The news obtained by Aleksandra Fedorska from the German government press office — that the Tusk-Scholz conversation promised by Prime Minister Tusk had never taken place — set Polish public opinion ablaze. Both Donald Tusk and representatives of the German side commented on the matter. But anyone who assumed that settled things would be mistaken.
After the scandal erupted in Poland, the revelation that the German government press office claimed the Tusk-Scholz conversation promised by Tusk never took place proved so painful for Donald Tusk that upon returning from a summit in Brussels, he began calling his critics "Putin's trolls."
Somewhat later that same day, one of the heads of the German government press office, Sebastian Feldmeier, contacted Aleksandra Fedorska. On the one hand, he attempted to apologize for what he described as "an error by a press office employee"; on the other, he tried to block publication of the recorded conversation. The exchange with the German government representative is rather chaotic, lasts over half an hour, and many threads are repeated — we publish what we consider the most important excerpts. The name of Aleksandra Fedorska's interlocutor from the first conversation with the German government press office is known to the editorial team but has been withheld by editorial decision. There are strong indications that she may have been singled out as a scapegoat, and the editorial team does not wish to participate in that.
Conversation conducted on the evening of June 18
Aleksandra Fedorska: Once more, briefly, so that I am properly understood. I used the official telephone number from the Federal Chancellery website. I dialed it directly, and the woman said nothing about it being merely a secretariat. That is why I immediately proceeded to ask my question. And I had no impression that I had been misdirected.
Sebastian Feldmeier: Yes, I can imagine that. You see, my colleague usually receives calls from journalists she already knows. For my colleague and for the usual callers, it is obvious that this is the press center at the Federal Chancellery. That is apparently why she did not inform you thoroughly.
(...) You posed a question, so my colleague...
Yes, Ms. [name known to the editorial team].
(...) Ms. [name known to the editorial team] then asked one of my co-workers whether there was any information about a Tusk-Scholz meeting...
It was about a conversation.
Yes, a conversation, correct. And she replied that there was no such information and asked for Ms. Fedorska to be transferred to her. To that, Ms. [name known to the editorial team] responded that she could pass on the information herself. In principle, that was not her role. In any case, she conveyed — or intended to convey — that there was no such information. In other words, that nobody here had dealt with the subject. The correct procedure would have been to ask you to send an email. That would have been the proper process. Then we would have explained everything to you precisely.
But she said considerably more than that.
Just a moment, just a moment. The timing doesn't quite add up. This conversation took place shortly before noon. Let's stick with that. Now, in the clarification issued to Deutsche Welle in the early afternoon, we read that the conversation took place on June 17 — that is, the day before.
No, they misunderstood. I said "Vormittag" [morning], I start my shift in the afternoon, and the woman from DW understood "Vortag" [the previous day]. And that created even more confusion.
Have you corrected that in the meantime?
No, I haven't had time yet — I'm speaking with you now.
And do you know how things are boiling here [in Poland — ed.]?
Yes, I know, I understand.
The German police car...
I'm aware of the incident...
The situation is so inflamed. That is why I wanted to obtain reliable information on this matter. I took this phone number from your website. There is no indication there that it is a secretariat number. (...)
Yes, yes, that is the main switchboard number.
I could reasonably expect to receive accurate information at that number, since it was published on the Federal Chancellery's official website. There is no mention there that one might reach someone who is not informed about the matter. And Ms. [name known to the editorial team] did not inform me that she was not competent to answer my question. Moreover, she asked me to wait, then went somewhere to make inquiries.
Yes, that's correct, she turned to my co-worker (...).
And you claim this conversation took place before noon?
You called around 12:00. A little later I learned from Ms. [name known to the editorial team] that the conversation with you took place at 12:00. (...) In the meantime, a woman from Deutsche Welle called me and that conversation took place where the word "Vormittag" was used. I'll call them right away and clarify that there was a misunderstanding.
