Were these redactions of the RKI protocols made to cover up criminal acts?
I'm Frank Hannig - that's Hannig right, and that's actually what struck me when I read these now unredacted transcripts.
You won't believe it. I'm going to take you by the hand a little and explain what actually happened here. And why
this is a scandal and why we really need to think about it.
Initially, it was like this: The RKI protocols reflect the current status of the federal
government as it was informed during the Corona period.
So the RKI had scientific findings, informed the federal government about them and, on the basis of this
information, the federal government passed laws, measures, regulations and so on to protect us all from corona.
So much for the normal and official part. But we've always had a few doubts - vaccine released too quickly,
constitution or civil liberties restricted, compulsory masks.
Many people said at the time that this had to be checked. [Now a small newspaper has managed to sue for these protocols to be
handed over so that we can independently check what the RKI actually told the government during the corona
period so that they could in turn restrict our rights.
And this newspaper got it right. [Lauterbach, our health minister, justified it by saying that these
redactions are necessary to protect employee data, for example.
Yes, so that third parties are protected and data protection is not violated. And now I saw
these pictures for the first time a few days ago.
This, this is supposed to be data from third parties?
This file is completely blacked out. And you ask yourself: why, why is this file blacked out?
The way this file is blacked out, there must be a reason why the government doesn't want it to come out.
So there must be something to cover up, and a whistleblower found himself - in the RKI - and said: This is an outrage.
Yes, the public is being deceived here, I am publishing this unredacted. This is what happened.
And the crazy thing is, this is not just a scandal in terms of media law. It's a breach of trust by the
government. I - I don't even talk about stories like this.
No, when you read the unredacted minutes, it becomes clear that criminal offenses have been committed here by Minister Spahn, by
Minister Lauterbach, perhaps also by others, and a very simple offense, a very simple one, which I will now
explain to you because I want this to be discussed publicly.
That it doesn't disappear somewhere in small drawers. The media don't report much about
it. The official media, they say something.
Yes, the data protection scandal is not a scandal at all, it's just nonsense. No, the scandal is this:
The offense that is ultimately behind this is a very simple paragraph. Paragraph 240 of
the German Criminal Code states the following.
I'll take you on a journey with me. I'll just explain it again. Yes, so that you also understand how we
lawyers think and then with that...I want you to understand.
So paragraph 240 says: Anyone who unlawfully compels another person to act, tolerate or refrain from acting
by force or by threatening to do a serious wrong shall be liable to a fine or imprisonment.
Now let's go through how a lawyer does it. Let's take a look at the wording.
First - we don't have violence. Now it comes - whoever, by threatening a sensitive evil...
What grievous evil has Mr. Spahn, Mr. Lauterbach, the government threatened us with? In 83 million cases.
That is the spectacular thing, because the serious evil that we have been threatened with are the consequences that will occur if
I don't do something specific, namely if I don't get vaccinated.
First of all, social exclusion, you are anti-social, you lack solidarity. You're not allowed to cross national borders,
you're only allowed to be 20 meters away from your house.
You'll be fired as a firefighter if you don't get vaccinated. You'll be fired from your job as
a doctor or nurse if you don't get vaccinated.
You will suffer disadvantages in every respect if you don't get vaccinated. This is all a threat of a serious evil.
The threat of dismissal is an evil - of course it's an evil. The threat of dismissal to force me to commit
an act, namely to vaccinate, or to tolerate it because of me, namely to be vaccinated.
That is the offense. It's so simple. We have been coerced in 83 million cases.
Now there's the little word "unlawfulness" in there and you could say, I really want you to understand and that's why
I'm making this a bit legal. You could say, well, but the government did it too, so it must be legal.
No, that is the problem that now arises from the protocols. To conclude, yes, it can
only be lawful if the Bundestag passes a law.
Yes, but if the Bundestag is deceived by the government and has false information, then such a law cannot be
legal. So then all these coronavirus regulations can't work.
That is then not lawful. We learn from these unredacted protocols that the government deliberately lied about
the actual recommendations of the Robert Koch Institute.
It is clear from all the redacted passages that the RKI has expressed considerable concerns on many, many points,
especially with regard to vaccination and the effectiveness of boosters, e.g. booster vaccination in children, etc.
The ministers intervened directly and said that this information must not be published.
So they deliberately manipulated the truth in order to ultimately push through this compulsory vaccination.
And that is the real scandal. And this scandal must be dealt with, and that can only be done by the public prosecutor's office.
That is a criminal offense. We all have to answer for our actions and that has to happen here too.
I will write a complaint against Spahn today - just as an example - and you can also do this
via the police website, via the online watchdogs.
The public prosecutor's office must wake up. The Attorney General's Office must be made
aware that there coercion in 83 million cases.
That is the biggest scandal, a government that has made itself liable to prosecution in this way and has
subsequently blacked out and falsified these protocols to cover up and conceal this crime.
I don't think there has ever been anything like it in a constitutional state. We just need to understand the scale of it.
This did not happen because we wanted to protect the personal and data protection rights of third
parties. This happened to hide and conceal criminal acts.