Head underwater… How many, in Nicolas Sarkozy's situation, would give up, bend their backs and give up the game? Overwhelmed by a downpour, nay, an avalanche of indictments, procedures, prosecutions and, now, convictions, whatever one thinks of the former President of the Republic, we must recognize that he has lost none of his pugnacity and refuses to give in to adversity.
Three years of ineligibility, three years in prison, one of which is closed, this sentence being modified with the wearing of an electronic bracelet and traveling under surveillance prohibited without authorization from a judge. for thislike a rapist, a mobster, a thug… The senior magistrates of the Court of Cassation did not take it lightly, who definitively confirmed the conviction pronounced in first instance, with provisional execution, despite the The appeal lodged by the man named Sarkozy Nicolas, before the European Court of Human Rights, an appeal which will not prevent the provisional execution of the sentence.
Illicit eavesdropping
What was the former head of state accused of on this issue? To have considered, together with his lawyer, Mr. Thierry Herzog, to recover his personal diaries which had been confiscated from him, as from a child, in the context of the Bettencourt affair, and, for this, to have imagined ask for help from a member of the Court of Cassation, Judge Azibert, who would be recommended in gratitude for a position, of the sinecure type, in the principality of Monaco. How did we know? By placing the man named Sarkozy (Nicolas) and the man named Herzog (Thierry) under surveillance, a procedure since then condemned (also) by the ECHR because it constituted an attack on private life, an intrusion into the dialogue between an individual and his advice and the negation of professional secrecy which makes a lawyer's office a sort of secular confessional…
Small detail, by the way. The offense which resulted in the conviction of the former chief magistrate of France and a criminal lawyer at the height of his career has not seen any provisional or other execution, nor even the start of execution. Neither Mr. Azibert nor Prince Albert were contacted, nor the confiscated notebooks returned, nor any proof of any agreement between the three protagonists in this affair of the century has been brought to light. But the Court of Cassation, in its great wisdom, retained the offense of intentionality (sic) and ruled accordingly.
The peas are revolting on the shelf
Has Nicolas Sarkozy ever repented of having described, nineteen years ago, the eminent magistrates of the highest French court as “ peas on a shelf », odorless and tasteless? Not that we know of. On the other hand, he had every reason to regret it, and it is undoubtedly not over. The peas in red dresses have long memories and stubborn grudges. Everything indicates that they wanted to make the person whom the law finally put at their mercy pay for his past insolence. Beyond this dispute and this personal revenge, we cannot rule out the hypothesis of the adhesion of the supreme judges of our country to the culture, or if we prefer to the SM ideology, which has diffused and dominates today in a large part of the judicial hierarchy. SM, in this case, does not mean “sadomasochistic” – one could be mistaken – but only and precisely “Judicial Union”. The followers of this organization profess to prefer the delinquent to the policeman, the immigrant to the white male and the weak to the powerful. They prove, when they have the opportunity, that it is not only their dress that is red, and they prove it by attacking the powerful, but preferably when they are on the ground, powerful of the watches rather than the powerful of the day, who lose nothing by waiting.
Nicolas Sarkozy, to call him by his name, loses nothing by waiting. Today he is a lonely man and the treatment that has just been inflicted on him bodes ill for the fate that will be reserved for him in a case of another dimension and another significance than the miserable case which has just earned him a conviction. whose wording and consequences were clearly designed and concocted even more (there will be “adjustments”) to humiliate him than to punish him.
Quid benefit of the doubt?
It is from next January 6, and for a period of two months, that the case of financing, by Libya of the despot Gaddafi, of Nicolas Sarkozy's electoral campaign in 2007 will be examined and decided after a ten-year investigation. by a criminal court. The sentence incurred by the main accused can be up to ten years in prison…
Let's put it very simply. The adventurous character of the man who was then elected President of the Republic, the extraordinary consideration to which the Libyan despot was entitled when he, accompanied by his harem and surrounded by his bodyguards, dishonored our country with his presence, and, at conversely, the incomprehensible military intervention which definitively shut his mouth gives a certain plausibility to the accusation. Moreover, the showy and clumsy attempts to get the honest Mr. Takieddine, a man whose word is silver and whose silence is worth gold, to review and deny his previous testimonies, attempts which make the subject of another investigation, do not plead in favor of the main accused…
It would be no less scandalous and even perfectly intolerable if this trial, so long awaited and so long delayed, did not obey a fundamental principle of our law, and that the magistrates who will be responsible for judging it did not respect not this principle, as happens when, leaving common law, justice ventures into the tricky terrain of politics. It is not up to the accused to prove his innocence. It is up to the prosecution to demonstrate his guilt and, barring a major twist, it has not succeeded in doing so in this case. Given the benefit of the doubt, Nicolas Sarkozy is therefore, like any defendant, and until proven otherwise, presumed innocent, regardless of some who have long memories and stubborn grudges. Peas, beware of danger!
Print, save as PDF this article
Related News :