But what I would like to learn from you is when exactly that conversation [the Tusk-Scholz conversation — ed.] took place? When did Donald Tusk speak with Scholz about the situation on the German-Polish border?
Oh, I see another misunderstanding arising. I was referring to your conversation with Ms. [name known to the editorial team], I'm sorry. So the conversation [the Tusk-Scholz conversation — ed.] took place on Monday, June 17, at a meeting during the EU summit. Scholz and Tusk met at the EU summit and discussed the matter.
So once again: when exactly did the conversation take place and what was it about?
Well, I would need to ask my boss, who was present. At this moment, I only have the information that such a conversation did indeed take place. And that is what my boss confirmed to me.
When did he confirm that?
When at 3:00 p.m. today I received a question from a Polish colleague asking whether it was true that the Bundespresseamt [the German government press office — ed.] had communicated such a thing (the conversation takes place late on the evening of June 18, meaning the representative of the German government press office would have learned of the Tusk-Scholz conversation many hours after it allegedly took place and several hours after we published the information that the press office claimed it never happened and was not planned — ed.). And only then did I learn that something like this had occurred. In other words, it was only through the Polish colleague's inquiry that I became aware of what was going on. I don't speak Polish...
But this is outrageous!
Yes, I know, it turned out very badly.
Truly... I have taken note of what you've told me. But after that conversation, I followed up again asking when the conversation had taken place.
Well, my colleague... I don't want to say anything bad about her, she is excellent, she is a specialist in her field, but she is still a student. She maintains the calendar here but is not a press spokesperson.
But she gave the impression of being very competent. I did not have the feeling that I was speaking with someone incompetent. Above all, she reinforced that impression after she interrupted the conversation and went somewhere to obtain more information. Then she came back and confirmed the same thing once more.
You see, this is not about Ms. [name known to the editorial team], but about the person who at 12:02 confirmed to her that no such conversation had taken place.
And that is precisely the crux of the matter. The colleague did not say that the conversation had not taken place, but rather that we had no information on the subject at that point. You must understand that a great deal of information arrives here at the press center, but not everything. Some things we must obtain ourselves. The correct procedure would have been for her to contact Mr. [name illegible — ed.], who was on site at the EU summit, and then we would have received the information. That would admittedly have taken several hours. Only then would you have received a response. She made the mistake of looking at her desk, at her materials, and concluding that there was no information on the topic. And she passed that information on to you through Ms. [name known to the editorial team]. And I understand that you interpreted this as meaning that such a conversation [Tusk-Scholz] had not taken place at all. That is precisely where the unfortunate misunderstanding occurred. Then you also asked whether such a conversation was even planned, so the colleague again checked her calendar and said no.
No, that's not accurate. She used a different sentence. She said: To my knowledge, no such conversation took place and none is planned.
She said that to you verbatim?
Yes, exactly. There is a recording of the conversation, after all.
Good. We will be able to verify that. Please send it to us. She wrote to me this and that...
You see, that conversation has just been published in Poland. And the point is that I should not be accused of producing fake news. You must imagine this. I have the right to trust the information conveyed to me, since I contacted you using the official website. Especially since she [name known to the editorial team] went to consult, then came back and confirmed it once more. I am very irritated by this, also by the timeline of events. This conversation allegedly took place on June 17, the previous day. I assume no later than 10:00 p.m., because presumably sessions don't continue after that.
Yes, that's correct.
For many subsequent hours, absolutely nothing happens.
Because this was probably a private conversation between the two men. We have no specifics about this conversation to this day. (Very important! The conversation with Scholz that Tusk announced on Twitter was supposedly "private" in nature and it is unknown what it concerned! — ed.) Here in Germany, this matter is also of great significance, and this terrible incident is being handled primarily by the Interior Ministry and the Federal Police.
So I understand that to this day you have not published a single sentence on the matter.
I would like to trace the timeline once more. I assume this conversation most likely took place before 10:00 p.m.
I can inquire about it, but I can imagine that is how it was.
