Avertir le modérateur

Politique dans les pays étrangers - Page 2

  • James Comey vs Donald Trump : Jusqu'où ?

    Ce 8 juin, James Comey, l’ancien directeur du FBI, viré le 9 mai par Trump, va être auditionné devant une commission du Sénat étasunien. Dans un pays qui ne connait pas de mécanisme de garantie des droits en droit international, l’un des éléments compensateurs est l’indépendance de la police fédérale. Les 10 000 agents du FBI sont au service du peuple, pas du pouvoir politique. Nommé par Obama et respecté, James Comey a été chargé de l'enquête sur les liens éventuels entre l'équipe de campagne de Trump et les réseaux russes. 

    La veille de son audition, qui sera pour partie publiée, James Comey a voulu poser les bases dans un long texte de 7 pages. Pour justifier sa décision, rare, Trump a évoqué des mauvaises relations internes, gênant le fonctionnement des services. Mais l’autre thèse est Trump a fait comprendre à James Comey qu’il devait abandonner l’enquête fédérale sur Michael T. Flynn, qui était alors son conseiller à la sécurité intérieure, à propos de l’affaire russe. S’il voulait rester en place, James Comey devait accepter le leadership de Trump. Ce qu’il aurait refusé, d’où le dégagement.

    Le flic a fait son travail de flic : les faits. Aussi, il prenait des notes, et tout ressort à cru. Témoignant passionnant sur les méthodes de Trump et du FBI.  

    Cette affaire est en train de basculer au cœur de la vie politique US. Si le fait se confirme, cette entrave à la justice pourrait être le motif d’ouverture d'une procédure de destitution. Et comme il y a un large consensus pour se débarrasser de Trump, cette affaire, c’est chaud, chaud, chaud….

    Document intégral.



    Select Committee on Intelligence
    James B. Comey
    June 8, 2017

    Chairman Burr, Ranking Member Warner, Members of the Committee.

    Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. I was asked to testify today to describe for you my interactions with President-Elect and President Trump on subjects that I understand are of interest to you. I have not included every detail from my conversations with the President, but, to the best of my recollection, I have tried to include information that may be relevant to the Committee.

    January 6 Briefing

    I first met then-President-Elect Trump on Friday, January 6 in a conference room at Trump Tower in New York. I was there with other Intelligence Community (IC) leaders to brief him and his new national security team on the findings of an IC assessment concerning Russian efforts to interfere in the election. At the conclusion of that briefing, I remained alone with the President Elect to brief him on some personally sensitive aspects of the information assembled during the assessment.

    The IC leadership thought it important, for a variety of reasons, to alert the incoming President to the existence of this material, even though it was salacious and unverified. Among those reasons were: (1) we knew the media was about to publicly report the material and we believed the IC should not keep knowledge of the material and its imminent release from the President-Elect; and (2) to the extent there was some effort to compromise an incoming President, we could blunt any such effort with a defensive briefing.

    The Director of National Intelligence asked that I personally do this portion of the briefing because I was staying in my position and because the material implicated the FBI’s counter-intelligence responsibilities. We also agreed I would do it alone to minimize potential embarrassment to the President-Elect. Although we agreed it made sense for me to do the briefing, the FBI’s leadership and I were concerned that the briefing might create a situation where a new President came into office uncertain about whether the FBI was conducting a counter-intelligence investigation of his personal conduct.

    It is important to understand that FBI counter-intelligence investigations are different than the more-commonly known criminal investigative work. The Bureau’s goal in a counter-intelligence investigation is to understand the technical and human methods that hostile foreign powers are using to influence the United States or to steal our secrets. The FBI uses that understanding to disrupt those efforts. Sometimes disruption takes the form of alerting a person who is targeted for recruitment or influence by the foreign power. Sometimes it involves hardening a computer system that is being attacked. Sometimes it involves “turning” the recruited person into a double-agent, or publicly calling out the behavior with sanctions or expulsions of embassy-based intelligence officers. On occasion, criminal prosecution is used to disrupt intelligence activities.

