THE REQUIREMENT TO FULFIL THE PROGRAMME On December 11, Monday morning, the President’s notebook was marked numerously with new notes – almost forty works waiting within several immediate days. “Not a single minute free,” said the President as if justifying him‐ self for a too long list. It was necessary somehow to defend himself against the uninterrupted shower of blows – by statements, denials, press releases and conferences, disputes of lawyers, assessments of in‐ dependent experts, interviews, speeches over the radio and television. As a matter of fact all that was born in advisors’ offices usually was left unnoticed by the television and the press. This not resulting but labour‐consuming work, however, was not the only one. Even under such conditions of an awful siege, the Presi‐ dent demanded to fulfil the programme, with which he as elected by the people entered this palace. The opponents, certainly, interpreted frequent visits of the heads of law enforcement and special structures to the President as it seemed more convenient for them – Rolandas Paksas makes pressure, hinders to investigate the scandal, etc. It is difficult to contest the pre‐ conceived opinion, as it would be the futile wagging of tongue. Actually, during those meetings it was clarified why pre‐trial in‐ vestigations concerning the criminal activity of land exploitation or‐ ganizers, state border service and other institutions’ officers were so slowly moving ahead. And the explosion of the bridge across the Bražuolė river? “Holding” speculations? The killing of the security of‐ ficer Juras Abramavičius who knew too much? The President also did not refuse the duty of addressing the par‐ ticipants in opening the traditional popular exhibitions, to participate in the jubilee festivities of departments and organizations. On Monday, after the morning meeting and reception of Deputy Director of the Special Investigation Service Žimantas Pacevičius, at 11 o’clock the President in the Congress Palace congratulated the advo‐ cates on the occasion of the 85th anniversary of the Lithuanian Bar, and in a couple of hours at the Town Hall he already spoke in the festivi‐ ties dedicated to the 15th anniversary of the Lithuanian National 151 Olympic Committee. The sports community met Rolandas Paksas, by the way, a well‐known sportsman in the past, with warm applause. When escorted to the stage where he was seated between Artūras Povilionis, the eternal leader of the Olympians, and the Chairman of the Seimas Artūras Paulauskas, the President looked smiling to the conspicuous sportsmen sitting in the hall and you could only guess whether the President and the Chairman of the Seimas, who at‐ tempted to overthrow the President from his post, sitting close to each other, seemed to be a strange company to the people professing the Olympic spirit. Later, when we were on the way to Tauragė I thought what self‐ control and something incomparably more significant he needed that so simply and naturally would adapt to the environment of the people not drifted by the political draughts, as if no rumpling reality that now persecuted him at every step existed. On Wednesday, the storm of criticism was raised by a misunder‐ standing which seemed to be of no worth since the journalists of ma‐ jor newspapers and television, which traditionally were used to talk with the President at press conferences each week, were not invited to a meeting with the regional mass medium. We thought just that way, the more so that the guests rarely gathering from the entire Lithuania had to be treated traditionally at least modestly. Who could think that mass medium experts will start speaking about discrimination, will remind the Constitution once again and “the human right enforced to receive without hindrance…” Racket made was due to the hint of the President that political opponents needed his resignation so much that they started propos‐ ing to compensate for it by big money. For this even head of the Gov‐ ernment Algirdas Brazauskas had to make explanations at the Seimas. Andrius Kubilius, who did not lack originality, asked the Prime Minister, whether it was not him who offered money to the President. The Vice Chairman of the Seimas Gintaras Steponavičius also did not miss his chance by stating that the President had to prove it, otherwise all these things would turn into arguments against him. It was on the same day that arguments appeared also against Gintaras Steponavičius who was fixed on the eve by the journalists in the café “Fortas” in Vilnius together with Egidijus Kūris, Chairman of 152 the Constitutional Court. One of the most active actors of the Presi‐ dent’s impeachment Gintaras Steponavičius, according to the press, confessed that he talked with the head of the Constitutional Court about the impeachment proceedings against