And I would very much like to know the content of this conversation. I am particularly interested in the Chancellor's statements. And as we can see, nothing whatsoever happened after that. A new day dawned, and officially Germany has not commented on the matter at all, even though a major debate had already erupted in the media, including in Germany. For example, "rbb," but also many other outlets had already reported on the border incident.
As far as I know, the Interior Ministry has already commented on the matter, and the police — if I recall correctly — even apologized.
But that is not my point. My point is that no one has directly addressed the conversation between the Chancellor and Prime Minister Tusk.
This is probably because private conversations generally do not result in press releases. Here in Germany, there was no prior information that Tusk intended to speak with the Chancellor about this matter (important! — ed.). The conversation simply took place. Therefore we had no reason to publicize it, although it probably would have happened had we been asked. You directed your question at 12:00 and it was not handled properly on our end. The normal procedure would have been to ask you to send an email with your question. Instead, that was not done — someone just looked at the notes and told you there was no information on the matter. (...) Then nothing happened until 3:00 p.m., when I received a call from a Polish colleague who brought up the subject. That is why I immediately tried to clarify who said what to whom and learned from my boss that such a conversation had indeed taken place. That is why I contacted a colleague at the German embassy in Poland and described what had happened on our end, how everything unfolded. I explained that Ms. [name known to the editorial team] — though I did not reveal the name — in any case, the office colleague cannot be treated as a press spokesperson, that she simply works here in the secretariat.
But she should have informed me of that.
Yes, that's correct. She should have told you that. As I already said — it was stupid, it did not proceed as it should have. I have just learned that the conversation was published in Poland, and the name, I hope, was redacted.
It was simply translated; the name was not relevant.
Here in Germany, publishing recordings without consent is essentially a criminal offense.
As you can see from this example...
I understand that you wanted documentation, but now I can see that there will be problems because of it. But this woman acted in good faith.
She had other options, especially since she consulted with your colleague [from the press office — ed.], who could have told Ms. [name known to the editorial team] that she would take over the matter and respond to me herself.
Yes, that is what she should have done.
But she didn't.
Yes, that was an error. (Even if one accepts the version presented by the German side, it is worth noting that they accept the blame themselves rather than accusing Aleksandra Fedorska, unlike her detractors in Poland — ed.)
This was more than an error. She conveyed false information to me. Completely false. She said that no such conversation had taken place and, moreover, that none was planned. That is two pieces of information that are untrue. And on top of that, if this woman was not authorized to convey such information, she should have told me so. But let's set that aside. The third thing — actually the fourth — is that Ms. [name known to the editorial team] left the phone to consult, then returned and once again confirmed the same information. And this was after she had clarified the matter with a colleague or superior — I assume with her supervisor.
With that colleague of mine from the office I spoke with.
But it turned out she was not authorized to speak with the press.
The thing is, she only said that we have no information on the subject, which she conveyed to you through Ms. [name known to the editorial team], and which, as I understand, has already been published.
It is currently being translated.
I would advise holding off on that, also for legal reasons. If it were just done as a written summary, that would be fine, but if the recording were published, then — as I already said — that would be a criminal offense (legal opinion below — ed.).
I used to work in radio and I know that this is not permitted. I understand that this is about your good name, that you don't want to come across as someone who puts out fake news.
That is why I am prepared to clarify everything once more in detail and to speak with the person you recorded.
But this is primarily about me. I must point out that not one error was committed, but four. And that is a completely different situation. And I believe you must now find a way out of this, and that you will keep me informed about everything. I want to be personally informed about what the Chancellor said [to Tusk — ed.].
Do we have your email address?
It's very easy — it includes my surname, which, incidentally, is now on everyone's lips. I'm everywhere now, unfortunately. To my detriment. And I am truly sorry that you are now raising legal issues with me, while you are the ones giving the press false information. And I think that is simply not fair. Because you have a duty to inform us properly.
Yes, exactly.
And if I was given false information, I must also have the right to defend myself. I must have the right to a full explanation.