    Because the nature of the hostile foreign nation is well known, counterintelligence investigations tend to be centered on individuals the FBI suspects to be witting or unwitting agents of that foreign power. When the FBI develops reason to believe an American has been targeted for recruitment by a foreign power or is covertly acting as an agent of the foreign power, the FBI will “open an investigation” on that American and use legal authorities to try to learn more about the nature of any relationship with the foreign power so it can be disrupted.

    In that context, prior to the January 6 meeting, I discussed with the FBI’s leadership team whether I should be prepared to assure President-Elect Trump that we were not investigating him personally. That was true; we did not have an open counter-intelligence case on him. We agreed I should do so if circumstances warranted. During our one-on-one meeting at Trump Tower, based on President Elect Trump’s reaction to the briefing and without him directly asking the question, I offered that assurance.

    I felt compelled to document my first conversation with the President-Elect in a memo. To ensure accuracy, I began to type it on a laptop in an FBI vehicle outside Trump Tower the moment I walked out of the meeting. Creating written records immediately after one-on-one conversations with Mr. Trump was my practice from that point forward. This had not been my practice in the past. I spoke alone with President Obama twice in person (and never on the phone) – once in 2015 to discuss law enforcement policy issues and a second time, briefly, for him to say goodbye in late 2016. In neither of those circumstances did I memorialize the discussions. I can recall nine one-on-one conversations with President Trump in four months – three in person and six on the phone.

    January 27 Dinner

    The President and I had dinner on Friday, January 27 at 6:30 pm in the Green Room at the White House. He had called me at lunchtime that day and invited me to dinner that night, saying he was going to invite my whole family, but decided to have just me this time, with the whole family coming the next time. It was unclear from the conversation who else would be at the dinner, although I assumed there would be others.

    It turned out to be just the two of us, seated at a small oval table in the center of the Green Room. Two Navy stewards waited on us, only entering the room to serve food and drinks.

    The President began by asking me whether I wanted to stay on as FBI Director, which I found strange because he had already told me twice in earlier conversations that he hoped I would stay, and I had assured him that I intended to.

    He said that lots of people wanted my job and, given the abuse I had taken during the previous year, he would understand if I wanted to walk away.

    My instincts told me that the one-on-one setting, and the pretense that this was our first discussion about my position, meant the dinner was, at least in part, an effort to have me ask for my job and create some sort of patronage relationship.

    That concerned me greatly, given the FBI’s traditionally independent status in the executive branch.

    I replied that I loved my work and intended to stay and serve out my ten year term as Director. And then, because the set-up made me uneasy, I added that I was not “reliable” in the way politicians use that word, but he could always count on me to tell him the truth. I added that I was not on anybody’s side politically and could not be counted on in the traditional political sense, a stance I said was in his best interest as the President.

    A few moments later, the President said, “I need loyalty, I expect loyalty.”

    I didn’t move, speak, or change my facial expression in any way during the awkward silence that followed. We simply looked at each other in silence. The conversation then moved on, but he returned to the subject near the end of our dinner.

    At one point, I explained why it was so important that the FBI and the Department of Justice be independent of the White House. I said it was a paradox: Throughout history, some Presidents have decided that because “problems” come from Justice, they should try to hold the Department close. But blurring those boundaries ultimately makes the problems worse by undermining public trust in the institutions and their work.

    Near the end of our dinner, the President returned to the subject of my job, saying he was very glad I wanted to stay, adding that he had heard great things about me from Jim Mattis, Jeff Sessions, and many others. He then said, “I need loyalty.” I replied, “You will always get honesty from me.” He paused and then said, “That’s what I want, honest loyalty.” I paused, and then said, “You will get that from me.”

    As I wrote in the memo I created immediately after the dinner, it is possible we understood the phrase “honest loyalty” differently, but I decided it wouldn’t be productive to push it further. The term – honest loyalty – had helped end a very awkward conversation and my explanations had made clear what he should expect.

