This week, we discuss the treatment on franceinfo of the acquittal of Éric Dupond-Moretti, the Minister of Justice. He was tried by the Court of Justice of the Republic for “illegal taking of interests”. He was therefore released, and a certain number of criticisms emerged on social networks.
Emmanuelle Daviet: You are accused of having, I quote, “broadcast over and over by opponents of the minister, who deplored his acquittal without therefore respecting pluralism”. QHow do you respond to these criticisms?
Florent Guyotat: So, before answering you, an element of context first: this Wednesday, when this decision concerning Éric Dupond-Moretti is likely to fall, around 3 p.m., we go to a special edition, because it is an important event . It is a question of knowing whether or not a serving minister, in this case the Minister of Justice, will be convicted.
The decision was known a little before 3:15 p.m. and just after, the first reaction that we broadcast on the air was that of Jacqueline Laffont, Eric Dupond-Moretti’s lawyer, who was delighted, I quote, “that the innocence of his client be recognized”.
So, I repeat, the first reaction is that of the defense of Eric Dupond-Moretti. We also listen, at that moment, to this reaction in its entirety which lasts around 2 minutes and 30 minutes. Then, obviously, there are other reactions.
We give the floor to the lawyers of the Anticor association, and of the Syndicat de la magistrature, who also speak outside the courtroom, like Éric Dupond-Moretti’s lawyer. We also hear, and this is normal, it is important from the perspective of pluralism, the reactions of the two main opposition parties. We have two guests live on air, Manon Aubry, LFI European MP and Laurent Giacometti, spokesperson for the National Rally.
You will tell me, we hear a lot of opponents, but here too, I tell you that pluralism is strictly respected, since until 5 p.m., the antenna is not finished. And we still hear from several Renaissance managers, two exactly, Benjamin Haddad and Antoine Armand as well. All this, therefore, between approximately 3:15 p.m. and 5 p.m. It seems to me that pluralism in this matter is respected.
But Florent Guyotat, regarding the other guests who followed this sequence on Wednesday, after 12 p.m., are you also criticized for having lacked pluralism?
So here again, I will answer you. In the 17/20, Wednesday, there is the political guest of Jean-François Achilli, and this political guest is Ugo Bernalicis, LFI deputy from the North, member of the law committee, who once again has the opportunity to criticize Eric Dupond-Moretti, and to say what he thinks badly of the Court of Justice of the Republic.
Ugo Bernalicis: “I do not agree. I am in favor of setting up a popular jury to judge ministers, and even all politicians within the framework of what they have done, within the framework of their functions. what is a committee of public safety? No, but what is happening at the Assises? It already exists, but there are problems.”
Florent Guyotat: There you have it, MP Ugo Bernalicis interviewed for around 8 minutes, Wednesday evening in Jean-François Achilli’s 18/20. But here again, I tell you that we respect pluralism, since, 24 hours later, almost at the same time, at 6:32 p.m., we received the same length, approximately eight minutes. Jacqueline Laffont, Eric Dupond-Moretti’s lawyer, who, again, was delighted that her client was found innocent.
Jacqueline Laffont: “The victory is in the present by a court decision which was rendered after three years of investigation, 15 days of debate, 15 days of deliberation. And I have the decision in front of me, in case some people still doubt it, this decision is well reasoned, in accordance with our law.”
Emmanuelle Daviet: More generally, Florent Guyotat, these court decisions sometimes appear complex. What educational effort are you making?
Florent Guyotat: So it’s true that I’ve talked to you a lot so far about political reactions and also about the reactions of the Magistrates’ Union or the Anticor association. Those are reactions. But we strive to report the facts, to first explain this court decision. And that’s why in our special edition on Wednesday, we mobilized all our specialists in this case, our police and justice specialists.
There was Mathilde Lemaire and Pierre de Cossette, who were in the courtroom and in front of the courtroom. And then in the studio, we had Adrien Bègue from the political service. We also had David Di Giacomo, the head of the Justice police department, to explain the motivations for this decision.
And then we talked a lot this week about the Court of Justice of the Republic. It is true that its functioning is sometimes criticized, that it can also be misunderstood. And we called on our “True or False” Unit with Thomas Pontillon, to, once again, explain who makes up the Court of Justice of the Republic, and how exactly it works. Afterwards, it’s up to everyone to form their own opinion.