19.08.2022, Hamburg: Bundeskanzler Olaf Scholz (SPD) sitzt auf seinem Platz auf der Senatsbank mit einem Plastikschild mit dem Text ·Olaf Scholz Zeuge· vor Beginn einer Sitzung des Parlamentarischen Untersuchungsausschusses ·Cum-Ex· im Plenarsaal der Hamburgischen Bürgerschaft im Rathaus. Scholz sagt erneut vor dem Ausschuss aus. Foto: Christian Charisius/dpa +++ dpa-Bildfunk +++

At some point you notice the helplessness of the representatives in the Hamburg Cum-Ex investigation committee. They need long pauses to think before their questions to Chancellor Olaf Scholz. Usually they are no longer precise sentences, they repeat themselves. And if there is a punch line, it bounces off Scholz’s wall of forgetfulness.

After three hours, the chairman of the CDU wanted to know from Scholz whether he was willing to have his “partial amnesia” treated with hypnosis. This leads to amusement in the hall. “Thank you for caricaturing my survey yourself,” says Scholz, and he’s not wrong.

Parliamentary committees of inquiry are not legal procedures. Despite their willingness to clarify, those involved are always involved in politics. The cognitive value of this democratic institution varies. Actually, it should be clarified in Hamburg whether there was political influence on the decision of the tax authorities to waive the Warburg-Bank tax refunds in the double-digit million range.

Scholz, as the then first mayor, who met the bank’s shareholders several times, is just as much in focus as his successor in the town hall – the then finance senator Peter Tschentscher (SPD). He forwarded a letter of argument from the bank to his administration before they waived the Warburg tax refund.

There are entries in the banker’s diary, there is talk of the destruction of files, and more than 200,000 euros were found in a safe deposit box belonging to an influential Hamburg social democrat. There is news from the tax authority that speaks of a “diabolical plan” and party donations to the SPD.

But despite all the inconsistencies, despite all the clues, it quickly became clear during the second questioning of Scholz at his old place of work: This committee of inquiry cannot be dangerous for the Federal Chancellor.

There are structural reasons for this: Important documents are not accessible to the committee. The “Stern” recently reported from a confidential protocol from the Finance Committee of the Bundestag from 2020. In it, Scholz apparently also spoke about the content of a meeting with the Warburg shareholder Christian Olearius – although he does not actually remember it publicly. But the confidential document of the Bundestag could not be obtained, said the committee chairman, Mathias Petersen.

A second problem is evident in his person: the balance of power in Hamburg’s parliament is also reflected in the committee. Red-Green has a two-thirds majority, Petersen as chairman is like Scholz a social democrat. He casually read the opening questions prepared by the committee’s full-time staff. In the past there was criticism that he would only paraphrase the questions, some even omit them.

On Friday, Petersen directly offered other witnesses to refer to the protocol of their first questioning. He seemed listless. “I don’t feel like it anymore,” he said openly before the Scholz hearing when he went to the press gallery. He was annoyed that the opposition had called further witnesses, including government spokesman Steffen Hebestreit and Chancellor Wolfgang Schmidt (SPD).

SPD chairman Milan Pein also seems more interested in defending his chancellor than in finding the truth. Again and again he threw himself in front of his party friend with verve and settled accounts with the contributions of the left and the CDU. The chairman of the Greens also attracted attention with rather jovial questions, and his colleague publicly admitted how excited she was.

The Greens are in a difficult position in committee. If they are too critical, it damages their own coalition under Tschentscher. In the end, two green selfies were made with Scholz.

But even the few representatives of the CDU and the left can hardly set tricks. You can’t really blame the deputies. Unlike prosecutors, they have not learned strategic questioning methodology. In addition, the Hamburg Parliament is an after-work parliament.

The Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry comes on top for the MPs. Thousands of pages of files, media reports and protocols are to be read in preparation – not really feasible as a part-time job.

And so Scholz had an easy time on Friday. Whenever things got tricky, the chancellor took refuge in his amnesia. A clever strategy of the trained lawyer. Legally, he cannot be attacked with his memory gaps. He could survive the affair like this, but the forgetful chancellor puts his credibility at risk.