kurz,” Schmid said.
The key question in the trial against the ex-politician for alleged false statements in the Ibiza U committee is: did Kurz decide on the appointment of the ÖBAG boss and the supervisory board or was he simply ‘involved, in the sense of informed ‘? as Kurz said in the U-Commission testified?
The ex-chancellor had ‘veto power’ everywhere
Schmid vehemently contradicted this version of the ex-chancellor – several times during the eight-hour interrogation. It was “impossible to make a decision without Kurz,” says Schmid, describing the turquoise chain of command during the government years. A few minutes later, Schmid outlined the hierarchy under Chancellor Kurz as follows: “It was a system in which such important personnel decisions were closely coordinated. There was no nod, but a discussion. The Chancellor had a right of veto.”
Statement not allowed
The afternoon was unusual in the grand jury courtroom. In short, a media professional had been announcing for days that he would drop a bomb during the trial. In order to detonate the bomb in time before the editorial deadline, lawyer Otto Dietrich submitted an application to interview the witness for the WKStA. Dietrich asked Schmid if he felt “under pressure” when he was questioned by investigators – to which Schmid said no.
Lawyer Dietrich then presented sworn statements from two Russian businessmen who discussed the criminal case at length with Schmid during a job interview in Amsterdam.
Schmid told them that he “had given in to pressure from prosecutors and decided to side with them by testifying in a way that would satisfy prosecutors.” However, Judge Radasztic did not take the affidavits into account. Not really a bomb.
Source: Krone
I am Ida Scott, a journalist and content author with a passion for uncovering the truth. I have been writing professionally for Today Times Live since 2020 and specialize in political news. My career began when I was just 17; I had already developed a knack for research and an eye for detail which made me stand out from my peers.
