“
Everything is true
”.
Mediapart defended itself Thursday from any defamation before the Paris judicial court, where the online newspaper was tried for one of the articles that pushed the former minister François de Rugy to resign.
Read also: Separatism: François de Rugy leads the debate in the National Assembly
Then Minister of the Ecological and Inclusive Transition, François de Rugy resigned in July 2019 after a series of revelations: sumptuous dinners organized while he presided over the National Assembly - photos of lobsters and grands crus in support - expensive work in his official accommodation, disputed use of his deputy mandate fees, social housing rented in Nantes.
It was for the only article on this accommodation that François de Rugy attacked Mediapart, whose “
methods
” and “
demolition journalism
”
he had denounced
.
The one who became a member again was not at the hearing on Thursday, having let it be known that he was being held in the Assembly where the “
separatism
”
bill is being examined
for which he chaired the committee.
"
Evasion
”, sweeps the director of the publication of Mediapart Edwy Plenel at the bar, black jacket on his 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 an “
instrumentalisation of justice
” orchestrated by François de Rugy.
"The
whole stake
" in attacking this single article, "
the least notable, the least essential
" of the series of revelations, is "
to obtain a conviction for the whole
", "
it is very disloyal
", affirms Edwy Plenel.
"
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 box.
After the first article, people alerted, information came in
”.
The defense of François de Rugy doubts this version, recalls that "
four articles in 48 hours
" fell "
like a cleaver
".
Me Pierre-Olivier Sur also recalls that François de Rugy finally 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
", breaths, exasperated one of the authors of the article, Fabrice Arfi, continued alongside his director of publication.
Fabrice Arfi recounts the starting point of the investigation: in 2017, François de Rugy became President of the National Assembly and championed transparency and exemplarity, says the journalist.
"
I say to myself, bah ... let's check
".
"
The reality is that we are entitled to know how our politicians behave
", will plead the lawyer of Mediapart, Me Emmanuel Tordjman.
To read also: For François de Rugy, "the law reaffirms the separation between the religious and the political"
The defense of François de Rugy maintains that in the offending article, Mediapart maintains, in “
bad faith
”, an “
amalgam
” between the “
social purpose
” housing
rented by François de Rugy and the social housing (HLM) which benefited his chief of staff, which the newspaper had also just revealed.
His second lawyer, Me Mathias Chichportich, reads the headline: "
François de Rugy also benefits from social housing
", insisting on "
also
".
"
What the public perceives
" is that "
this man leads the life of a castle, and that at the same time, he deprives the modest French of occupying social housing
", maintains 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 François de Rugy -, with rents 5 to 20% cheaper than market prices.
The day before the hearing, François de Rugy had given an interview to Ouest-France, in which he maintained: "
Mediapart was not mistaken in good faith, he wanted to harm me
".
"
If we were wrong, he would still be in his apartment,
" said Edwy Plenel, reaffirming: "Everything we wrote is true".
Decision on April 2.
