It was more likely to remain he assessed

It is known today on what will result in the Clearstream case. Justice is at work. Let the work. But the number of victims has, over the days tend to swell: the President of the Republic and the Prime Minister are discredited, suspected to have intended to damage the reputation of Nicolas Sarkozy by exploiting a false case of bank accounts

Power wobbles but it is not the only one. This is that justice is slammed, accused of failing to comply with all the rules of procedure: the judge Van Ruymbeke, one of the stars of the financial center, is obliged to explain why it is not recorded in a record maintenance there, end of April 2004, with one of the actors in the Darkover case. Its promotion is suspended. The excitement is bright in the medium. The press is not spared either. A statement is open for violation of the secrecy of the trial: power blamed publish all that invisible hand communicates without taking the trouble to verify and prioritize. Easy trial, classic trial, but that still has a kernel of truth: in this "reality show" policy where everything is unpacked, the Court and the backyard, comments "on" and "off" comments on sentences to discern the true from the false, facts and fantasy. The "transparency", "truth", the cleaning of the Augean stables, all of these goals that Nicolas Sarkozy puts forward since he took justice in January, is accompanied by a terrifying setback: as long as the truth has not been clearly established, the Clearstream case éclaboussera all, pollute all. On the merits, the French did there not understand much. On the form, it does however not up that right étripait, that the air was unbreathable in the Government, that the country was governed more calmly, and that their problems to them spent the second plan.

When he went to see Jacques Chirac, on 5 may, with its double-hatted Minister of the Interior and President of the UMP, Nicolas Sarkozy was obviously a quick outcome. He believed that Dominique de Villepin had more the political means to Matignon, Jacques Chirac, under heavy fire from revelations, change of Prime Minister. Not only Jacques Chirac has not changed but Dominique de Villepin was counterattacking: "Conspiracy!", has launched the Prime Minister, determined to remain as that justice had nothing proven. And so the sprinkler watered. This is no longer Prime Minister, Saturday, the issue of whether to stay or to leave the Government, but Nicolas Sarkozy who, between two evils, announced his troops to what was in his eyes the least bad solution: stay. "I have no intention to create the conditions for a political crisis which would benefit only to the left." "It was more likely to remain", he assessed. And this is how the Clearstream case has been a victim of more: it has taken in its nets human failure, time again, to cohabit with the suspects to have intended his loss. There are now three men in the same boat: Chirac, Villepin and Sarkozy. Sarkozy, who denounced the top and to the Forum "pharmacies, the conspirators, forgers", but now swear in private that saying this he does not think to Dominique de Villepin. And when asked if two enemies can continue to govern together, he rejects this term of enemy. A what duplicity what contortions led policy! Of course, the President of the UMP continues to build before his troops écoeurées the fact that all this will not last. That the truth will eventually explode, that a new fact will shock the gives and he will make his freedom. But, in substance, that knows Judicial time is not confused with the political time. And in the slow agony of power, it participates today of flat, victim of his double cap of candidate in the presidential election and President of the majority party.

The presidential election, said de Gaulle, it is the meeting between a man and a people. "I believe in the France," launches a few days ago Nicolas Sarkozy positioning as a providential man, who is seeking "the popular momentum" to transcend the divisions and lead the country to "overflow". Gaullist speech, speech causing, but that begins on a reality: the presidential election became the case of the parties. Nicolas Sarkozy failed to ensure her candidacy in 2007 than in seizing in 2004 from the President's Party. This gives him an invaluable advantage: resources, troops and the possibility to shape his own UMP, whose size is growing month after month with the product of appeal is its name. But it also gives him a duty: maintain the unity of the family to the end, avoid turf wars, does not appear to be the aggressor. And so man of rupture is prohibited to break. It must assume its share of the legacy of the President with which we understand very well, at the time, what type of relationship it maintains: is it really in Attorney or quest still an accolade, after so many years of confrontation "Alongside the President of the Republic, we have taken our responsibilities", he said Saturday in the frames of the UMP in referring to the role he played in the out of the crisis of the CPE. A role which, incidentally, was to organize the retreat in open country, because "when a policy is not understood by the French, it back." "This is not a weakness it is courage." It would hear of Chirac!

The idea of a reconciliation is further accentuated when some of his relatives were, for a few days, attempted to accredit the thesis of a Nicolas Sarkozy settling at Matignon to save the end of reign Chirac supporter. Could it, ultimately, that these two - there agree, while all those who have known young Jacques Chirac say hit find in Nicolas Sarkozy good traits of his character: the vitality, the taste of the action, the meaning of the tactic and the plasticity of the doctrine. "It is for us to take the history of France there it is", said Saturday the President of the UMP. "It is for us to build a new France on foundations multisecular, as if our old country was a Tabula Rasa." In saying this, Nicolas Sarkozy did not in its relations with the President. But the comment could apply fully. To break completely, it must be in the opposition. When it belongs to the majority, cannot finally promising that "change in continuity". This is what was Pompidou after de Gaulle and way more assertive, Giscard after Pompidou. And this is what is forced today to Sarkozy after Chirac. Finally, there is a certain continuity in the history of the right.