On the third day of his appeal trial, the former President of the Republic has distanced himself from his two co -owners, his friend and lawyer Thierry Herzog, and the former magistrate Gilbert Azibert.
by Pascale Robert-Diard
It has already been a good hour that the three judges of the Paris Court of Appeal, the two representatives of the accusation, and the defense lawyers confront their exegesis of a passage of the listening of the bismuth line, this Occult line thanks to which lawyer Thierry Herzog thought he could discreet himself with his client Nicolas Sarkozy. This Wednesday, December 7, it is a question of the moment when Thierry Herzog announces to Nicolas Sarkozy that their “friend Gilbert [Azibert]” “had access to the opinion which will never be published by the rapporteur” of the criminal chamber of the court of Cassation, which must soon decide on the fate of the agendas of the former President of the Republic, seized within the framework of the Bettencourt affair. “You know that there, it’s work!” Comments the lawyer, proud and happy to bring good news to his client.
This “opinion”, of which Gilbert Azibert would have taken note thanks to his interpersonal skills with his peers of the court, is one of the elements of the “corruption pact” accused of the three defendants. The accusation hooks there, the defense wants to dismiss it, and between the two, the courtyard wonders. So we battle. Is this “opinion” a “opinion”? Is it not rather a “report”, which is not covered by secrecy? We take up each of the sentences of intercepted conversations. Defense claims to find proof that there is only a question of “report”. The accusation opposes them this “the” a little further, which would establish on the contrary that it is indeed the famous “opinion”.
As for Nicolas Sarkozy, whose listening show that he obviously understands nothing about the mysteries of criminal procedure, is he aware of having access to secret information? Would this exclamation point translate its jubilation? This comma, his hesitation? Should we see in this “hum, good”, an indifference, an incomprehension or the satisfied expression of a victory?
“I do not need a tutor”
At the helm, the former president listens in silence to the interpretations proposed by the volley of black dresses around him. Only the jerky movements of his shoulder reflect his impatience. Suddenly, he no longer holds, approaches the microphone.
“My lawyers, I thank them, think that I wanted to say this. Madam and the prosecutor think that I have expressed this. Well. I don’t need a tutor. Let me be allowed To explain myself to me. We see the impossibility, for a jurisdiction, to decide on an offense from telephone conversations. They are only supplements of evidence. Not evidence. There is no element Material. Nothing that can insert me. I try to help the court, because it is my interest. Here, I feel like I was heard, I don’t say, listened. ”
You have 45.97% of this article to read. The continuation is reserved for subscribers.