GeenStijl posted the recording of a conversation between Peter R. de Vries, Royce de Vries and Khalid Kasem online on Wednesday. She obtained the tape through the same party that supplied the recordings to AD. GeenStijl believes that there is uncertainty about the interpretation of the tape.
Confusion
GeenStijl states that it posted the recording because there was a lot of confusion in the public debate about what exactly Kasem has been accused of. She thinks it is important to make the recording heard in order to appreciate Kasem’s statement, she says.
This, for example, in response to Royce de Vries’ response that the accusation of bribery against Kasem was ‘a piece of cake’.
Excite
‘From the first publication of the AD, we at GeenStijl have also paid a lot of attention to the recordings,’ the website writes. ‘Not only because of the content of the revelations, but especially because we as a medium get excited when it comes to the media, especially when the media are not allowed to publish about something.’
Get carried away
GeenStijl believes that the recording is also being misinterpreted: ‘In an initial response to the AD, Royce de Vries stated that his father confronted Kasem with the story that he had bribed an official. However, that is not what the recordings of the conversation show. They give the impression that Kasem is confronted with the fact that he has defrauded a customer, and himself claims to his office colleagues that he has actually bribed a civil servant. “I also perhaps get carried away too quickly in a client’s position and I really want to do well.”
GeenStijl did cut the recording, where the name of the client of De Vries’ office is mentioned.
The Dean of the Amsterdam Bar Association only concluded in an investigation that Kasem had not committed any disciplinary actions. He only got a warning. There has now been a lot of criticism of that conclusion.
