AKP MP Tuğrul Türkeş speaks out on Osman Kavala: 'Crypto remnants within the AK Party'

AKP Ankara MP Tuğrul Türkeş, who posed 7 questions to his party regarding Osman Kavala and the Gezi detainees, asked, "Why do you oppose this case being heard within our legal system free from external influences, or the legal process being conducted with objective evidence?"

"As far as I know, the AKP is full of politicians who want justice to be served. Those trying to throw punches from the shadows are either crypto remnants or paid employees," said Türkeş, who made the following statements in a post on his social media account:

"For some time now, in the stories written—and even commissioned—about Gezi Park and its defendant number 1, which have also mentioned my name, it is claimed that this issue is dividing the AK Party. While I am pointed to as one side of the event, the other side is spoken of through statements by certain individuals whose identities are unclear.

As far as I know, the AKP is full of politicians who want justice to be served. Those trying to throw punches from the shadows are either crypto remnants or paid employees.

Their opinions are not to be counted or trusted.

What will you say if these types with shadowy pasts say tomorrow that they have returned to our old ideas, or that they have found a consultancy job with better conditions? We, on the other hand, are people of the cause who have defended the same views for a lifetime, who have stood by our cause in every situation, everywhere, and under all conditions, and who can debate in the light of day. If you don't believe it, come out from the institutions and communities whose shadows you are hiding in.

It will be understood more clearly what you are opposing.

Why do you oppose this case being heard within our legal system free from external influences, or the legal process being conducted with objective evidence?

Is your objection valid only for this case? Or are there other types of objections you have that we are unaware of?

With what ideological motive or security justification are you opposing the issue?

Are you objecting to the defense? Are you objecting to who is conducting the defense?

Since we are unaware of any opposing view you hold, were you satisfied with the defense until now?

If the legal logic in the petitions also appealed to you, would you contribute to the removal of this case, which stands like a stone in front of Turkey, in the eyes of those concerned?

If a journalist from your hometown brings the issue to the public's attention (by coincidence), will you evaluate what they have written without objection?"