FRANCE: After nearly a year of intensive surveillance - including wiretaps, search, seizure and interogation - a suspect who is also the greatest potential rival to the sitting President is charged with crimes unrelated to the original justification for surveillance. Here are a few questions from a curious observer:
1. Who ordered the original wiretap on former French president Nicolas Sarkozy, when and why?
But the logic of ordering wiretaps to gather evidence on events that allegedly took place seven years before and involve a man who is dead (who thus can't speak on the phone) is a little odd....as Marc Champion points out in Bloomberg View
2. Who in the French government was aware of the investigation, and what, if any, was his or her role?
no one in the French or international press is asking this question, which is a little weird given the high political stakes ...
Here's a completely unclear article from Le Monde March 19 which kinda asks but does not bother to answer the question and in fact just muddies the waters further without ever following up...
Here's a better one from Bloomberg on March 13
3. After the initial wiretaps turned up nothing, who ordered the renewal of the wiretap on Nicolas Sarkozy, when and why?
4. What precise charge was filed against Nicolas Sarkozy on July 1-2, 2014?
This is actually harder to find than you might think. "Precise" is the stumbling block here.
5 How does this charge relate to the original justification for wiretaps?
(hint: it doesn't)
6. By what precise path did the wiretaps lead from the original investigation to the final charge?
(hint: there are a lot of steps involving an initial investigation into financing allegedly received from Libya, a second step when the first wiretaps revealed that Sarkozy and the lawyer defending him were keeping abreast of advancement in the Bettencourt case; another step involving the exploitation of information seized from Sarkozy and his lawyer that led to something else - it's complicated!)
Still waiting for a clear explanation of the process which looks suspiciously like a "fishing expedition" - that is, you just keep listening and seizing information randomly until you turn up evidence of something and keep throwing charges at the target until something sticks...
7. Did investigators really listen to conversations between Nicolas Sarkozy and his lawyer?
7. Sarkozy's lawyer's cell phone and papers were seized and his house searched. Is it legal in France for the prosecution to wiretap, search and seize the lawyer who defends you?
8. What was the result concerning the alleged crime originally being investigated?
Was any evidence concerning the charge that Libya financed Sarkozy's campaign ever found? What? No? Seriously?
But wasn't this what all those wiretaps and searches and seizures were supposed to be looking for ?
Or can a juge d'instruction really launch a massive investigation for one thing that doesn't pan out, then get you on a completely different thing he/she happened to discover while listening in on your conversations with your lawyer and going through your private documents concerning your efforts to defend yourself from charges for which (so ironic) no evidence was found...
9. What rules govern the use of wiretaps in France?
There are rules aren't there? I mean, this isn't the NSA, is it?
What! Just questions and almost no answers?
Sorry, that's all I've got...at least until an enterprising investigative journalist gets on the case... (I'll insert them)
see July 4 2014 Le Monde Samuel Laurent et Diane Jean
