Nicolas Sarkozy va-t-il vraiment aller en prison ? Me Fadili Explique

Good morning, my friends. Today we have with us a friend of the channel, Maitre Hashem Fadili. Thank you for being with us, Maitre. Good morning, Aldo. Thank you. And today he is here to explain something that we have difficulty understanding, which is the story of Nicolas Sarkozy. I made a video yesterday about Nicolas Sarkozy and his famous conviction that made the rounds in the media. They say that he might go to prison because maybe not, maybe he will end up wearing an ankle bracelet. We know that he wore the bracelet for quite a while. So we are trying to understand. And with us, I think there is no better way than to have a lawyer like Maitre Hashim Fadili who will answer our questions about Nicolas Sarkozy. So here is the question. We haven't really talked about it, okay? We haven't talked about it before. You and I know the subject, but we haven't prepared. You don't know the questions. I haven't asked you them before. We haven't discussed them before. So this is the first time I'm going to find out what you think, what you have to tell us. So the big question is, what's going on? What exactly was Sarkozy convicted of?

Thank you, Aldo. So I'd like to come back to a trigger that is fundamental to this affair.

Foreign.

September 1989. And you remember, Aldo, it was the attack on the DC772DCH UTA. 772UTA, which stands for Union Day Transports. A which was a French airline that was taking off from Brazzaville, the capital of the Republic of Congo, to land in Paris. And there was a bomb on the plane. The plane exploded in mid flight over Niger in a desert, killing 170 people, including 54 French citizens. Act one. You're going to tell me what the connection is with Nicolas Sarkozy. The connection was direct because there was a trial. Of course, there were a lot of complainants. And the number one culprit was a certain Abdullah Sen osi, Muhammad Gaddafi's brother in law and vice president of the intelligence service. So he was at the head of the Libyan state behind Muhammad Gaddafi, a dictator at the head of a regime that people denounced. Act one.

So, Mr. Fatili, do we know the reason, the motive, why he would have blown up this plane? He had some interest in doing so at the time.

Well, I won't go into details, but there are a lot of trials. Trials in France, trials in the United States. It went all the way to the European Court of Human Rights. There was a serious Problem with compensation. There was a transaction with the Muambar Gaddafi Foundation. The motive was not very clear, but the underlying motive, let's say, was a form of blackmail regarding the fact that Libya was in the good books of nations. And this blackmail was supposed to make the west give in to this position? It was supposed. But if you want, we can do a video another time, because this case will obviously come up again. We'll talk about it again, you'll see. When Nicolas Sarkozy appeals. The Paris Court of Appeal will normally rule in six months, because there are detainees. Normally, when there is an appeal of this kind, it takes more than a year to review the case in depth. But since there are already detainees, and in order not to further hinder the freedom of the individual, the appeal hearing will take place in six months. Six months is very quick, so I'll come back to this point. September 1989 ATA DC10UTA attack on 172 2005. You have Bris Ortafa, who has a secret meeting with this Abdallah Sennis.

Okay? And that's where there's something very serious in this affair. We have an eminent collaborator of the Minister of the Interior at the time, Nicolas Sarkozy, who is at the head of a sovereign power, the Interior, and who oversees French internal and external intelligence, and who therefore goes to Libya to discuss a corruption pact.

Foreign.

What is this corruption pact? It's a promise to fund Nicholas Sakosi's campaign, who was a candidate for the 2007 presidential elections to the tune of $50 million. A promise of funding. And there is a document to this effect. Act 2 Time passes Act 3 Medyapar, the famous online newspaper Mediepar, that everyone knows, publishes this document from the Libyan archives. Because between and above, this document is authentic, Master, it is authentic. I'm coming to it. I'm coming to it because it has something very important, because the day before yesterday, Nicolas Sarkozy, when he made his.

Statement after his conviction at the Paris Judicial Court, stated that the President had said that this document was a fake. He insisted on that.

