Are their „criminals” more honest than ours?!

The cynicism of the double standards in the “renewed” Europe

June 20, 2017: French Minister of Defense, Sylvie Goulard, resigns on the grounds that she wants to “prove (her) good faith” about the allegations of fictitious employment at hes MEP office. May 27, 2019: The President of the Chamber of Deputies, Liviu Dragnea, is sentenced to four years in prison, without parole, for inciting abuse of office consisting of fictitious employment of two people at the Alexandria City Hall. September 10, 2019, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announces the appointment of Sylvie Goulard as European Commissioner, she is France’s nominee.

THE WORLD SEEN FROM BRUSSELS AND BUCHAREST

The parallel between the Dragnea case and the Goulard case requires further attention, as both the similarities and the differences are very informative.

Both Sylvie Goulard and Liviu Dragnea were not accused of putting any money in their own pockets, but of breaking the law to secure money for their political parties. The list of those who are known to have done the same is endless. Some were punished for this; others not so much. For some – like former German Chancellor Helmuth Kohl – the penalty was only moral; others – such as former French President Jacques Chirac – were given criminal penalties, but only after retirement and with parole. The difference was the political sympathies of the magistrates.

This highlights the first resemblance. Selective justice works everywhere. Both in the moralistic states (such as France) and in the moralized states (such as Romania). From this point of view Romania is a country like the ones to Western Europe. The not at all negligible difference is that in Romania the maximum prison sentences are longer, as they do not aim to correction of bad habits, but rather totally destroy some political opponents. However, if this is the criterion, we should not be surprised that under the guillotine of the Romanian justice end up even innocent people.

Against this background it should be noted that all countries are still trying to practice pluralist democracy have problems with the financing of the political parties (especially during electoral campaigns). Why? Because, suffocated by populism, the political class is afraid to present to the electorate the bill for the expenses of democracy, preferring to steal the necessary money from the tax payer’s pocket. And it will remain like this for as long as the people are still enchanted by the songs of populist sirens and will not accept to pay the actual cost of freedom, refusing realistic laws on party financing.

One of the definitions of corruption says that it consists of the procedures not allowed by law by which public money is transformed into private money. In the case of the subterfuges used for the financing of the parties, the private money is transformed, in a non-transparent way, into public money, or the destination of the public money is changed without observing the law. Political parties are subject to public law and they are called to perform functions of public interest.

This is why some argue that the financing provided by Sylvie Goulard’s, by avoiding the law, to her party, in order to allow it to better demonstrate to the French that Emmanuel Macron is their providential man, is not an act of corruption (in any case not a crime), but rather a simple mistake motivated by pious intentions, which only entails the obligation to return the amount incorrectly spent / appropriated. The work of fictional employees must be paid, but by those who they work for and not by the EU. This and nothing more!

We could accept this explanation, if it would also apply in Romania. In no case can we accept it coming from those who see in an alleged ordering fixing up of fictitious employment, committed by a Liviu Dragnea, a criminal act of maximum gravity, but claim that the identical abuse committed directly by Sylvie Goulard does not raise either legal issues of moral issues, and does not prevent her from becoming a European Commissioner. We want a country like the West, don’t we?

WHAT ABOUT THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE?

However Romania seems to already be a country like the West in terms of the aberrant understanding of the presumption of innocence. It is amazing, but, in the country that laid the foundations of modern European law, which was a cradle of human and citizen rights, and which gave mankind a huge law school and a legal literature of invaluable scientific value – France, of course – Minister Goulard does not know that the bad faith must be proved by the accuser, the accused having no duty to prove his good faith. This reversal of the burden of proof, shows that the democracy with which the EU supporters pride themselves with has become a hoax. It is reduced to a combination of populist slogans and authoritarian practices. Exactly as we find it in the public discourse of the Iohannist-Băsist parties (PNL, USR-Plus, ProRomânia, PMP), their street supporters and their fifth column in the Romanian justice, and also as a favorite formula repeated exasperatingly by all Romanian journalists news and influencers.

Undoubtedly, caught red-handed, Sylvie Goulard, resorted to the politically correct rhetoric and gesture imposed by the “moralistic wolves” of the EU – Germany, France, Holland etc. She committed to prove her innocence, resigned from the position of member of the French Government and paid back to the EU part of the financial damage (45,000 Euro); stands to reason that the latter steps are the promised proof.

