Keyboard shortcuts are available for common actions and site navigation.
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
OK: But what is clear is that not just the tapes, but the text of the indictment were prepared by FETÖ/PDY militants
OK: As can be expected, the practice of drafting indictments without evidence based on police reports that used newspaper articles is a practice from the time when the FETÖ organization dominated the courts.
OK: The claim in the indictment that Soros’ financing was criminal was based on the idea that it had become a mode of extortion. But this issue doesn’t overcome the absence of evidence; to the contrary, it highlights it.
OK: It would not be possible for such a financial to take place without leaving traces. There are no resources that were transferred through me to the Gezi events.
OK: All of the funds that we received from the Open Society Foundation were used for cultural projects, exhibitions, etc. All of Anadolu Kültür’s accounts have passed audits. The account activities between Open Society and Anadolu AŞ in 2013 are no different from other years.
OK: It is public knowledge as to which projects were allocated the 2.13 million lira received that year. None of them has any ties to Gezi.
OK: Prosecutor’s claim that Soros funded Gezi, which forms basis of the accusations against me, are not rooted in any evidence. The police statement dated 6 March 2018, which describes the MASAK report, asserts that suspects’ names were not found among those in money transfers
OK: What evidence emerged after my arrest to render the MASAK report insignificant? The argument in the indictment does not square with factual circumstances, it is not supported by the evidence.
OK: On 26 June 2013, Germiyanoğlu calls me and tells me about some activities he is thinking of carrying out. He says, We would like to invite you in order to expand the Gezi forums.
OK: After speaking with me, he relates to Aksakoğlu that I said nothing concrete. It is clear that at no point was I making any kind of command.
OK: I understood the thoughts he expressed about broadening and deepening the movement quite naturally as the deepening and popularization of the ideas at the forums.
OK: Despite this, the claims about “the deepening and broadening of the Gezi protests” are written as though they’ve come from my own mouth.
OK: When Özerden called me he discussed buying gas masks for young people. I told him that if a bank account was opened, I would provide support. In the indictment, it is claimed that I opened a couple of bank accounts through Özerden and gathered up money.
OK: It is clear that whoever wrote the denunciation letter was someone who listened to my conversation with Özerden. Because no such account was opened. In the audits of the Open Society Foundation, as well, it is clear that absolutely no funds were used for that purpose.
OK: These are not the only manipulations in the indictment. I likewise had no knowledge of meetings at Garaj Istanbul or Anadolu Cam. On what grounds is it believed that this could have been done through Anadolu Kültür AŞ?
OK: The documentary film production referenced in the indictment did not take place. Even if it had, it would offer no foundation to the indictment. Anadolu Kültür AŞ supports art projects, not agitation; it encourages viewers to look at social issues with a new perspective.
OK: A film project on the Gezi events was not conceived as a vehicle for popularizing Gezi but as a film to be shown at international festivals.
OK: It is impossible to draw a relationship between my support for the establishment of a prospective media organ with what is claimed in the indictment. The goal in this project was to create an environment for journalists who had lost their jobs.
I conducted a few interviews on this project. An interview concerning a collaboration with The Guardian illuminates just what kind of media organ was envisioned.
OK: None of these examples demonstrates that I, or Anadolu Kültür, transferred finances to the Gezi events. This claim relies on a number of newspaper articles that suggest Soros supported Gezi.
OK: This claim was first made by some political actors, and then the press made it need. But there is no objective reality to any of the news stories on this claim.
OK: In order to bolster his argument, the prosecutor makes the baseless claim that Soros was active in Egypt and Tunisia and that he was an important actor in their revolutionary processes.
OK: Not only is there no concrete basis to claim that Soros was active in these places, it also ignores the popular movements in those countries. These revolutions all took place by internal dynamics.
OK: Soros’ name appears [in the SETA report] as one of the external actors regarding the coup against Morsi. But while it examines the popular movements in Tunisia and Egypt, it pays no heed to the fact that there had not previously been free elections in those countries.
OK: Mass protests in countries where the institutions of democracy work and where free elections take place do not cause shifts in power. The Gezi events have been the topic of many national and international academic works.
OK: Gezi events have been characterized as the reaction of a people who thought they did not have the right to speak on topics affecting their daily lives, and who felt the deficit of their representation.
OK: This approach drew attention to the reactions to the projects that restricted public space and commodified city space, as well as the reaction to the neoliberal approaches that emerged at the same time.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