And so I'm going to enlighten the listeners on this element of forgery. So Mediapart publishes this document. It's the deputy of the case. 2012, 13 years later, 2025, this case is judged. So it was not judged lightly. There were more than 10 years of investigation. The National Financial Prosecutor's Office was also involved. There were dozens of investigators, I mean dozens, dozens of judges have examined the matter. There have been adversarial debates and there have been more than three months of trials with some of the greatest criminal lawyers in our country. So when this decision was handed down the day before yesterday, it was not a betrayal, contrary to what people want to say. It was a very reasoned judgment that is over 400 pages long. That's still a lot. So I'll come back. Act 1 the 2005 DC 10 UTA 772 attack Brisorte, a member of Nicholas Sako's cabinet and Minister of the Interior, meets Abdul Sanosi, who has been described as a state terrorist by the international community. There is no doubt about that description. He meets him for a corruption pact, financing and a promise to finance Nicholas Sakozy's election campaign to the tune of $50 million. And in exchange, once elected the President of the Republic, Nicholas Sarkozy would reintegrate Muhammad Gaddafi into the community of nations and so to speak. Clear? Abdallah Senusi 2 that's not what happened. In any case. I don't know if Sarkozy got the 50 million, but in any case, I know that he didn't get his part of the deal.

Exactly. So what happened in concrete terms? Because you asked me if this document was a fake, is it authentic? It should be noted that when this document was published, Nicholas Sarkozy and Brizort Fayu filed a complaint against Mediopar for forgery and this trial lasted four years. In the first instance, Metyapar was acquitted of the charge of forgery and use of forgery. Nicolas Sarkozy and Brizort Feuille appealed. The Paris Court of Appeal upheld the judgment. MEDIA PART Acquittal for forgery and use of forgery Nicholas Maitre does that mean.

Excuse me, excuse me, interrupts you. Does that mean at this stage that according to the courts, the document is therefore authentic? That's what it means, isn't it? It's not a. We don't have them, do we? Do we? Do we? For example, have he lost this trial on technical points, so.

Which have nothing to do with the validity of the document itself.

I'm coming to this because of course there has been a lot of agitation since the day before yesterday, and the agitation is not going to stop because a problem is going to arise regarding the person of Nicolas Sarkozy himself. I'll come to that later. But in any case, there was an appeal against the decision and the Court of Cassation, which is the highest body of the French judicial system, which is the equivalent of a Supreme Court, rejected the appeal so definitively uncontested ly and indisputably, the French justice system did not consider this document to be a fake. That is very important. And it is on this element that there was and of course, the investigation by the national financial Prosecutor, who is among the best magistrates in our country. One thing you need to know is that in this document, this is where Brissortify's visit to Libya to meet Abdallah Salusi was taken. It is from this document that we learned that there was a promise of financing to the tune of $50 million. It is important to know that this $50 million passed through Libya to an offshore company. This is what the investigation revealed. This offshore company was managed and administered by a certain Ziad Taktan Taebtan is now dead. There are many things.

