The Moscow City Court is not going to fire the conversational assistant to Judge Danilkin

An unexpected and sensational interview with the assistant to the chairman of the Khamovnichesky Court, who "shot" revelations about the background of the sentence to Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Plato Lebedev, continues to collect comments. Both officials and independent experts are shared by their considerations. Many of the latter agree that this scandal in Russia has become unprecedented - a person working inside the judicial system has never been given so sharp assessments.

Recall that the assistant to Viktor Danilkin, the press attache of the Khamovnichesky court Natalya Vasilieva in an interview with the Gazeta.Ru reporters in the studio of the Rain. Optimistic Channel said: the sentence in the second case of Yukos was written in the Moscow City Court and the chairman of the Hamovniki court. According to Vasiliev, from the very beginning of the process, control by higher bodies was constant and comprehensive.

Vasilieva herself says that she filed an application for resignation from her post. And when an interview appeared, the media unequivocally decided that the authorities would immediately dismiss her after such a performance. However, the press secretary of the Moscow City Court Anna Usacheva told Interfax that the Moscow City Court "does not have and there can be no intentions to fire Natalia Vasilieva."

At the same time, Usacheva added that "the question of bringing Vasilyeva to justice is the competence of law enforcement agencies."

- What was it? Commentators about Vasilyeva motives
- The Supreme Court will not comment on anything

Usacheva also said that Vasilieva was on vacation from February 7 to March 17, and on the eve of the interview repeatedly expressed intention to resign from the court.

At the same time, Anna Usacheva revealed some biographical data on Natalia Vasilieva: in 2009 she graduated from the non -state educational institution "International Law Institute", after which she got a job as secretary of the court session in the Khamovnichesky court. Commenting on Vasilieva’s statements that she wanted to become a judge, Usacheva emphasized that the assistant to the chairman of the Hamovnic Court could claim this position no earlier than 2014 - according to the law, the judge’s position can be occupied only if there was compulsory experience in legal specialty for five years.

Prior to work in Vasiliev’s court, she was a cook, including working in a restaurant at the Kursk station, then worked in various positions in commercial structures.

Earlier, Anna Usacheva said that the chairman of the Khamovnichesky court Viktor Danilkin has the right to apply to law enforcement agencies demanding that his assistant verify the applications made. Danilkin himself, we recall, for the first time in the whole process, he commented on Russian agencies and called the words Vasilyeva slander.

The press secretary of the Moscow City Court recalled that the punishment under Part 3 of Article 129 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (slander, connected with the accusations of a person of a grave or especially serious crime) provides for punishment from a fine to imprisonment for up to three years.

Full video interview with Natalia Vasilyeva

What was it? Commentators about Vasilyeva motives

The online publication "Free Press" collects different opinions regarding Vasilyeva's performance. Among them are unexpected. For example, political scientist Stanislav Belkovsky believes that the initiator of the scandal, despite the follow -up, may be Viktor Danilkin himself.

“The girl herself had nothing to do with the sentence of Khodorkovsky and Lebedev, so she just repent of something, as well as to engage in provocations - although it is clear that any radical statement is essentially a provocation,” Belkovsky argues. He believes that the chairman of the Khamovnichesky court, Viktor Danilkin, who thus tries to save his reputation and make it clear that if he sentenced Khodorkovsky and Lebedev to 13.5 years in prison, then under great pressure, has something to do with this performance.

According to Belkovsky, Danilkin since the summer of 2009 was seriously worried about the fact that he would have to pass a conviction, for which there is no sufficient legal basis. The judge allegedly hoped that at the level of the Kremlin or the Supreme Court this issue would be resolved and it would be eliminated from such a need.

However, says Stanislav Belkovsky, "under the pressure of the Moscow City Court and directly his chairman Olga Egorova Danilkin, he signed a sentence prepared outside the Khamovnichesky court and announced it in the Khamovnichesky court." Belkovsky saw in the text a lot of inconsistencies , blots, in particular, pieces of accusatory conclusion , which the prosecutors themselves abandoned the verdict. “It was evident that the real compilers of the sentence sculpted his hastily and did not make sure that these fragments of the sentence correspond to the current realities,” the political scientist concluded.

“In fact, Mrs. Vasilieva last time fulfills the function of the press secretary of her boss - absolutely consistently and honestly,” Blokovsky summed up. He believes that such a scandal cannot but have consequences - in any case, in the long run. It is one thing when interested people say about the pressure - lawyers or public figures who have an opinion, but do not have evidence. Another thing is that this says the employee of the court, and says quite evidence, thus, the legitimacy of information is greatly increased, both for Russian society and at the international level.

However, the version of Belkovsky is not supported by another political scientist, director of the International Institute of Political Expertise, Yevgeny Mingchenko. He sees other reasons: from a sincere statement to the information campaign of "radical Medvedevites".

Mintchenko draws attention to the fact that in an interview did not sound significant evidence. In offhand the base of argumentation is quite weak. Therefore, the political scientist sees several potential options that can be superimposed on another.

Firstly, Vasilyeva could really have an emotional surge. However, Mintchenko argues, it is difficult to imagine a person who has worked in court for a long time and does not know that justice is not always at the height of the situation.

Secondly, it can be a struggle within the judicial corporation. Probably, the attack is aimed at the chairman of the Moscow City Court Egorov. Practice shows that inside the judicial corporation it is not customary to pour information into the press, everything is decided by the backstage.

The third version is the struggle of power groups of influence. Radical "Medvedevites" against the "radical Putin". As Mintchenko explains, the story of Khodorkovsky in Medvedev does not hit in any way. At the moment when this case began, he was not involved in it, he could not influence the course of the trial. At the same time, he agreed: "This is not Medvedev initiating, but someone from the radical part of his supporters - those people who have invested in this person and understand that either pan or disappeared." They could influence the emergence of this publication.

The political scientist also recalls that the interview appeared almost simultaneously with another information campaign - about Putin's Palace in Gelendzhik. The New Gazeta wrote that the administration of the president Vladimir Kozhin told a lie and there is his signature on the documents. The political scientist sees in this a large -scale campaign directed against the prime minister.