Liviu Dragnea, like others before him (like Adrian Severin, to which we will get to soon), has reasoned exactly the opposite. He said that in a democratic state  governed by the rule of law the suspicion is not proof and that the one who has suspicions must confirm them using evidence above any reasonable doubt. He also stressed that resignation is the acknowledgment of guilt, the innocent having no reason to resign. Just as no one can be required to pay for damage that does not exist or is not guilty of producing; and embezzlement without illicit actions in not a thing, as is people paying for damage that they did not cause. Dragnea refused to pay several times sums smaller than those reimbursed by Goulard, as a matter of principle; as such a payment was an acknowledgment of guilt. Acknowledgment is never proof of innocence.

Knowing all this, as well as the fact that Liviu Dragnea was sentenced to prison and Sylvie Goulard was sentenced to a promotion (sic!), do we still want a country like that? However, it is certain that we ca no longer accept double standards, what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander!

We do not know how things are seen by the candidate for the position of European Chief Prosecutor, Laura-Codruța Koveși, although it would have been very interesting to see her to explain the difference between the Dragnea and Goulard cases when applying for the position. But we know what the president of the “Renewed Europe” political group in the EP, Dacian Cioloș, believes. He is convinced that Sylvie Goulard innocent, as he covered the damage, without waiting for a trial.

Even though, by an irony of fate, on the same day that Ursula von der Leyen, herself involved in corruption scandals in Germany, regarding public contracts offered preferentially, appointed Sylvie Goulard as a member of the European Commission, giving her one of the most important and valuable portfolios, she was cited by the judicial police at the headquarters of the Office for the fight against corruption and of the financial and fiscal fraud in Nanterre, for a hearing in the fictitious employment case. President Macron will take care of this and will close this case, just as the EP closed the investigation of Goulard on August 30, 2019, as soon as the proposal to appoint her to the EU executive became known.

SYLVIE GOULARD AND ROVANA PLUMB

While Dacian Cioloș (Macron’s man) and USR-Plus do not see any problem with their support for the support of the Frenchwoman Sylvie Goulard for the position of European Commissioner, they have declared that they strongly oppose Rovana Plumb, Romania’s proposal for a similar office, accepted, not without complaint, by the “very honest” President of the European Commission, validation by the EP. Why? Because it has … “integrity issues.”

Rovana Plumb was never investigated, was not prosecuted and was not convicted. She did not have to cover any damage. She was not the subject of any administrative inquiry or of any form of civil, material or disciplinary liability, related to the performance of a public function. ANI never made any accusation against her. What integrity issues are we talking about then?

Once upon a time, DNA – that prosecutor’s office firmly in partnership with the secret services and judges who signed the unconstitutional protocols with the latter, who destroyed people with impunity, and eventually acquitted, people such as constitutional judge Tony Greblă, judge Gabriela Bârsan or Minister Dan Rușanu – provided to the Romanian Parliament information about Rovana Plumb, asking that to start an criminal investigation against her, as a former minister. It was case about an approval given for a governmental normative act (Government Decision) that moved a piece land from state administration to local administration. An approval that, according to the Romanian Constitutional Court, could not be the subject of judicial verification. The Parliament analyzed the information and decided that it is not necessary to initiate any criminal procedure, the suspicions being exaggerated and the suggested action unconstitutional.

Is this proof of the integrity problems that Rovana Plumb would have, in contrast to Sylvie Goulard, who does not have them? It’s not! Instead, it is evidence that the parties of Mr. Cioloș and Mr. Barna, as well as that of Mr. Iohannis and Mr. Orban, or Mr. Băsescu and Mr. Tomac, as well as the Ponta-Tăriceanu alliance, are more sensitive to the need to mask the turpitude of foreigners than to the need defend the honor of Romania. Even the Romanian ambassador to London, Dan Mihalache, former head of the presidential administration at the beginning of Klaus Iohannis’s term, as well as Alina Mungiu-Pippidi, a person who, living for years in Germany, criticizes, including in Brussels, the corruption of social-democratic governments of Romania from the perspective of the Berlin agenda, drew the attention over the fact that to contest Plumb now, when “the rule of law has fallen out of grace in the new European Commission,” is the same as “asking for his own country to be punished while such conduct is no longer seen, not even in Brussels, as being politically correct.” Without any reason… Solid fact: corrupt foreigners are more honest than our (pseudo)corrupt citizens!