Exactly, Absolutely. And this Cya Techtin then withdrew a lot of money, millions of dollars in cash, which he brought back to France in 2007 in the middle of the election campaign. So that's the situation. We have a promise to finance the presidential campaign from a Libyan state that is on the bench of nations. And this promise is signed by a state terrorist who has been found to be responsible for the deaths of 170 people, including 54 French people. We then have proof that funds amounting to $50 million were transferred from Libya to an offshore company. How did we learn this? The investigation revealed that an advisor to Gaddafi was transcribing everything in his notebooks and this sum was found in these notebooks. Then the investigation revealed with evidence that this offshore company was managed and administered by Ziad Akitid, who was also Nicholas Sakozy's biggest accuser. I will come back to this later, because even when he is dead, we will still hear about him. Even when he is dead, he will act. You will see why. And so we also have proof that this Ziotactin withdrew money in this case, from this offshore account to bring it back to France in 2007. That is the situation that the investigation was faced with. Now I will come to the conviction of the day before yesterday, to the decision of the day before yesterday. What did the judge say? In a very reasoned manner, he said, I do not recognize the illegal financing of an election campaign. I do not recognize it. And so he therefore brushes aside, Master. He brushes aside the 50 million. So now the 50 million no longer exists. What is no longer in the equation is what the judge says. He says, I do not recognize the illegal financing. I do not recognize passive corruption. I do not recognize the realm. On the other hand, what do I recognize? Well, the organized gang. Why do I not recognize it? Because I assume that this document from mediaparty does not provide me with all the information that would allow me to establish this qualification. This document, in light of the entire investigation, in light of the entire trial, undoubtedly allows me to say, affirm and proclaim that there was a criminal association led by Nicolas Sarkozy with two subordinates, BrisbaneFeu and Claude Guayon. So that is the subtlety of the judgment, the precision of the judgment and the conclusion of the judgment. So when Nicholas Sarkozy, with what we might call an excessive audacity, says, we found nothing, the document is a fake and I was convicted solely in relation to an idea. When he said an idea of campaign financing. No, it is not an idea. These are positive acts on the part of Brissorto. Feu. Then Claude Guayon, who nevertheless received money. They received money and Claude Guayon received €500,000. This has been proven and demonstrated, and he was convicted of corruption. Because where it's interesting, I don't have the document in front of me, because we're having this debate here, let's say off the cuff, but we have to go into detail about each defendant and each conviction, and we can clearly see that there are, we mean, very detailed personal convictions. There were still three acquittals, including that of Bris de Eric, W.T. who was Nicolas Sarkozy's former Minister of labor and former Minister of the Budget, and who was very involved in the campaign at the time. He was acquitted, as was another person whose name I've forgotten, the vice president of Airbus, who was acquitted. So there were still three acquittals, which is still important. And there were convictions that were all different. There were, of course, arrest warrants, that is to say, immediate prison sentences from Juri. Because in this case there were two major intermediaries. There was Zia Taketin, who is now deceased and can no longer be convicted, because you can't convict someone when they are deceased. And there was G, who was also two intermediaries, but enemies. I don't know if you remember, there was constant vindictiveness between the two because they shared the pie. And what happened? We have a Z. Takedan, who was Nicholas Sakozy's main accuser for years, until his about face, where he said, no, no, no. In fact, everything I said is false. I withdraw everything I said. When I made my statement to Paris Match, it was false. I'm going back on all that quote and it has been shown, of course, that this retraction was under pressure. And that's where I'm going to get to, is that next week, on October 8, there will be a decision on precisely this issue, because Nicolas Sarkozy is currently on trial for tampering with witnesses in relation to Zotedin. So let's roughly describe the issue that has arisen. And when we hear, well, this pack of journalists and this pack of politicians crying foul about justice, I would like to tell you one thing, my dear Aldo. I am very proud of our justice system, because it is the only current power in France who is truly, well, independent and who is truly competent, and who is truly, let's say, legitimate. Why am I telling you this? Because, as you know, Aldo, there are three powers. There is the executive power, there is the legislative power, there is the judicial power. The executive power is the President of the Republic, and then the Prime Minister and his government. You have seen that the legitimacy of this power has been completely destroyed. Emmanuel Macron is no longer legitimate at all. We keep talking about either his resignation or his impeachment. He has completely deconstructed the French Republic. He has completely deconstructed France. He has silenced France while France was listened to by the whole world.

But he still had two terms. Even so, he had two terms. I agree that he is not legitimate, but the French people voted for him twice.

I agree with you. I agree with you. And that is the problem with voting. But voting is an isolated moment, Aldo, and, uh, that's where I want to get to something. You've, of course, read this magnificent work, Ethics to Nicomac, which is a work by Aristotle that we all study when we're in the first or second year of law school, and sometimes even in the final year. And from the moment a politician sets himself up as a national representative, he must respect an ethic. And what is the characteristic of ethics? Its virtue. And this was then taken up by montage centuries later in the spirit of the laws. And virtue is an essential quality in the sense that we must be totally involved when we aspire to representative functions. We must be totally disinterested. We must be qualified, of course, and we must express this virtue both at the public and private levels, in the sense that at the private level, well, we put forward patimalias. And what is there in exchange? There is what is called fidelity, trust. And what did the president of the court say the day before yesterday? She said that this is a de facto pardon of exceptional seriousness that undermines the trust of the population of the citizen and the people who represent them. That is something that is pointed out in a very targeted and fair manner. Yes, but master, if we have to go back to Aristotle and Montesque, you can imagine that since you have noticed that since the time, huh, since the time of these illustrious figures, there has been an extremely, extremely profound degradation, huh, of the political caste. And I think if we start judging others, don't we, everyone, starting with Macron, uh, on the basis of these ideals, don't we, of these ancestors, these illustrious figures, there aren't many who will. Who will come out? Who will come out. Great, right?

