Robert Habeck was “emotionally touched” in the non-public committee meeting on the case of his State Secretary Patrick Graichen. Reinhard Houben, the economic policy spokesman for the FDP, told us afterwards.
The Federal Minister of Economics and Vice Chancellor obviously remained emotionally affected hours later. 3.30 p.m., the Bundestag debates the “best man scandal” of the official state secretary in a current hour. The last speaker is CDU man Tilman Kuban. He torments the minister with these five questions:
-
“What are the administrative consequences against Mr. Graichen?”
-
“What contact did Mr. Graichen have with the recruitment agency?”
-
“And how did six candidates become a best man?”
-
“How many positions have friends and acquaintances from the Agora Energiewende, the Öko-Institut or other organizations actually filled in the last few months?”
-
“And how can Mr. Graichen actually assure that he and his family members may not themselves benefit from this policy?”
Habeck follows Union man Kuban visibly excited
When Kuban leaves his lectern, Robert Habeck, unusually enough, gets up from his ministerial chair and follows the Union man, visibly agitated. The two are standing next to the lectern and Wolfgang Kubicki, who is currently the President of the Bundestag, asks the two with a pointed tongue to go straight to the microphone, which might also be interesting for the other members of parliament.
What did Habeck want to know from Kuban and what the parliamentarians could no longer hear from row three? Habeck confronted the opposition man: “Why didn’t you ask these questions in the committee?” Kuban answers correctly: “We only had four allowed questions.”
It was a heartwarming skirmish, and the Greens got restless when Kuban read to the plenary session from the “Five-Point Plan for Clean Politics and Transparency,” which the Green Party Council passed on March 1, 2021. At that time, Habeck was still party leader of the Greens.
There it says: “Even the evil appearance of bought and influenced politics must be counteracted. The basis for this is the personal and political attitude of those who perform political tasks or hold a political office.”
Graichen hid the fact that he knew Schäfer personally by using the salute
With regard to the case of State Secretary Graichen, who wanted to get his best man a high-earning job at the German Energy Agency, one can only say: Touché. Sometimes such a Bundestag debate is really enlightening, you learn things that were not known before, namely:
First: At the meeting of the selection committee that was looking for a new Dena boss, Graichen used his best man Michael Schäfer. After the questioning of Habeck and Graichen in the Economic Committee, the CSU man Andreas Lenz said that. With the formal address, Graichen hid from the other members of the selection committee that he was personally acquainted with Schäfer, if not a friend. In real life, this is called: malicious deception.
Secondly: Graichen best man Michael Schäfer actually has, as previously only suspected, a signed contract as Dena boss, which should be endowed with an annual salary of around 180,000 euros. Although Schäfer is unlikely to start his new job after the best man affair was exposed, he is entitled to his salary. This has not only caused political (confidence) damage, but also financial damage to the taxpayer.
Third: It was only three days after the contract was signed that State Secretary Graichen noticed that Schäfer was his best man. Is that believable?
Suddenly it shows how thin-skinned the Greens really are
Fourth: In the Bundestag, the CSU man Lenz asked whether it was true that laws that were written in departments two and three in the Federal Ministry of Economics were “checked” by the lobby organization Agora-Energiewende? Graichen worked for the Agora for nine years before becoming Secretary of State. Lenz’s question remained unanswered.
Fifth: Politically, it was noticeable how distant the FDP acted as a traffic light partner in the debate. FDP man In der Beeck called for “full transparency”, spoke of “the risk of trust being damaged”, of the need to process “all critical processes”, of “self-inflicted theatre”, which the debate on climate protection “not be beneficial”. His liberal party friend Reinhard Houben asked “whether it’s enough politically and legally” – with which he asked whether Graichen shouldn’t have to resign.
Sixth: It showed how thin-skinned the Greens reacted to the accusations. Two Greens, Banaszak and Audretsch, accused the Union of not wanting to clarify the Graichen case, but wanting to “agitate” against climate protection. Audretsch spoke of “fossil climate deniers” with regard to the Union. SPD man Markus Hümpfer called the language of the Union “disgusting”.
In the debate, the AfD announced that it wanted to set up a committee of inquiry together with the Union. The AfD wants to examine, as its chairman Chrupalla put it, whether the German energy transition is being controlled by “foreign power and capital interests”. An allusion to the American donations manager Hal Harvey and Blackrock founder Larry Finck, from whose private equity company Habeck brought his chief economist: Elga Bartsch.
