Moralization of political life: And hop, already 1 minister in the trash basket

[Grelinette]

Well, for a government that wants to be above all suspicion and an example of probity, it starts well!

"This is a case that falls very badly for Emmanuel Macron. A week after the appointment of his first government, the Minister of Territorial Cohesion and early companion of En Marche, Richard Ferrand is pinned by the Duck chained this Wednesday for "family arrangement" for profit. At the end of the day, a real estate arrangement that is neither illegal nor detrimental to the taxpayer, but whose obvious opportunism leaves room for the suspicion of conflict of interest. less blurs the will to "moralize public life" that the Macronian movement has placed at the heart of its legislative campaign and which is the subject of the first bill of the five-year term. "
(Source: http://www.liberation.fr/france/2017/05 ... er_1571853)

Bets are open: which other politician will join the basket, and in how long?

And it's fun, it's still the same scenario, as for Fillon: Nothing illegal in these fiddling!

But how far will they stop, as Coluche said.

[Grelinette]

... and in the same series: http://www.anticor.org/2017/05/16/miche ... epublique/

"Michel Roussin was promoted to Commander of the Legion of Honor on April 14, 2017, by decree issued by your predecessor.

However, the former director of cabinet of Jacques Chirac at the town hall of Paris was condemned in the case known as the faked markets of the lycées of Île-de-France, by the Court of Cassation, on February 20, 2008, for “ complicity in active and passive bribery ”to four years suspended prison sentence and € 80 fine, supplemented by four years' ban on the right to vote and to stand as a candidate ...

We recall that, according to the code of the legion of honor, the highest of national distinctions is supposed to reward "eminent merits acquired in the service of the nation either in civil capacity, or under arms".

Moreover, the site of the Grand Chancellery of the Legion of Honor announces that "the future legionnaire must have a clean criminal record and good character".

In this context, article R49 of the Code of the Legion of Honor and the Military Medal provides that "reception is deferred if it turns out, after publication of the appointment or promotion decree, that the beneficiary's qualifications must , in the interest of order, be checked again. If it is confirmed after investigation that the interested party does not have the required qualifications, it may be decided by decree that it will not be proceeded with the reception. "

Anticor considers that a person who has been the subject of a criminal conviction for having breached his duty of probity does not have the qualifications required to be promoted to the rank of commander of the Legion of Honor.

Consequently, our association asks you to kindly cancel this promotion.

Thanking you in advance, we ask you to receive, Mr. President of the Republic, the expression of our highest consideration.

Jean-Christophe Picard
President of Anticor "

Let us hope that Macron's declarations of probity and his promises to moralize public life will not be just fine electoral words!
It is not won...

[Did67]

The similarity with the Fillon affair is all the same, a priori, in the state of the information published by Le Canard, a bit far-fetched! But the political mind is not in the finesse ...

Fillon had paid his wife on his initiative. Without anyone knowing it. The question is not whether this was legal or not. It is not illegal. Unless it is fictitious work! And even. We can regret that the deputies can, in France, do what they want with their allowance and have nothing to justify its use. It is the rule. A legal "right of way", in a way, when it comes to public money (note that in the private sector, any business leader does what he wants with his income; the question is whether this allowance is "assigned" - if it is a defined normal use - or if it is pocket money!) ...

For the minister in question, Ferrand, there is an award committee which has decided on the best offer. Offer retained by the Board of Directors, under the chairmanship of the same Ferrand ... There are nevertheless a few nuances: certainty that the service existed; that it was real (that already changes a lot); best offer selected a priori ...

Afterwards, we can suppose: who says that Ferrand did not influence the commission? who says that the other two offers were not bogus offers ??? who says he didn't know the amount of the other offers and pass on the info? One can create widespread suspicion.

I do not know the file, but normally the offer was the subject of a publication, and anyone could then outbid (to verify, I do not know if the mutuals are subjected to "public markets"). For having experienced "openings of bids", I know that we are extremely careful, if only for one major reason: any ousted competitor can ask for all the details of the contract (who was selected, for what amount). And attack if there is a scheme ... They do it almost systematically.

Without defending Ferrand, I find that putting the two cases on the same level borders on Lepenism (or rather Philipotism!). Even if of course, it is allowed to ask questions!

Last but not least, assuming that the market was rigged, the “gain” of the campaign has nothing to do with the amounts of the Fillon affair. At best, it can be commissions or fees on the rental or transaction ...

In principle, of course, you can quibble. But do not confuse a match and a beam, otherwise, effectively, there are only extreme thoughts (so pure, those; in the speech; follow my gaze!).

This is obviously only a point of view. Mine.

[Grelinette]

... The question is not whether it was legal or not. It is not illegal. Unless it's fictitious work! And even. ...

That is all the art and the way of politicians to make us take bladders for lanterns and confuse the debate for their benefit!

As one magistrate said on this case (Fillon): for ordinary people, proving that he was employed does not pose any problem because in addition to the actual work easy to prove, everything is recorded and archived, there is edition of pay slips and declarations to several administrations. In the Fillon case, it seems that there were not even the basic documents or the traces proving that the work was declared, then as for the reality of the work carried out ... [/ quote]

We can regret that the deputies can, in France, do what they want with their allowance and have nothing to justify its use. It is the rule. A legal "right of way", in a way, ...