    During the dinner, the President returned to the salacious material I had briefed him about on January 6, and, as he had done previously, expressed his disgust for the allegations and strongly denied them. He said he was considering ordering me to investigate the alleged incident to prove it didn’t happen. I replied that he should give that careful thought because it might create a narrative that we were investigating him personally, which we weren’t, and because it was very difficult to prove a negative. He said he would think about it and asked me to think about it.

    As was my practice for conversations with President Trump, I wrote a detailed memo about the dinner immediately afterwards and shared it with the senior leadership team of the FBI.

    February 14 Oval Office Meeting

    On February 14, I went to the Oval Office for a scheduled counterterrorism briefing of the President. He sat behind the desk and a group of us sat in a semi-circle of about six chairs facing him on the other side of the desk. The Vice President, Deputy Director of the CIA, Director of the National Counter Terrorism Center, Secretary of Homeland Security, the Attorney General, and I were in the semi-circle of chairs. I was directly facing the President, sitting between the Deputy CIA Director and the Director of NCTC. There were quite a few others in the room, sitting behind us on couches and chairs.

    The President signaled the end of the briefing by thanking the group and telling them all that he wanted to speak to me alone. I stayed in my chair. As the participants started to leave the Oval Office, the Attorney General lingered by my chair, but the President thanked him and said he wanted to speak only with me.

    The last person to leave was Jared Kushner, who also stood by my chair and exchanged pleasantries with me. The President then excused him, saying he wanted to speak with me. When the door by the grandfather clock closed, and we were alone, the President began by saying, “I want to talk about Mike Flynn.” Flynn had resigned the previous day. The President began by saying Flynn hadn’t done anything wrong in speaking with the Russians, but he had to let him go because he had misled the Vice President. He added that he had other concerns about Flynn, which he did not then specify.

    The President then made a long series of comments about the problem with leaks of classified information – a concern I shared and still share. After he had spoken for a few minutes about leaks, Reince Priebus leaned in through the door by the grandfather clock and I could see a group of people waiting behind him.

    The President waved at him to close the door, saying he would be done shortly.

    The door closed.

    The President then returned to the topic of Mike Flynn, saying, “He is a good guy and has been through a lot.” He repeated that Flynn hadn’t done anything wrong on his calls with the Russians, but had misled the Vice President.

    He then said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.” I replied only that “he is a good guy.” (In fact, I had a positive experience dealing with Mike Flynn when he was a colleague as Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency at the beginning of my term at FBI.) I did not say I would “let this go.”

    The President returned briefly to the problem of leaks. I then got up and left out the door by the grandfather clock, making my way through the large group of people waiting there, including Mr. Priebus and the Vice President.

    I immediately prepared an unclassified memo of the conversation about Flynn and discussed the matter with FBI senior leadership. I had understood the President to be requesting that we drop any investigation of Flynn in connection with false statements about his conversations with the Russian ambassador in December. I did not understand the President to be talking about the broader investigation into Russia or possible links to his campaign. I could be wrong, but I took him to be focusing on what had just happened with Flynn’s departure and the controversy around his account of his phone calls. Regardless, it was very concerning, given the FBI’s role as an independent investigative agency.

    The FBI leadership team agreed with me that it was important not to infect the investigative team with the President’s request, which we did not intend to abide. We also concluded that, given that it was a one-on-one conversation, there was nothing available to corroborate my account. We concluded it made little sense to report it to Attorney General Sessions, who we expected would likely recuse himself from involvement in Russia-related investigations. (He did so two weeks later.) The Deputy Attorney General’s role was then filled in an acting capacity by a United States Attorney, who would also not be long in the role.

    After discussing the matter, we decided to keep it very closely held, resolving to figure out what to do with it down the road as our investigation progressed. The investigation moved ahead at full speed, with none of the investigative team members – or the Department of Justice lawyers supporting them – aware of the President’s request.

    Shortly afterwards, I spoke with Attorney General Sessions in person to pass along the President’s concerns about leaks. I took the opportunity to implore the Attorney General to prevent any future direct communication between the President and me. I told the AG that what had just happened – him being asked to leave while the FBI Director, who reports to the AG, remained behind – was inappropriate and should never happen. He did not reply. For the reasons discussed above, I did not mention that the President broached the FBI’s potential investigation of General Flynn.