I raised the legal issue only because from my experience as a journalist I know that in Germany it is not permitted to publish recordings made secretly, without consent.
But my defense depends precisely on showing who said what. I therefore hold you to your word — from now on, and we don't want any more problems with Ms. [name known to the editorial team] — I will receive serious information. I very much ask for that. I trust that I will receive the exact content of this conversation and information about when exactly it took place. In all this confusion over timing, that is very important. Because above all I want to restore my good name, which I worked very hard to build. And I must be able to rely on what you tell me.
I understand that perfectly. We have already said that a misunderstanding occurred. In our communication to the embassy, we clearly stated that a misunderstanding occurred during a conversation with the secretariat of the press center (Bundespressestelle). And that both Ms. [name known to the editorial team] and the person who provided her with the information are not official representatives of the Federal Press Office (Bundespresseamt). That is everything we said about this conversation. (...) So please give me your email.
(Aleksandra Fedorska's email — known to the editorial team)
OK, everything is clear. The first thing I will send you is what I managed to obtain officially from the relevant people, so you can see how things stand. And I will try — though I cannot promise you one hundred percent, as it is beyond my authority — to find out when exactly this conversation took place and what its content was. So I understand that would be the answer to your questions. Particularly, what the Chancellor said.
Yes, yes. I take you at your word, then, and I appeal to you as someone who — as you yourself admitted — has considerable experience as a journalist. I am a freelance correspondent, completely independent, not affiliated with any media network, and I make my living by doing good journalistic work. I therefore trust that, in the interest of the public, you will provide me with comprehensive and truthful information. And that you will acknowledge that at least three things went wrong on your end. I truly count on this, because I must say that I have been deeply stung by everything that happened today.
Yes, I understand, I feel uneasy about it too. My colleague explained to me that Ms. [name known to the editorial team] is a young person who has not yet completed her studies and significantly overstepped her authority. I will try to sort all this out. I wouldn't want to dismiss you...
But this is not about Ms. [name known to the editorial team] — she is probably completely innocent. The point is that when it comes to information about this conversation, everything on your end completely failed; everything went wrong. That is why I ask that you publicly acknowledge that I fell victim to this entire situation — however we choose to describe it — and I ask that you emphasize that it happened on multiple occasions. After all, she left the phone, went to a superior for information, meaning there was some sort of higher-level approval of this very message.
Well, I suspect she did not understand the full context, did not understand which conversation was being discussed...
Surely you can see from this example that my German is quite good, I have very clear pronunciation...
But of course, I will note that as well — that your German is very good. I did not mean that a linguistic misunderstanding occurred. This is about two different contexts. For you, it was obvious what you were asking about, but my colleague on the other end did not fully grasp it, so...
I understand what you're trying to say, but I beg you... What happened was simply an accumulation of things that went wrong. And it's not about one thing but four. Because there was also the information that no conversation was planned. And that is truly absurd. Absurd because this whole story is still developing — I mean the story with the immigrants. So I ask that my good name be restored, that I be cleared of accusations. I therefore hold you to this and take you at your word.
OK. I would like to return to what we already started. I will try to establish the exact time when the Tusk-Scholz conversation took place. And I will take up the matter again with our embassy, because I already mentioned to them that there would be problems.
You must imagine the degree of polarization we face in Poland. How deeply divided our society is.
Yes, I know. I follow Poland with great interest. I was immediately alarmed when I learned about the matter, and I'm glad I now have the opportunity to speak with you as well, because until now I had only heard our side.
But what exactly is your function? (...)
Well, I am the Chef vom Dienst [duty editor/team leader] who provides answers to questions that we first send for authorization. In short, I too cannot provide information that has not been authorized. I conveyed to you what I learned from a colleague. We are not authorized to speak on behalf of the government; we do so only on the basis of information prepared and authorized at the Federal Chancellery.
But then how did Ms. Boehme obtain the information that no conversation had taken place and that none was planned? How did she get it if she has no access to Mr. Hebenstreit [head of the press office]?
