“Since you have these plays, really read them! “Launched Nicolas Sarkozy during his trial. To establish his “transparency”, the ex-president called on the court of appeal to refer to the very basis of the accusation: the listening of his conversations with his lawyer Thierry Herzog. The former President of the Republic is retried in Paris for corruption and influence peddling, alongside Me Herzog and the former Advocate General at the Court of Cassation Gilbert Azibert. Captured in early 2014 on the unofficial “Paul Bismuth” line, these exchanges nevertheless accredit, according to the prosecution, the existence of a corruption pact under the terms of which the former head of state would have promised an intervention in favor of Gilbert. Azibert, in return for information on a case then examined by the Court of Cassation.
Throughout the proceedings, the defense has also, in vain, tried to have these wiretaps canceled and again filed appeals to this effect on Monday, the first day of the hearings, on the grounds that they would violate the confidentiality of the communication between a lawyer and his client. The former president himself often denounced the “infamy” of having been listened to – “for seven months”, he underlines – and said he was “stunned” on Tuesday after they were broadcast in the auditorium. audience. But he found some virtues in them on Wednesday afternoon. “The eavesdropping, there are incriminating but also exculpatory elements”, he thus declared at the bar, referring specifically to some of the charges of influence peddling which weigh on him and his two co-defendants.
At the time of the wiretapping, Nicolas Sarkozy appealed to the Court of Cassation to invalidate the seizure of his presidential diaries and he is suspected of having, via Me Herzog and Gilbert Azibert, learned of a document linked to this appeal and covered by secrecy: the opinion of the rapporteur. Gilbert Azibert “has had access to the opinion which will never be published by the rapporteur intended for his colleagues” and “this opinion concludes (…) to the withdrawal of all the mentions relating to your diaries”, thus affirms Me Herzog to the former President on January 30.
“My answers show that I don’t understand anything about it”
At the helm, Nicolas Sarkozy placed on his desk the transcription of the tapping which proves, according to him, that he was unaware of the secret nature of this opinion and that he therefore did not commit any offence. “My answers show that I don’t understand anything about it”, assures the former president who then reads it: “Why? Hmm ? Has this been published? According to his explanations, the former Head of State then mixes three documents with fairly similar wordings: the Advocate General’s “opinion”, the rapporteur’s “report” and the rapporteur’s “opinion”. Only the latter is confidential. Once again, the former president wants us to stick to the transcripts. “At all times (in the listening), we see that I do not make the difference between the report, the opinion and the opinion of the rapporteur”, he maintains, confessing his “incompetence” on the procedure, very particular , to the Court of Cassation. The president of the court is a little surprised: “It’s complicated but it’s still not quantum mechanics”.
Very combative, the former head of state insists: his good faith is attested by the very nature of the interceptions. “I am not asking (Me Herzog) any question (about the opinion) when I am on a line where I do not think I will be listened to”. And to conclude: “These plays show my perfect transparency”. He is not the only defendant to have used this paradox on Wednesday, during debates which were often lost in the meanders of the Court of Cassation. Gilbert Azibert, 75, thus delivered a strange confession. “My regret is not having been tapped” earlier, he said. Conversations he had with Mr. Herzog a few weeks before the “connection” of his line would have made it possible, according to him, to establish that he never crossed the “yellow” line. End of the debates scheduled for December 16.