Nikita Krichevsky notes

Gennady Gudkov's place in the Duma will be taken by businessman Alexander Tarnavsky. On Wednesday, the Central Election Commission granted him parliamentary powers. There was another contender for the vacant mandate - Nikita Krichevsky. He was next on the electoral list after Gudkov. Professor, Chairman of the Expert Council of Opora Russia Nikita Krichevsky answered questions from Kommersant FM host Andrei Norkin.

Later, Krichevsky accused the party of immorality and transferring the deputy seat to the banker Tarnavsky due to financial considerations. In response, the Socialist Revolutionary Alexander Ageev threatened him with a lawsuit for the protection of honor and dignity.

— Will you somehow defend your point of view now, especially since they are also going to sue you for libel?

— A two-part question. The first part, regarding the CEC decision, is the law. The Central Election Commission acted in full accordance with the law on elections of deputies, and I, as a law-abiding citizen, naturally submit to this decision. As for Mr. Ageev’s statements, the first thing I want to say is that there is no need to scare anyone, we are scared. Second, if Mr. Ageev is a real man, then I believe he will answer for his words and sue me. And third, the mimicry in his statements is amazing. On Wednesday in Izvestia he said that they would seek the maximum punishment, and there is a criminal term provided for.

For Mr. Ageev, I must explain that no criminal sentence is provided for under this article. One more point: if Mr. Ageev now shifts all responsibility to the decision of the presidium, as he later stated, let the presidium make the decision, let them sue me, we are ready for this. Let A Just Russia prepare the appropriate financial documents to confirm its financial solvency. This will be fun.

— Do you have any understanding of why the Socialist-Revolutionaries jumped over you, and the mandate went to another person?

— In all my statements, I spoke about my own assumptions, but not about allegations, and especially not about accusations. This must be taken into account first of all.

— “A Just Russia” explains its decision by saying that “Alexander Tarnavsky stood at the origins of the party,” which is why he was chosen. Can this be considered a significant argument?

— At the origins of the party there were two people - Messrs. Levichev and Mironov.

- Apparently, Mr. Tarnavsky was somewhere nearby, since they did?

“I don’t know what he was doing there, bringing shells or going to the stall.” I was not there, I was not present. As for my participation in the election campaign, I must say that almost half of the members of the A Just Russia faction passed through my television and radio broadcasts in various programs. By the way, I still maintain relations with many of them, and they just took a neutral position in this conflict. I still believed that they treated me meanly. I considered it my duty to respond to the meanness towards me. If this happened again, I would do absolutely the same thing, because I’m not going to wipe myself off and move on through life being spat upon.

“I’m not going to wipe myself off and move on through life being spat upon.”