“Everything is true”. Mediapart defended itself Thursday from any defamation before the Paris court, where the online newspaper was on trial for one of the articles that pushed ex-minister François de Rugy upon resignation.
Then Minister of the Ecological and Inclusive Transition, François de Rugy had resigned in July 2019 after a series of revelations: Sumptuous dinners organized while he chaired the National Assembly – supporting photos of lobsters and grands crus – costly work in their official accommodation, disputed use of his deputy mandate fees, social housing rented in Nantes.
It’s for the only article on this accommodation that François de Rugy attacked Mediapart, of which he had denounced the ” methods “ and the “Demolition journalism”.
The one who became a member again was not at the hearing on Thursday, having indicated that he was held in the Assembly where the bill is being considered “Separatism” for which he chaired the commission.
“Evasion”, sweeps to the bar the director of the publication of Mediapart Edwy Plenel, black jacket on the back.
“I would have liked to have had this confrontation on our so-called ‘methods'”.
Obviously at ease, this accustomed to defamation proceedings (260 since the creation of the newspaper, recalls his lawyer) denounces a “Instrumentalisation of justice” orchestrated by M. de Rugy.
“The whole stake” by attacking this single article, “The least notable, the least essential” of the series of revelations, it is “To obtain a conviction for the whole”, “It is very disloyal”, says Plenel.
“Cleaver”
“We will be told that this cascade of articles proves the relentlessness”, also said the journalist. But “We didn’t have all of that in a club. After the first article, people alerted, information came “.
The defense of Mr. de Rugy doubts this version, recalls that “Four articles in 48 hours” have fallen “Like a cleaver”.
Me Pierre-Olivier Sur also recalls that Mr. de Rugy ultimately had to reimburse only three of the dinners of the Assembly and that he was not worried about the expensive work in his apartment.
“Words to kill, and who killed”, he sums up, in his plea.
“Pffff”, breath, exasperated one of the authors of the article, Fabrice Arfi, continued alongside his director of publication.
Mr. Arfi recounts the starting point of the investigation: in 2017, Mr. de Rugy became President of the National Assembly and championed transparency and exemplarity, says the journalist. “I say to myself, well … let’s check”.
“The reality is that we are entitled to know how our politicians behave”, will plead Mediapart’s lawyer, Me Emmanuel Tordjman.
Mr. de Rugy’s defense maintains that in the offending article, Mediapart maintains, “Bad faith”, a “Amalgam” between accommodation “Social purpose” rented by M. de Rugy and social housing (HLM) from which its chief of staff benefited, which the newspaper had also just revealed.
His second lawyer, Me Mathias Chichportich, reads the headline: “François de Rugy also benefits from social housing”, emphasizing the ” too “.
“What the public perceives” is that “This man leads a ‘castle life’, and that at the same time, he deprives modest French people of occupying social housing”, supports Me Chichportich.
Previously, Michaël Hajdenberg, one of the co-authors of the article, had precisely explained the operation of the device, which does not target the poorest but “An intermediate public who has difficulty finding accommodation” – not M. de Rugy -, with rents 5 to 20% cheaper than market prices.
The day before the hearing, Mr. de Rugy had given an interview to Ouest-France, in which he argued: “Mediapart was not mistaken in good faith, he wanted to harm me”.
“If we were wrong, he would still be in his apartment”, argued Mr. Plenel, reaffirming: “Everything we wrote is true”.
Decision on April 2.
– .
