Learning the facts of Sarkozy's future trial

I'm making an effort to master the facts of Nicolas Sarkozy's future trial... which could possibly take place next year. It seems to me that the very idea of trying a former president is enormous, which means that we should look gravely upon this future trial. It will be a most exceptional event. Besides, Sarkozy has been hoping to become the president of France for a second time. Instead of awaiting the results of a presidential election, he'll be awaiting the verdict of a court of law.

Sarkozy's lawyer is 60-year-old Thierry Herzog, who is a personal friend of the former president.

Already, this afternoon, Herzog has surprised observers by making erroneous statements. Up until now, Sarkozy has been subjected to a single legal operation, designated as an examination (mise en examen), which took place last February. The motive for his being examined was the illegal financing of an electoral campaign, and five facts were retained against Sarkozy. The examination was carried out by a body known as the parquet of Paris. The examination came to an end on August 30. The original motive and facts might have been totally replaced by new entities, but this was not entirely the case. In deciding that Sarkozy should be brought to trial, the parquet retained the same motive: namely the illegal financing of an electoral campaign. On the other hand, the parquet abandoned the first two facts, and only retained the last three :

1. Sarkozy had exceeded the ceiling of electoral expenses.
   
2. He had failed to respect the rules for establishing his campaign's accounting.
   
3. He had inserted, in the accounting, some elements that were deliberately understated.
   

Now, Herzog suggested today that the parquet, in moving from the examination to the present réquisitoire, had committed legal errors. Clearly, this is untrue, because no new elements whatsoever have been inserted. We have seen, above all, that the motive for sending Sarkozy to trial is strictly identical to the motive for examining him. So, it appears that Herzog was trying to pull the wool over our eyes when he suggested the existence of legal irregularities.