    March 30 Phone Call

    On the morning of March 30, the President called me at the FBI. He described the Russia investigation as “a cloud” that was impairing his ability to act on behalf of the country. He said he had nothing to do with Russia, had not been involved with hookers in Russia, and had always assumed he was being recorded when in Russia. He asked what we could do to “lift the cloud.” I responded that we were investigating the matter as quickly as we could, and that there would be great benefit, if we didn’t find anything, to our having done the work well. He agreed, but then re-emphasized the problems this was causing him.

    Then the President asked why there had been a congressional hearing about Russia the previous week – at which I had, as the Department of Justice directed, confirmed the investigation into possible coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign. I explained the demands from the leadership of both parties in Congress for more information, and that Senator Grassley had even held up the confirmation of the Deputy Attorney General until we briefed him in detail on the investigation. I explained that we had briefed the leadership of Congress on exactly which individuals we were investigating and that we had told those Congressional leaders that we were not personally investigating President Trump.

    I reminded him I had previously told him that. He repeatedly told me, “We need to get that fact out.” (I did not tell the President that the FBI and the Department of Justice had been reluctant to make public statements that we did not have an open case on President Trump for a number of reasons, most importantly because it would create a duty to correct, should that change.)

    The President went on to say that if there were some “satellite” associates of his who did something wrong, it would be good to find that out, but that he hadn’t done anything wrong and hoped I would find a way to get it out that we weren’t investigating him.

    In an abrupt shift, he turned the conversation to FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, saying he hadn’t brought up “the McCabe thing” because I had said McCabe was honorable, although McAuliffe was close to the Clintons and had given him (I think he meant Deputy Director McCabe’s wife) campaign money. Although I didn’t understand why the President was bringing this up, I repeated that Mr. McCabe was an honorable person.

    He finished by stressing “the cloud” that was interfering with his ability to make deals for the country and said he hoped I could find a way to get out that he wasn’t being investigated. I told him I would see what we could do, and that we would do our investigative work well and as quickly as we could.

    Immediately after that conversation, I called Acting Deputy Attorney General Dana Boente (AG Sessions had by then recused himself on all Russia related matters), to report the substance of the call from the President, and said I would await his guidance. I did not hear back from him before the President called me again two weeks later.

    April 11 Phone Call

    On the morning of April 11, the President called me and asked what I had done about his request that I “get out” that he is not personally under investigation.

    I replied that I had passed his request to the Acting Deputy Attorney General, but I had not heard back. He replied that “the cloud” was getting in the way of his ability to do his job. He said that perhaps he would have his people reach out to the Acting Deputy Attorney General. I said that was the way his request should be handled. I said the White House Counsel should contact the leadership of DOJ to make the request, which was the traditional channel.

    He said he would do that and added, “Because I have been very loyal to you, very loyal; we had that thing you know.” I did not reply or ask him what he meant by “that thing.” I said only that the way to handle it was to have the White House Counsel call the Acting Deputy Attorney General. He said that was what he would do and the call ended.

    That was the last time I spoke with President Trump.

  • Nos amis british empêtrés dans le Brexit

    En avril, tout allait bien pour May. C’était l’heure du Brexit triomphant, et comme le Labour était dans les choux, May a provoqué un scrutin anticipé, cherchant une belle victoire des Tories qui allait lui laisser les mains libres pour affronter Bruxelles, imposer la sortie de l’Europe, obtenir le maintien de avantages et ne rien payer. 20 points d’avance dans les sondages… Sacrés sondages !

    Parce que depuis cette magnifique idée, plus rien ne va.

