FN: Yes, but the Clinton affair was a private matter. Here we’re talking about accusations relating to the exercise of the duties entrusted to M. Chirac. It was therefore absolutely right that he should have stated his position before.
JV: In this particular case, there is a procedure under French law called impeachment [empêchement]. But leaving this procedure aside, I find it wrong that trouble makers seek to upset the due process of democratic political institutions and force the President to speak out.

FN: M. Chirac has also said: “I will fight for the truth.” Can you tell me what M. Chirac’s truth is in this affair?
JV: Well, it’s quite simply the truth with a capital T. There’s no other way of looking at it.

FN: You were quoted in ‘Le Nouvel Économiste’ in September 2003 as saying: “In criminal law, the later affairs appear, the more lenient the judges may be.” Has that been your tactic in this case, to rely on the delay in the investigation?
JV: No, because the investigation has been in progress for a long time. To return to what I said, yes, time is the best ally of our clients, indeed a far better ally than we barristers. As regards M. Chirac, his situation is so unusual, because of his position and his immunity, that there is no question of using delaying tactics of any sort. For this reason, the procedures adopted will not be for gaining time, but to ensure that the law is scrupulously followed. Nor is there any question of giving him any special treatment.

FN: Considering the number of influential figures in French political life (Dominique Strauss-Kahn and companies such as Crédit Lyonnais, Total, Elf, L’Oréal and BNP Paribas) who have already entrusted their cases to you, and the experience you have gained from such cases, how do you foresee the defence of M. Chirac?
JV: With serenity.

Former president to be investigated on a criminal charge
Jacques Chirac’s avocat Jean Veil is confident that his client has no need to worry as the judicial clouds gather round him since his retirement from the Élysée.
Chirac is being investigated for “misappropriation of public funds” and theoretically could be fined €150,000 and be imprisoned for 10 years. The events complained of took place in the 1980s and 1990s.
Referring to the three other cases involving the former president, Maître Veil pointed out that the food expenses file was closed; that Chirac does not have to reply to the accusations in the Clearstream affair, he has merely been asked to appear as a witness. As regards the matter of plane tickets there was only one plane and the matter is apparently cleared up.
The lawyer joked about Jacques Chirac’s oft-quoted expression “ça va faire pschitt”, confirming that it would indeed go pschitt, perhaps with his help.
The formal investigation of the former president is another first in a country that is no stranger to outlandish political and financial scandals.
The former head of state told journalists that there was no question of putting the money in his own pocket but then the judge never said there was. His argument, as quoted in the daily ‘Le Parisien’, that the cost involved was only a tiny percentage of the budget of the city would appear to be another way of saying “but it was only a small bank, your honour”.
As to the actual charges, which he may never face, his defence is more to the point. Jean Veil says that every one of the ‘fictitious jobs’ was down in black and white in the budget of the mairie de Paris and voted through by the city council.
It was Maître Veil who achieved the remarkable feat of getting Dominique Strauss-Kahn off when he was accused of illicitly using students’ union funds.

Clearstream judges summon Veil

The two judges investigating the Clearstream affair, Jean- Marie d’Huy and Henri Pons have, most unusually, ordered Jacques Chirac’s avocat to appear before them on December 4.
Their justification is that his name was on the list of bank accounts with Clearstream. It is difficult to see what their object is as avocats are bound to professional secrecy and Veil may not divulge anything about Chirac’s affairs.
A second senior minister from the former government of Jacques Chirac has been called in by the judges to help elucidate the Clearstream saga. Minister of the Interior Michèle Alliot-Marie, when she was Minister of Defence, took part in a confrontation with secret service Général Rondot so that judges could compare their two statements.
When Rondot was investigating the activities of those whose names appeared on the bogus list of Clearstream bank accounts, he was responsible to the Ministry of Defence.
However, it is claimed that he was getting orders from the then Minister of the Interior Dominique de Villepin who denies this. Jacques Chirac, to whom the two ministers reported, has refused to answer the judge’s questions, citing his legal immunity for acts during his presidential term. This leaves de Villepin and Alliot-Marie, former loyal supporters, in a highly exposed position.
Michèle Alliot-Marie had sought and obtained permission from the Conseil des ministres to give evidence in any legal proceedings as she is bound to do.
Meanwhile, Dominique de Villepin has raised eyebrows by praising Nicolas Sarkozy for holding firm during the transport strikes and making sure that no side lost face. Previously, he had let drop a series of unhelpful remarks on every aspect of government policy. He was also positive about the coming reforms, including those of the universities.