Absolutely. So, ah, the judge said. Yes, we don't trust. Don't trust. But I don't think it was Sarkozy who participated. But no one trusts anyone anymore. Today all institutions, whether European, national or local, are totally discredited. I don't think that Sakosi's condemnation in isolation will change anything. So there are two points of view on this. There's the point of view that says that there is an inversion of values and that the norm has become, so to speak, evil. I'll give you a very simple example now. When you're walking somewhere, holding the door open for a lady behind you, seems strange. In fact, even the lady looks at you strangely, even though it was. Well, I must have experienced it behind her. In any case, I experience it regularly when I enter a building and so on. There you have it. The lady is subjugated. She doesn't understand, she blocks. Because the norm has become to let go of the door and then move on. The person doesn't even look back anymore. So there are a lot of examples like that. But what I'm getting at is that the day before yesterday we experienced a great moment of democracy, because the French Criminal Court demonstrated against all odds, against all odds, despite all the procedural subtleties that were put forward by Nicolas Sakozy's counsel and the other defendants, despite the media pressure that sought to fuel popular anger behind it, despite all that, it sent a very clear message that the law is equal for all and that no one is above the law, and that even the highest representatives of the state must be held accountable. And that's fundamental. And what is still incredible in the great paradox is that we have a Nicholas Sarkozy, who has always taken zero tolerance, who has always denounced the laxity of justice, who has always believed that it was that she was being careless. And this is a discourse that was taken up, of course, by the right and the far right. Of course it is displayed every day. And well, when justice does its job well, then we change, register and we bring up the N word. And that is shameful. It is shameful because it is what is called a double standard. It is a variable geometry reasoning. And that is not acceptable. So on the one hand, excuse the term, there would be the gu. And on the other, well, there would be this white collar crime, which by definition should be untouchable from the moment. It is a clever crime and that is not right at all, because we have very high level, very high flying political and financial crime. And what is fabulous is that the French justice system has demonstrated that despite the weakness of its resources, despite all the pressure that I mentioned, it renders an ultra smooth judgment motivated. So what's going to happen in relation to that? Nicholas Sarkozy has announced that he's going to appeal. Very well. So a little legal subtlety is that he has a deferred arrest warrant. That is to say, unlike jri, where. Well, it seems at the moment when the President pronounced the judgment in the sentence, the. Well, two police officers stood up and went towards the jury. So he was taken straight to prison. Nicholas Sarkozy, it's deferred and he's already been summoned on October 13 to the National Financial Prosecutor's Office who will decide on his incarceration. You should know that since he's still on remand, he can't have his sentence reduced. That's not possible. So now he'll be able to discuss certain technical details that escape me because I'm not involved in the case. In any case, it's certain that in the coming days, the. In the next few weeks or months, he will be incarcerated in the Sante prison in a standard cell measuring 9 to 12 square meters, with weekly visits, three visits per week, etc. But what I'm getting at is that since he has appealed, the National Financial Prosecutor's Office will automatically appeal. What does this mean technically, in relation to the Paris Court of Appeal, which will rule in six months? It is that the Paris Court of Appeal will start all over again. And the Paris Court of Appeal will be able to impose an even heavier penalty.

That's it.

But in 10 years we can.

Sorry, but we can start an appeal that will last for years. Not at all.

