It becomes increasingly clear that the purpose of the „generals’ trafficking” operation is by no means a fair judicial endeavor and does not limit itself to the individuals of the two defendants, Florian Coldea and Dumitru Dumbravă.
And when we talk about the operation, it does not in any way mean evading responsibility, certainly moral, possibly criminal, if there are now unknown pieces of evidence of those who would have switched sides, and from the side of the rule of law have become artisans of optimizations aimed at weakening the rule of law.
However, very little of what we see is a genuine and absolutely necessary quest for factual and judicial truth.
1.As anticipated a few days ago, the main physical target is Laura Codruța Kovesi for mixed reasons: the revenge of those who ended up in prison and those who for years could no longer steal undisturbed, but also the fear, some pathological, that she might run for president, despite all denials by Mrs. Kovesi.
As evidence, the propaganda machine has started to embroider around the fact that EPPO did not appeal in the Hideg case. The whistleblower in the generals' case received 4 years in prison at the first instance in the European Public Prosecutor's Office case, and he proceeded with an appeal. EPPO did not appeal. Because in this case, Coldea and Dumbravă were trafficking, friends of LCK, this is the advanced version.
And as certain television channels, precisely those leading the discussion towards LCK, prove to be extremely well-connected, telepathically of course, to the prosecutor in charge, it is not at all excluded that she, a former defendant and old adversary of the former DNA chief, would quote Codruța Kovesi as a witness just to fulfill the wet dream of the criminals.
They experienced this ecstasy when Adina Florea, a colleague from SIIJ, maybe even from the same office, along with Mihaiela Moraru Iorga, dragged LCK into an investigation because she allegedly took a bribe for an extradition.
Any literate person who reads the EPPO Regulation, specifically art. 36 para 7, can understand why this absurd scenario is plausible.
Neither the EPPO chief, nor even the case prosecutor decide on filing an appeal, but rather that permanent chamber monitoring the case composed of three European prosecutors from other member states than where the case is being handled. EPPO has 15 permanent chambers, and each case is monitored by one of them, after a random allocation.
The three magistrates of the chamber make all the important decisions in their assigned cases. Is it credible that LCK would have imposed to them what decision to make, and they would have accepted without hesitation? Is it credible that LCK would expose herself to suspicion of having a personal interest in one cause or another? And Mrs. Kovesi is part of a permanent chamber, but not the one that monitored the Hedig case.
Why did the magistrates of the EPPO Permanent Chamber choose not to file an appeal in the Hedig case? Most likely because there was already a guilty plea agreement, there was no need for new evidence, which can only be done in your own appeal, and under a guilty plea, the sentence is reduced by one third, so the applied sentence was already quite substantial.
But, as I was saying, it is not at all excluded that Mrs. Moraru Iorga would want to hear these words directly from LCK.
2. Another essential target is Romania's anti-corruption itself. What matters to the unleashed TV propaganda is not whether the two generals committed the alleged act after retirement, but to demolish the anti-corruption fight with which they are associated.
Imperfect, certainly, incomplete, certainly, the anti-corruption during the demonized binomial period started a harsh and terrifying cleansing in Romania. And such a thing should not be repeated. And to prevent its repetition, it must be killed with stakes in the heart and strings of garlic.
Proven criminals or those saved by decisions of the CCR/SIIJ are heroized and emerge as zombies from caves. Some of them could even be part of the operation. There is information that, from prison, Mrs. Udrea might have been one of the initiators.
It is a fact that the media assault began on the television of a convicted criminal and was led by a journalist who used to be the right-hand woman of a convicted criminal, a television and journalist who filmed Elena Udrea in extensive interviews in prison.
The thesis is not that two people committed or did not commit a crime. The thesis is that the entire anti-corruption effort was a huge mess, strictly aimed at breaking innocent people and destroying Romanian companies. Therefore, criminals like Dan Voiculescu must be saved, rehabilitated, eventually sanctified, and are only good for a comeback in the forefront of politics.
Former judges, led by Livia Stanciu, are caught in the grinder of this demonstration. Failures of her predecessor, Daniel Morar (Bârsan case), are attributed to LCK. Those who might still think of taking on the mafia must know exactly what awaits them. Not that the risks are significant, as long as the DNA is in the hands of Marius Voineag.