No, "The law of the Republic applies to everyone and it is unconstitutional to establish a right which derogates from the obligation to comply with it". This is called "the act of the Prince", that is to say that things are done illegally, but when it comes to renowned politicians, we do not dare to ask them to account. Only a few magistrates have the courage and determination to go coal, and it is not even easy for them.

That said, the subject is more to note that despite thundering declarations on the probity and the moralization of political life during the campaign, a minister already appears not very clean from his appointment, while Macron was necessarily informed of the questionable actions of his minister, since there was an investigation for each nominee, and curiously he still appointed him! ...

The real question is therefore why did you take this risk when it was obvious that this case was going to be put very quickly in the public square!

[yves35]

Hello,

The real question is therefore why did you take this risk when it was obvious that this case was going to be put very quickly in the public square!

because "they" felt that there was nothing to whip a cat. Taking into account all the din of the Fillon file .... Otherwise gaff all the same to the "all rotten" that puts fuel in the machine to vote FN or Mélanchon. And the tomorrows which are disillusioning (all the tomorrows disillusioning, some stronger than others).

It is almost a shame that Ferrand is not Jewish, it would have an even more beautiful culprit (I exaggerate, but that relieves)

Democracy is the worst of regimes unless the citizens are educated and therefore capable of not allowing themselves to be governed by emotion, invective etc ... In our noisy time (in the sense that noise is very present and hides the signal under the mass of information) it is necessary to make a big effort of "putting in perspective"

yves

ps: I finally found how to answer by quoting: you have to connect first otherwise you won't see the "quote" tag

[Did67]

I don't think those who decided (except Ferrand himself) knew.

How many times do you think that in good faith, in my professional life, I have been asked to "place an acquaintance", to know if I will recruit the "wife of an employee threatened with dismissal", to use - "just once" - the photocopier at the center I was running for making personal photocopies - a son or daughter's report ... You think I always said no? - for copies. For the recruitments, I made enemies, but there, I always resisted - I passed for a "psycho-rigid Protestant")? Despite great rigor in management, which was accompanied by a fantastic development of the center and of employment - tripled! -, if someone had to dig looking for me messes, he would find trifles [eg, I used a mini-excavator from work illegally to clear a parking lot at my house - I refueled in the rendering; very clearly, an abuse of social good - I do not know if there is limitation; and there you have it: disqualified to be minister !!!!]

The checks made in 24 hours before the appointment could only be very superficial: check if there is no slate in the taxes, check that the committee to which the asset declarations of the parliamentarians are sent has had the document and nothing noticed, etc ...

In 24 hours, it is impossible to "check" all the activities of men as "loaded" as Ferrand or Hulot (who can check everything he did during the time of Ushaia or if there is no one day had a "privilege" on the side of his foundation) and all the others ...

[Grelinette]

The real question is therefore why did you take this risk when it was obvious that this case was going to be put very quickly in the public square!
because "they" felt that there was nothing to whip a cat

Ha ha ha! politicians know that the slightest suspicion can very quickly go up in mayonnaise!
If they had, at least, asked themselves the question: "knowing that the campaign is already tainted with suspicions of inappropriate behavior, is it opportune and judicious to choose for the future government a political personage who has had in his past a behavior which is likely to shock public opinion? ..."
To ignore this question is to show a singular naivety, even certain amateurism!

Taking into account all the tintouin of the Fillon file ...

One more reason ! Public opinion has already been heated up with this affair, putting on a layer of it is almost provocative towards voters and offering a loophole to these political opponents; the Fillonists were also the first to jump at the opportunity!

Otherwise blunder anyway at "all rotten" ...

That's the argument "Cream pie"!

Of course not everyone is rotten, but it is the system which is "all rotten" and questionable because it leaves open doors, a royal way so, to all those who have inclinations of politico-financial shenanigans, and there, there are many, many, many ...

A crooked politician is like a train that does not arrive on time: it is certainly in the minority but it impacts the whole organization upstream and the tens, even hundreds of trains that must take it into account and s 'adapt.

It's not about complaining about complaining (and being told: the French are all grumpy! ... still a cliché!), but it is clear that there does not go a month, even a week, without learning from the media (the media? ... all rotten! ) that a politician or a figure linked to politics has taken advantage of the system to act in a dubious and questionable way (to put it mildly) ...
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_d%2 ... C3%A7aises
https://www.buzzfeed.com/paulaveline/en ... .vdw26n279

Here, a fun little game! What do the following words mean to you (answer without thinking): (I write it in small because the list, incomplete, is already very long) Hippodrome de Compiègne, Woerth-Bettencourt, Daniel Wildenstein estate, Carlton de Lille, hidden funding from the Republican Party, Bordeaux tramway, Guérini, Balkany, Député Serge Dassault, Karachi, Sylvie Andrieux, Takkieddine, Total, Sarkozy-Kadhafi, Cahuzac, Florence Lamblin, EELV professional training, Bygmalion, Tapie-Lagarde, Élysée polls, Sarkozy-Herzog-Azibert, Thévenoud, FN MEPs, Fillon cases, Le Roux case, Jeanne case, ...