We can start an appeal that could last even longer. Not at all. Not at all. The Court of Appeal will rule in 2026. That's it. It's obvious when I tell you it will start all over again. It will not resume the Investigation, be careful. But she will resume the analysis of the case, the study of the case. Because here, for example, Nicolas Sarkozy was acquitted of certain facts, for example, passive corruption. And, well, the Paris Court of Appeal will be able to consider that. No, there was real passive corruption. Uh, the Paris Court of Appeal will be able to consider that Russell was indeed involved, and so on and so forth. So here, Nicolas Sarkozy, by having filed an appeal, is taking a very big risk. Because here, in view of what has just happened, that is to say, this media mob, this political mob, against the judge herself, she was attacked personally. It was said that she was totally biased. And moreover, it was noted that a few years ago, she had participated in a demonstration against Nicholas Sarkozy. But here too, our code of criminal procedure is well equipped in an extraordinary way. That is to say that when we have suspicions about a magistrate, well, we have the principle of requesting re examination. That's possible. Knowing that it's easy to point the finger at this magistrate simply because she handed down the sentence. Knowing that, as I told you, there were dozens of magistrates who looked into this case. It wasn't her, but she was the one who handed down the sentence. I mean, I'm not talking about Sarkozy. I'm just talking about the general case. We have a defendant who arrives, he's found guilty. It's discovered that the judge participated, as a civilian, in a demonstration. And I'm going to say, if it's not, well, if it's not corruption of justice, there would still be a connection, that's all. So to say corruption, I wouldn't use that term, because as I told you, there is a fundamental principle. The magistrate takes an oath. He takes an oath based on principles of independence. And that's fundamental. And, well, what is good is that there is this notion of a right of appeal. So assuming, assuming, and although she was totally biased, assuming, well, there is a right of appeal and to denounce, to bark, excuse me, for that term, against this judge and against justice in general, which is a desertion to our democracy, because that would mean that there is no justice in our country. Any excuse is that a former president of the Republic was convicted. It should be noted that every day, well, there are arrest warrants that are issued, and no one is shocked by that fact. And on the contrary, remember later that during the demonstration that took place two weeks ago in France, there were police custody and so on, and we demanded that justice be firm. So it is this double standard that is not good in the sense that Well, I repeat myself. When this is indeed the population of an average person and we need to roll out the steamroller and we think that's a good thing. And when this justice system rules on subtleties, on people who are supposed to embody us, on people who are supposed to represent us, well, then it's not right. We saw it clearly with Marine Le Pen, who cried foul over her conviction. We'll see what happens, because she has appealed. The Paris Court of Appeal will rule in February. The trial will be reopened in February. And so we'll move forward. But what we still need to emphasize is that Nicolas Sarkozy is a multiple offender. He's not a first time offender. That is to say, Nicolas Sarkozy has already been convicted of active corruption in the judiciary, you know. Ah, he's corrupted. Yes, yes. So you still have this judge from the Court of Cassation anyway. And who. And the judge took the money. The judge took the money, huh? No one's perfect. That's what I've been trying to say since the beginning of the video.

But yes, there was still a conviction by the Paris Court of Appeal in.

2023, and the court of Cassation confirmed it. So it's a final decision. And he was sentenced to prison, including a firm sentence.