There is simply various information noted in the calendar. She simply looked there — and that was certainly an error — and found that there was nothing.
But she should not have spoken with me at all!
Yes, she should have known that, and she made a very foolish mistake.
In short, everything went wrong, and you should not suffer any harm because of it.
[Translation: Marian Panic]
In subsequent email correspondence, Feldmeier emphasized that he was not pleased with the publication of the recording of the Fedorska-German government press office conversation.
(...) Please refrain from publishing the secret audio recording of my colleague from the secretariat.
he wrote in an email to Aleksandra Fedorska.
(...) I thought we were talking about the audio recording and that I do not consider it appropriate to record my younger colleague and make it public.
he later wrote.
We asked attorney Bartosz Lewandowski, former rector of the Collegium Intermarium, for his opinion on the attempt to suppress publication of the recording.
"The accusation of publishing a recording without the interlocutor's consent, when directed at a journalist, is a misunderstanding. The editor acted on the basis of Polish press law, under which it is permissible to record a conversation in which the participant takes part. This is not a prohibited act and does not constitute a crime. It is worth remembering that the conversation was conducted with a representative of a German government office in the form of an official inquiry, not a private conversation. In Poland, journalists very frequently record conversations without prior notification of the interlocutor in order to prevent accusations of manipulation or falsehood in press materials. Additionally, in this specific case, context matters. The conversation concerned a significant international discussion announced by the Polish Prime Minister in connection with the scandalous practices of German services. It should be recalled that pressuring a journalist not to publish certain press materials, including making threats related to the illegality of their actions, may — under Article 44(1) of the Press Law — be considered criminal suppression of press criticism."
"The accusation of publishing a recording without the interlocutor's consent, when directed at a journalist, is a misunderstanding. The editor acted on the basis of Polish press law, under which it is permissible to record a conversation in which the participant takes part. This is not a prohibited act and does not constitute a crime. It is worth remembering that the conversation was conducted with a representative of a German government office in the form of an official inquiry, not a private conversation. In Poland, journalists very frequently record conversations without prior notification of the interlocutor in order to prevent accusations of manipulation or falsehood in press materials. Additionally, in this specific case, context matters. The conversation concerned a significant international discussion announced by the Polish Prime Minister in connection with the scandalous practices of German services."
"It should be recalled that pressuring a journalist not to publish certain press materials, including making threats related to the illegality of their actions, may — under Article 44(1) of the Press Law — be considered criminal suppression of press criticism."
attorney Bartosz Lewandowski told us.
"I will shortly be speaking with Chancellor Scholz about the inadmissible incident involving the German police and a migrant family on our side of the border. The matter must be thoroughly investigated."
Donald Tusk wrote on June 17 at exactly 6:00 p.m.
The following day, at around 12:00 p.m., the German government press office, in a conversation with Aleksandra Fedorska, denied that any such conversation had taken place, as well as any plans for one. We do not know what happened afterward — perhaps, as a result of the scandal that erupted in Poland, Donald Tusk did hold such a conversation. We also do not rule out that the German government press office misled Aleksandra Fedorska. The fact remains, however, that the only evidence confirming the Tusk-Scholz conversation is the word of Tusk and the German government spokesperson. We have published a recording of the statement by a representative of the German government press office.
"It turns out that the journalist spoke with the bureau's secretariat, and the answer given there was that no such conversation had taken place and none was planned. We made a mistake,"
the German government press office defended itself in a conversation with Deutsche Welle.
"I spoke with Chancellor Scholz, so you can calm down the PiS trolls. It's a shame that even former prime ministers are playing the role of Putin's troll. Chancellor Scholz committed to investigating this matter,"
Donald Tusk declared after returning to Poland.
As revealed by the conversation with one of the heads of the German government press office, Sebastian Feldmeier, at the time of the exchange, the German government's press services insist the conversation took place but maintain it was "private" in nature and are unable to provide either the time it was held or information about the topics discussed.