"It puts fuel in the FN or Mélanchon voting machine!"

This is the argument "Fear of the big bad wolf for naive little children", and incidentally consider that the voters of the FN and Mélonchon are idiots! (I recall that the FN and Mélonchon gathered more than 30% of the votes cast, or nearly 16 million voters: sources)

The FN, like other political parties, is part of the system. During the presidential campaign, it was not the FN which most used the arguments of "Probity in politics" and made promises of "Moralization of political life".

To affirm : "Denounce political shenanigans = Vote FN", it is political strategy and the manipulation of voters, moreover like the strategy known today by Jacques Chirac which allowed him to find himself in the 2nd round of the presidential elections against the FN and to have nice to say: "now you have to choose between the Devil or me! ..."

[Grelinette]

... [for example, I illegally used a mini-excavator from work to disburse a parking lot at home - I refueled by returning it; very clearly, an abuse of social property - I don't know if there is a prescription; and voila: disqualified for being minister !!!!]

Come on Did, "Acknowledged fault with half forgiven", you will not be Minister, just Secretary of State.

That said, we must stop comparing the politician and the citizen. Firstly because the consequences of one have no common measure with those of the other, then because when a citizen is suspected of fraud, the authorities of control have all the means to punish him.

In addition, as a watermark of this election, the ideas of probity, honesty, ethics, etc., were hammered!

In 24 hours, it is impossible to "check" all the activities of men as "loaded" as Ferrand or Hulot (who can check everything he did during the time of Ushaia or if there is no one day had a "privilege" on the side of his foundation) and all the others ...

We now know that members of the current government had been approached long before the start of the campaign.

[Did67]

Ferrand, that's more than likely. Hulot, a priori, this was done in the morning at 11 o'clock! But indeed, it was a "possible" candidate, so we could anticipate ... So yes, there was more time than what I wrote, you are right.

Fortunately, however, the quickly mobilized State services do not know everything about all our actions, all the contracts that we have entered into (in this case, one of the many contracts awarded by the Breton mutuals). The press relies on embittered competitors who "swing", possibly (it is much more honorable) on whistleblowers who suddenly take advantage of meeting an "echo" where they were suspected yesterday (this n did not interest the media). And fortunately the State does not benefit from generalized denunciation - we have seen what this has given where it has been practiced (I am thinking of the former GDR)!

Basically, no, I find that the citizen is very shit to demand absolute probity from the politician without submitting to it himself. The politician is also ... a citizen! I even think that we could have been drunk like a pig once in our life and have a law passed to limit alcohol consumption or promote the fight against alcoholism. I think it's a dictatorship to want everything to be rigid, square. That nobody has "deviated" one day, a little ... It is fascism, even if it is of the extreme left!

In my testimony, I show that despite procedures, everything is not controllable. I tried to be honest. I haven't been a thousand percent nickel chrome.

However, today, with internet-type resources, the risk that someone looking finds, the risk that someone balances (wikileaks, bank listings) has increased!

[Grelinette]

In short, whatever the opinions of each of us on the level of honesty required for a politician who demands the trust of voters, the fact is that today for most citizens the word Policy rhymes with Traffic, Manipulation, Lying, etc, and it didn't fall from the sky like that.

However, to go along the lines of your remark that we all have something to blame ourselves for, politician or not, it would be welcome if a politician take the lead and announces: "Well ... I have surely in my past done such and such" inappropriate "thing (to use the euphemism which goes well), but today I ask you to trust me and swear to you that I will not do it again if you trust me! ... ".

And not like J. Kahuzac who denied his offshore account to the end and swore right in the eyes that he was snow white, against the backdrop of threats of defamation lawsuit, and who afterwards made his mega-culpa eyes full of tears.

On the other hand, another question arises, and that I have already asked myself:
What to think of the other political figures, who, knowing the shortcomings (financial, sexual, authoritarian, manipulative, fraud, etc.) of their colleague in the media turmoil, still support him with great reinforcements of glowing speech? ...

For example, when DSK fell for his sexual escapades, a large part of politicians of all stripes, after having supported him to the last limit, finally admitted to knowing for a long time the sexual and dangerous excesses of DSK, some even claiming that it was pathological (eg M. Rocard), and were careful not to point it out; it is in the image besides of Denis Baupin of EELV who has to use and abuse his "immunity" in the most complete untouchability to harass the women of his entourage in the sight and with the knowledge of all the members of his party ...

Moreover, in this idea of ​​"Motus Conventional Politics", I was surprised to see our ex-Minister of National Education, the charming Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, declaring at the time of the DSK affair while she was government spokesman:" that any this case had no basis ... and recall the presumption of innocence, etc, etc, ... ".
For once, the fall of DSK that followed surely saved her fall from kidney to the pretty young lady!

I am very curious to know what the concerned person thinks of it today with hindsight!