There was also the Pygmalan affair. Pygmalan is the financing of the election campaign. This is no longer 2007, but 2012, when there was a ceiling of 20 million euros, and this was up to 45 million euros, 25 million euros more. And so there was already a conviction. And the Court of Appeal will rule on October 8th. And so, in light of all these elements, what did the judge consider? She considered that Nicolas Sarkozy presented himself as if he were at a rally, as if he were campaigning, and did not present himself as a citizen expected to cooperate in an investigation. Nicholas Sarkozy has constantly downplayed his previous convictions and has constantly denigrated the judiciary in light of these elements and the exceptional seriousness of the facts. She felt that in order to prevent the disruption of public order from continuing, she ordered his detention. So there is still a whole line of reasoning that they wanted to set aside. And this is what is weakening our justice system, our political class and our country. Because once again, we had to wait at least, let's say, a few hours to make a decision and not act in haste so that there would be, I repeat myself once again, this mob behind Nicholas Sarkozy. Because what is behind this, of course, is still hiding a very serious problem, which is that we have a man who participated in the desacralization of the presidential office, a man who participated in the deconstruction of presidential authority, and a man who even participated in the deconstruction of our country. Let me explain. Do you remember that famous phrase? Get lost, you poor fool. Do you remember the karcher? Do you remember? Dom, Touch me. Don't touch me. You're dirtying me. Get lost, you poor fool. Yes, I remember that. Aren't you fed up with the scum? We're going to get rid of them. Do you remember Kerala and I. It's more serious. And so on and so forth. This is not what we expected from a presidential office, especially after Jacques Chirac. You may or may not like Jacques Chirac, but in any case, he had a presidential stance and he was unanimously recognized and respected, especially internationally. And here we still have a Nicholas Sarkozy, who is, who is and who still is in the constant posturing. And this has damaged France's credibility, particularly in relation to its Libyan war, because there too we are still following the consequences. Because behind all this, what happened, we still had a regime, however dictatorial it may have been, which was nevertheless a migratory bulwark in relation to Europe. And we all agree on this observation. From the moment Gaddafi was eliminated, from the moment the Libyan state completely disintegrated, from the moment we return to a tribal system bordering on the Middle Ages, well, we see what is happening. This migratory tide rat that poses very serious socioeconomic problems for all European countries, and particularly in terms of delinquency. And Italy is well placed to know this, particularly with the island of AM 12 years. So we still have someone who acts, let's say, in a bloody manner, who acts in a manner, let's say, uno thoughtful, and who to this day, despite having been convicted, has still not learned any lessons from everything that happened to him, has still not learned any lessons from the convictions. And I think that's what annoyed the judge, and I think that's what annoys the Paris Court of Appeal even more, where, in light of everything that has just happened, it will take even more meticulous care to think about its decision and its conviction. That's for sure. In any case, on a political level, a Sarkozy, who also participated in the deconstruction of the right, who participated in the trivialization of the far right, let's not forget that he had as an advisor, Patrick Buisson, a great, great figure of the far right, a great ideologue of the Far right, very close to Jean Marie Le Pen. And so he.

But he didn't want to. He could have won the election the second time if he had allied himself with the National Rally, but he didn't want to do it. He could have been president for a second term instead of Hollande. Absolutely. Absolutely. And he didn't want to because he considered that by having Patrick Buisson, well, he managed to pull off a gamble in 2007, and that this gamble could have worked again in 2012. But in the meantime, well, what happened? The far right, disappointed by Nicholas Sakozy's broken promises, returned to its original party. And by the way, Jean Marie Le Pen said it with great assurance, because he is a man of experience. He was a man of experience. He said, sooner or later, we prefer the original to the copy. And that left an impression on people. He said, In 2007 and 2012, we actually prefer the original to the copy. So that's what Nicholas Sarkozy is like. And I think. I think it's time to turn the page on Nicolas Sarkozy, both politically and in business. Why do I say business? Because let's not forget that Nicolas Sarkozy is a member of the Board of Directors of the Lagarde Group. And it's not impossible that there will be new cases, because there are ongoing investigations against Nicolas Sarkozy, particularly in relation to the Qatar World cup and his active role in getting FIFA to award the World cup to Qatar. This was surprising at the time, as you may recall, and it was the first country to organize the World cup in winter, for reasons that we all know. And so there is still an investigation. Currently, he has not yet been indicted, but he could be. There is also another case with the Lecarde Group, because Lagarde has signed a pact with the Qatar Investment Authority too. And, well, there were exchanges of good procedure, and Nicolas Sarkozy was very active in this deal. And Nicolas Sarkozy, in thanks, was appointed a member of the board of directors of the Laver Group. So, as they say, it's never ending. And I think it's time to put an end to all this, to put an end to these practices, because we are experiencing an institutional crisis of great importance, of extreme gravity. We still don't have a government in France. We have had five prime ministers since Emmanuel Macron's second election. We'll talk about it another time during a live broadcast, if you wish. And so this matter must be taken in a very calm manner and with a lot of respect.

The very calm way is that this case is very complex. And I think that we are not at the end of our discoveries, I would say, of our surprises. Because there is one element that is fundamental and it is a first place. And I will tell you what this fundamental element is. It is that you have the association of victims of the attack of the death of UT772. This association constituted itself as a civil party in the context of this trial and the president, the Criminal court recognized the constitution of civil party.

What? Are they not going to pin an accident on him? He was. He was nothing at all. Sarkozy at the time of the attack on the uta. We are not going to pin it on him after the fact anyway. We are not going to turn history around. I mean, he is a detestable character. And I grant you that, sir. I'm not defending him. Even though as a North African I see a 70 year old man being dragged from court to court and all the anger is gone. That's all. On a human level, I have a bit of a problem.

