Yılmaz Özdil explains the message behind Bahçeli's 'İmamoğlu case' warning: It will blow up in our faces
While MHP Chairman Devlet Bahçeli's remarks regarding Ekrem İmamoğlu's case continue to be debated on the political agenda, Yılmaz Özdil has offered a striking assessment of Bahçeli's statement.
12punto
In a written statement published in the Türkgün newspaper, the MHP Chairman emphasized that İmamoğlu was being tried over "corruption allegations surrounding the Istanbul municipality," and demanded that he be either convicted with definitive evidence or acquitted as soon as possible.
Following Bahçeli's remarks, the political agenda began to debate these words. Yılmaz Özdil also provided an interpretation of what the MHP Chairman meant by these statements.
Evaluating these words on the Kırmızı Beyaz program hosted by İpek Özbey on SÖZCÜ TV, Yılmaz Özdil used the following expressions:
"You have to look at the pro-government media in such situations. If this statement had been against İmamoğlu, it would have been a headline in the pro-government media. However, this news is not in the pro-government media.
One outlet published it, and they did so using the headline from the MHP's publication, Türkgün.
It is clear that they could not grasp what Bahçeli meant, so they opened up and asked Türkgün. The others did not even see it."
"BAHÇELİ IS SAYING 'THIS WILL BLOW UP IN OUR FACES'"
"Therefore, Bahçeli's statement actually means: 'This file is empty, my brother; make it complete, otherwise this business will blow up in our faces.'
He is saying they are losing votes. According to the AKP, the MHP is losing more votes. We see that the Zafer Party is gaining votes.
"Bahçeli is actually saying this. Bahçeli is not actually a man concerned with democracy. After all, he is a man who says 'close the Constitutional Court,' or when he talks about İmamoğlu, he does not mention Ümit Özdağ.
Even if you want freedom for Öcalan, he does not mention Demirtaş's name. There is nothing in Bahçeli's statements in general that can be described by democracy or law.
He has a perception of the state in his mind, and he speaks within the framework of that perception.
He thinks he is protecting the state by standing next to the Palace.
It is interesting that the pro-government media did not see this statement. You cannot say there is a problem, but it means they have not sat down and convinced each other."