There are no more questions.
The Tisza IT specialist admitted that he had been recruited by the Ukrainians.
His testimony is public; anyone can listen to it. The Hungarian counterintelligence services did what they were supposed to do. We will protect Hungary’s peace and security.
In my opinion, what should the Hungarian authorities do when they learn that a foreign country is trying to recruit someone, to use a Hungarian citizen to gain access to materials that are important to our national security? Well, I think they should act. And something like that happened, because a one-hour audio recording was released of the hearing of the former Tisza IT specialist, where a сотрудник of the Constitution Protection Office conducted the interrogation. He himself talks about how he was drawn in and was likely being prepared for such an operation, for an attack against another IT system.
The situation is that, in light of this, the Hungarian authorities and counterintelligence acted completely correctly when they tried to uncover this case, because a country cannot allow a foreign state to attempt to interfere and launch an attack against its IT networks and to obtain sensitive information.
Szabó Bence could not have known this in recent days when he was making statements, as he could not have been in possession of this information, since it has only just been made public.
So I hope that this will now be enough for Tisza to finally stop the false and slanderous campaign they have been conducting in recent days.
👉 Claimed narrative:
- “The IT specialist admitted → Ukrainian recruitment”
- “The espionage case is proven”
- “The state acted correctly”
- “The opposition is lying”
👉 Actual structure (based on the transcripts):
- conditional, uncertain statements
- recollections, “feelings,” “suspicions”
- no concrete operation, no specific task
- strongly leading / suggestive interrogation
👉 🔥 Core point:
➡️ an uncertain story → rewritten as a certain, closed espionage case
🔍 Manipulation techniques (broken down)
1️⃣ “He admitted” = false certainty
👉 Excerpt:
“he admitted that he was recruited by the Ukrainians”
👉 Reality:
- “he felt like”
- “it could be”
- “recruitment-like”
👉 Technique:
➡️ conditional → presented as fact
👉 Goal:
➡️ to shut down debate (“no more questions”)
👉 Effect:
➡️ the reader believes: this is already proven
2️⃣ “No more questions” = forceful closure of debate
👉 Technique:
➡️ authoritarian statement, not an argument
👉 Goal:
➡️ prevent doubt or analysis
👉 Effect:
➡️ psychological pressure: “if you question it, you’re stupid or malicious”
3️⃣ Security panic framing (fear framing)
👉 Excerpt:
“attack against IT systems”
“national security-sensitive materials”
👉 Technique:
➡️ building a maximum threat scenario
👉 Reality:
- no concrete attack
- no specific target
👉 Goal:
➡️ trigger fear → disable rational thinking
4️⃣ Hypothetical scenario = presented as real event
👉 Excerpt:
“what happens if a country tries to recruit someone…”
👉 Technique:
➡️ general theoretical scenario → applied to a specific case
👉 Goal:
➡️ logical trap:
- if this happened → action is needed
- therefore it must have happened
👉 This is classic:
➡️ false causality
5️⃣ Authority = automatically correct (authority framing)
👉 Excerpt:
“counterintelligence did its job”
👉 Technique:
➡️ institution = truth
👉 Goal:
➡️ exclude critical examination
👉 Effect:
➡️ “if the state did it → it must be true”
6️⃣ “Public recording” = false credibility
👉 Excerpt:
“anyone can listen to it”
👉 Technique:
➡️ accessibility = proof
👉 Reality:
- a recording ≠ proven fact
- especially if questions are leading
👉 Goal:
➡️ increase perceived credibility
7️⃣ Discrediting the opposition (character attack)
👉 Excerpt:
“a lying smear campaign”
👉 Technique:
➡️ attacks the actor instead of the claim
👉 Goal:
➡️ avoid addressing the substance
8️⃣ Exploiting information asymmetry
👉 Excerpt:
“Bence Szabó could not have known this”
👉 Technique:
➡️ alternative view = ignorance
👉 Goal:
➡️ eliminate competing interpretations
🔥 Overall picture
👉 What is happening:
uncertain testimony
→ emotional and security framing
→ simplification
→ fully formed espionage narrative
🧩 In short (very concise)
👉 This text:
- does not prove anything
- it imposes an interpretation
- and presents it as fact
⚠️ Key difference
👉 What the propaganda says:
“he admitted → case closed”
👉 What the transcript shows:
“uncertain, suggestive, conditional story”