I have a bit of a problem. That's all. Excellent question. But look at the reasoning that was established. We have an event that took place in 1989. And in 1989 Sarkozy was a complete unknown. He was mayor of New Guinea Bar. Very good. Which was already quite good. And here you have the document that was published by Mediapart in 2012. What did this association consider? It considered that the fact that at the highest level of the state, we were caught up in a task with a state terrorist who was recognized as the main actor and instigator of an attack that caused deaths. From the moment that at the highest level of the French state, from the moment that Brius Feu secretly went to Libya to meet Abdullah Sennis. Well, that caused us harm. Why? Because the purpose of this meeting was to later clear his name and reintegrate his boss into the community of nations. The fact that he did all this caused me direct harm. It is an attack on my morals, it is an attack on ethics, it is an attack on my dignity as a descendant of a victim. And so I am bringing a civil action because I am suffering direct harm from this organized crime.

I understand the reasoning of the victims, don't you? But at the same time you are saying that this is a first in law. We are doing some beta testing, some legal testing on Mr. Sarkozy. I mean, we're in the process of saying. I have the impression that there's a bit of a ham and egg and Cheese side to almost everything we can say, even the association. You're coming too. In 89 there was nothing at all. But we're going to discuss it. We'll find a reasoning for that at that price. We could also talk about the Kennedy assassination. I'm sure that depending on how we spin the argument, we could bring Sako's Ease name into history. I don't know. I have the impression that there's still an excess, because even when we talk about the French justice system, the French justice system crushes people with a steamroller. I have the impression that it's a rather lax justice system than anything else. And that suddenly, with Fillon, the business of the suits and with Sarkozy, there's still a form of. I don't want to say relentlessness, but you're taking it on a bit. The perception I have of all that. Yes, yes. I can easily understand that. Again, in this type of situation, there is analysis on the one hand, emotion on the other. And finally there is the point of view. When you have a point of view, when you have emotion, you can be shocked. You can be shocked because all the cameras are focused on the event. You are in a sensational situation, and then you withdraw. You don't go into details, because you absolutely mustn't go into details. Why am I telling you this? And this is where I come back to the analysis, which is very important. This trial lasted more than three months, more than three and a half months, even nearly four months, let's say. But let's just assume three months, which is a long time. Did Aldo have a daily report of what he said in court regarding your exchanges, regarding the debates? Nothing. Blackout? Nothing. Not at all. We were busy with something else. And then suddenly we learned that, well, total blackout.

Total blackout. And all those who are reporting what they experienced during these three months of trial, whether it's certain meticulous journalists, whether it's precisely victims associations, including that of the victims of the attack, whether it's anti corruption associations, because there are anti corruption associations that have also filed civil suits. So all these organizations, all these people have constantly said there were very heated debates, there were incredible standoffs, there were incredible exchanges, which meant that at a given moment there was a shift between the allegation and the affirmation, particularly by Bris Ort and Claude Guayon, and the reality that Nicolas Sarkozy and the boss. Let me explain. Throughout the trial and even throughout the investigation, it is important to know that Nicholas Sarkozy abandoned his collaborators and told Them, these two did everything. I knew nothing about it. He completely let go knowing that Claude Guyant was his Secretary General at the Elysee palace when Nicolas Sarkozy was president, and knowing that Brisortefau became his Interior minister. That's all.

Yes. That's ugly.

He let them go. And throughout the trial, Ortefaou and Jaank kept saying, oh, no. But Nicolas Sarkozy wasn't aware at all. We did everything ourselves. We had no orders, no injunctions. We did it all ourselves. Except that apparently. I say apparently because I wasn't present at the hearings. But that's what the victims reported. Except that systematically. The evidence that you provided was completely ridiculous, was completely inappropriate. And what emerged from this stance? It was that in fact, there was a criminal association headed by Nicolas Sarkozy. So of course I agree with you, Aldo, because you're going to tell me that there was, well, a relentless pursuit. But I think the relentless pursuit should be put into perspective in light of, as I said, previous convictions. There were two cases where there were also a lot of debates. And what does that reveal? Something very serious about our country, namely that the person who was at the head of our country, at the head of the Republic, at the head of France, turned out to be a very high level gangster. And that raises a problem with the checks and balances. It raises a problem with the. I mentioned it, but it especially raises a problem with the real resources allocated to the checks and balances and the real resources allocated to the investigators. That's what's causing the problem. That is to say, if his conviction is confirmed on appeal, if the October 8 verdict was confirmed regarding Pigbalon, then there is reason to ask very serious questions about a former President of the Republic. And we need to stick to this debate, because this debate has already taken place in other countries. I'll mention just one that you know very Brazil with Lua. Lua was sentenced to prison and served his sentence without any problems.