the President. At that period, you could frequently see on the screen Toma Bir‐ montienė, the head of the Human Rights Centre, always smiling. At the beginning of the scandal the professor supported the President but soon somehow she quickly changed her position to the totally oppo‐ site one. Ona Buišienė, the head of the Law Department, who knew well the Lawyers’ Guild, then let to understand that the professor ori‐ ented in due time having some calculations. Having no other chance for interference, on December 10, I phoned Professor Toma Birmontienė and, as it is the habit, congratu‐ lated her with the professional holiday, the International Day of Pro‐ tection of Human Rights. We also discussed the matters related to the President, I was eager to know why the professor who at first sup‐ ported Rolandas Paksas suddenly changed her mind and became the active advocate of politicians who sought to overthrow the President from his post. The professor explained that presently such a situation was formed that the actual fault of the President was of no impor‐ tance, he had no other way out but to leave his post. It was upsetting to hear such an approach of the professor, but recovering my wits, a more sensible thought crossed my mind: was it necessary to be so amazed? Do we have few examples when depend‐ ing on the situation or circumstances convictions, views and positions got changed? Even Vytautas Landsbergis when applying for member‐ ship in the Komsomol in his autobiography wrote: “When the Red Army liberated Lithuania and my mother and I …” I have no right also to condemn Tamara Birmontienė, who de‐ fended her dissertation for a Candidate’s degree at the Moscow Lenin Order, October Revolution Order, the Red Banner of Labour Order State M. Lomonosov University on the theme “Creation of Soviet Mili‐ tia in Lithuania.” The dissertation, as it seems, was left to rot in Moscow, but from the synopsis kept in the National M. Mažvydas Library it is seen with what zeal the head of the Human Rights Centre glorified the forces executing genocide – the most brutal disgrace of human rights – in 153 Lithuania. The bourgeois nationalists, the armed gangs, the nationalist underground – such phrases were commonly used in the dissertation, which Tamara Birmontienė defended in Moscow in 1989, when in Vilnius, above the Gediminas Castle the three‐coloured flag of Lithuania was fluttering already for quite a long time. SPECIFICITIES OF NATIONAL SECURITY Dalia Kutraitė, after resigning from the post of advisor, went to the Canary Islands to enjoy the advantages of resort life, but after coming back she at once received an invitation to come to the security office. I was surprised since both of us were invited on the same day and at the same hour. An amateurish thought came to my mind about the confrontation, but there was nothing of the kind. We were interrogated in different rooms and at the same time, most probably, that we could not share information, in other words, to make arrangements what to speak. In fact, we did not need ar‐ rangements much, as we had nothing to conceal from the national se‐ curity. In truth, for the security people, who, evidently, had a task to prove that the secret reference was handed over to the “Respublika” daily from the Presidential palace, one curious thing that happened on October 31 was very handy. On that evening we had to go to televisions, therefore when pre‐ paring for telecasts we thought it would be quite good to know what was in actual fact written in the reference of Mečys Laurinkus, the findings thereof were used by television journalists in their telecasts. On the other hand, Artūras Paulauskas, who allowed the Presi‐ dent to make a copy of the reference, declassified this document, as it seemed to us, himself. In addition, we knew that Artūras Paulauskas familiarized with the reference some members of the Seimas who had no right to work with secret documents. When I dropped in the President’s office, Dalia Kutraitė was reading the certificate, scrutinizing it closely at a small table. I in‐ tended to read it over her shoulder, but decided it would be better to make a separate copy, the more so that Dalia was reading the third page. 154 The President, as I have mentioned, started smoking again in those days and sometimes left the room. I did not wait specially for that moment, but it so coincided that when I took the reference from Dalia and went out to the reception room to make a copy, the Presi‐ dent was absent. Having switched on a copying machine at the reception room lobby I just managed to make a copy of the first page, when I heard behind my back the voice of Daiva Kulbokaitė, the President’s assis‐ tant: “What are you doing here?” No answer was needed, since Daiva, being always on the watch, immediately saw some criminal action.