SYLVIE GOULARD AND ADRIAN SEVERIN

Sylvie Goulard is involved, also, in another controversy that requires comparison with the case of former Romanian MEP Adrian Severin. While she was a member of the EP, Goulard was also a consultant to a major US firm, being paid 10,000 euros per month, meaning 120,000 euros per year.

However, Adrian Severin did the same thing, signing a consultancy contract with a London company that offered him the sum of 100,000 euros per year in exchange for the services provided as a member of its international consultants council. Common practice in the EU, as it is known, requires only that European parliamentarians not offer consultancy to government institutions and corporations.

Therefore, at first glance, both of them committed legal actions. However they were treated radically different.

We do not know what exactly Goulard did during the execution of that contract. That’s what some people want to find out at the moment. In contrast, we know that Severin did not intervene in any way to change the European legislation in favor of his co-contractor (he did not make amendments, he did not speak on the topics covered by him in the committees or in the plenary, he did not vote on something related to its interests). The fact is also attested by a letter from the EU Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) which was published by the press.

However, the Romanian court concluded, by deciphering the alleged “coded language” used by those involved, that – unlike the Goulard case – this consultancy contract hid the malign intentions, enough to require a punishment, even though they did not materialize in the form of an action. About the conversations, codified or not, of the future European Commissioner, Sylvie Goulard, nothing will ever be found and nothing can be speculated (meaning no “logical-legal deductions” will be made) as she was hired by a real firm, while the contract offered to Adrian Severin came from provocative agents disguised as representatives of a fake company, with the purpose to produce compromising evidence against one of the most prestigious and influential Romanian politicians and diplomats. The recording made with the hidden camera by them and provided as evidence was received by the court without any guarantee of its authenticity, although a technical expertise proved it was be significantly tampered with.

This is not about two different situations, it is about two different procedures that, applied to the same situation, have led to different conclusions.

WE WANT EQUALITY, BUT NOT FOR DOGS

Regardless we believe about the trial of Adrian Severin, one cannot accept that a Romanian should be treated in a way, and a French person, in another, opposite, way. If Sylvie Goulard could advise a private firm, and the court did not take any action against her, then Adrian Severin could also do it. And this is not about a Frenchman and a Romanian, but about discrimination between states. We cannot apply one rule in Paris and another in Bucharest. One in Berlin and another in Ljubljana. If the rules applied in Bucharest are so good, then we should apply them all in EU member states. If the rules in Brussels are better then we apply them in Bucharest. Because that’s why some people want a country like the West.

Adding insult to injury, the European Commissioner for Justice, nominated by Ursula von der Leyen, another close friend of President Macron, the Belgian Didier Reynders, a Francophone liberal and a member of the so-called liberal family assembled under the label of “Renewed Europe,” is being investigated by the judicial police in his country for corruption and money laundering. Obviously he is also supported by the “macronist” group led by Dacian Cioloș. This while Emmanuel Macron expresses his concern about corruption in Romania, and France’s ambassador to Bucharest, together with German, Dutch and American ambassadors, writes letters warning of the fight against corruption being blocked by laws adopted by the Romanian Parliament.

Part of the international press mentions the name of the Belgian, currently the deputy prime minister of his country, along with that of Rovana Plumb, with a reference to the “the criminals of von der Leyen Commission.” Why Rovana Plumb??? No one is investigating her. Because, in fact, the problems are not about corruption, but about certain people and certain countries. Among the latter, Romania is the usual suspect. But this too, only if we talk about the Romania of nationalistic parties. The members of the globalist parties are clean.

Just as clean as the new President of the European Central Bank, another Frenchwoman, Christine Lagarde, the former IMF director, who is investigated by the French judicial authorities for fraud committed while she was finance minister in the French government. This, to take this all the way, while a great French finance specialist, but from the left, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, was completely removed from the game using a staged a rape of a maid from a New York hotel. Talk about cleaning!

The conclusion is obvious. In the world of dog, puppies have no way of finding justice. And things will get worse as much of the public opinion not only accepts discrimination, but applauds it, not understanding that it is precisely the population that bears its costs.