There was Korea, there was Peru, there was Lua. When he finished his prison sentence, he ran for president and was elected against a person named Bolsonaro, who has constantly pointed out the shenanigans of the left and so on. So who on the planet would question Lula's legitimacy? No one. Why? Because unlike what is happening here, there was respect for the judicial authority. And that is very important, because from the moment you say that the judicial authority is biased as a whole, without any distinction, it is very serious. From the moment when the person who is supposed to be the Arbiter of the nation behaves like a high level, high flying criminal. It poses a problem for our institution. I have a question and if I zoom out, I step outside the legal framework. Am I going to give you some reasoning? How will France look if a President of the Republic finds himself handcuffed and sent to prison in front of journalists from all over the world? I don't think it will affect France's credibility or its institutions. On the one hand, yes, we can say, in France, well done, no one is above the law, okay? But we can also say, wow, they still have criminals, criminal associations, all that, who reach their heads all the way to power, literally to the presidency. I wonder whether France has gained by convicting Sarkozy, whether we shouldn't sweep the affair under the carpet and ensure that it is hushed up in the general interest. So I think that what you are asking as a question. I don't know if you are clairvoyant or if it is premonitory, but I think that your question raises the question. It's a question of a change, not of regime, but of a paradigm shift. Why am I telling you this? Because this will be the third time in the history of France as a whole since Clovis, since the Kingdom of France. It will be only the third time that a head of state has been in prison. The first was Louis X and you experienced the change then. And the second was Petting and you experienced the change then. Now we have Nicolas Sarkozy. I think this heralds a change. This change is too much. It's too much. The change is that you've gone too far. The change is that we've warned you several times, but nothing has changed. The change is particularly this general economic context, where there is an explosion of unemployment, where there is a pair of values, where there is a decomposition of the political class, and so on. All this heralds a change. So I don't know who will come next. I don't know who will replace Macron. I don't know who will replace the horned one who still hasn't formed a government. I don't know anything about all that. But in any case, one thing is certain, which is that the changes often come from the judicial authority, because the judicial authority, excuse me, is always part of a continuum. The judicial authority is more or less identical, despite changes in regime. The Council of State in France, which is the Supreme Court of Administrative Jurisdictions, the Council of State was nothing other than the King's Council before.

And so there is a form of continuum in this continuum. There is a concern and a reference. What is the concern? It is to ensure public order. Even before the police, even before the army. It is the judge who is responsible for public order. And what is the reference? It is the law. It is the code. Because we must not forget one thing, however, which is that this concept of provisional execution, this concept of warrant, deferred deposits and other things, this notion of criminal association, but all of this was voted on by the legislator. It was not the judge who created the code of criminal procedure. The judge only applies the law. He interprets it and applies it. And so when we look at these elements, it is clear that it is frowned upon for France. It is clear that it poses a problem of legitimacy for France. But I would establish the opposite reasoning. Isn't it necessary in view of the deconstruction of France, in view of the loss of its influence, while all over the world we continue to exalt it, but the people who are supposed to represent it do not honor this exaltation? Well, in this context, shouldn't we just wipe the slate clean of many things and not build the future with those who have destroyed our present?

Thank you for these beautiful words. Thank you for giving us your insight. And then we will meet again on this subject, this channel. There are many, many things to say about Sarkozy next year, about Marine Le Pen, and also about Mr. Koronu. And sometimes I wonder if he is not going to resign before even forming a government. In any case, thank you for your loyalty and support for this channel, and I will see you in a future episode. Thank you. Thank you, mister.