    Question programme, présenté le 18 mai, les Tories se sont lâchés sur un truc de dézingués libéraux, genre vendre la maison des personnes âgées pour financer les soins, vu qu’ils ne profitent plus de leur maison : raffiné et efficace ! Cette mesure a été appelée la « Dementia Tax », soit la taxe sur la démence… Idem sur des coupes budgétaires à faire peur… A gauche, Jeremy Corbyn a très bien joué la réplique. Il a mis le cap sur un objectif, la réduction des inégalités, car le fossé se creusent entre ceux pour qui ça marche, et ceux qui dévissent. Le piège des contrats « zéro heure » se referme : des contrats sans garantie d’horaires, et donc sans garantie salariale. Les 1 000 personnes les plus fortunées du pays seront cette année plus riches que les 40% des ménages les plus pauvres, selon la fondation Equality Trust. La première ministre des riches… S’est ajouté l'attentat de Manchester le 22 mai, Corbyn stigmatisant la politique extérieure interventionniste, et les coupes budgétaires dans la police, coupes que personne ne peut contester.

    De plus, le cadre des négociations avec l’Union européenne se dessine : vous partez, Oki, mais vous laissez tous les avantages, et tant pis pour les remises en questions imposées à vos citoyens et vos entreprises, car c’est votre choix. Et compte tenu des engagements pris et interrompus, il y a une ardoise à payer (100 milliards d’euros). C’est dire que l’hypothèse d’un accord est irréaliste, et que tout ceci se terminera devant la Cour de Justice de l’Union Européenne, avec risque financier XXL.

    On en vient alors à l’essentiel, c’est-à-dire le renversant mouvement de girouette de May... qui alors ministre de l’Intérieur de Cameron avait conduit une ferme campagne contre le Brexit. Avant de changer d’avis à 180° après le référendum. Crédibilité ? Avec une argumentation parfaitement avachie : « On a donné le choix au peuple. Le peuple britannique a décidé qu'il fallait que le Royaume-Uni quitte l'Union européenne. Je fais ce que je crois que le peuple veut que je fasse. Il me semble qu'il est possible de réussir le Brexit. » Va gagner une élection avec ça…

    May est au plus mal dans les débats, les journalistes lui renvoyant ses propos opposés au Brexit. Hier, c’était le grand débat télé, et elle a renoncé à venir, se faisant remplacer par son ministre de l’Intérieur.

    Une chanson « Liar Liar », sur les mensonges de May, fait exploser les compteurs…

    A suivre, avec déjà de grosses surprises, et peut-être plus dans une semaine.

  • Grève générale au Brésil

    Les grands marlous de la droite brésilienne sont manifestement plus doués pour organiser un coup d’Etat institutionnel, virant sans motif Dilma en mai 2016, que pour gouverner le pays. 

    Un an après, le bilan de Michel Temer est éloquent : la récession s’est accrue, les contraintes sociales des entreprises sont allégées, les grands entreprises stratégiques ont été ouvertes aux capitaux étrangers, l’austérité s’est généralisée, et le chômage a explosé à 13,7% en mars, soit plus de 14 millions personnes. Toujours pas d’enquête contre Dilma, alors que près du tiers des ministres du gouvernement de Temer sont visés par des enquêtes judiciaires pour corruption. Tout va bien.

    Dans ce contexte, le Congrès, qui vient d’assouplir le régime de la sous-traitance, a été saisi dans la foulée pour déréglementer le droit du travail avec notamment un allongement de la durée des cotisations retraites. Air bien connu : la flexibilité du droit du travail et l’allégement des charges sociales va relancer l’économie.

    Cette politique a braqué la société. Les mouvements sociaux se sont multipliés, et les grandes centrales avaient appelé à une grève générale ce vendredi, la première depuis plus de 20 ans. Le mouvement a reçu l’appui de l’Eglise catholique.


    Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro et toutes les grandes villes ont été touchées, avec des grèves fortes dans les transports en commun, des barrages, des actions des blocages, souvent marquées par des affrontements avec les forces de l’ordre. Le ministre de la Justice a finement expliqué « Nous ne vivons pas une grève, mais plutôt plusieurs émeutes », annonçant ainsi une nouvelle étape dans la répression syndicale.

    Selon la Centrale unique des travailleurs (CUT), environ 40 millions de Brésiliens ont fait grève, soit plus du tiers de la population active. Pour Paulo Pereira da Silva, le président du syndicat Forca Sindical, « c’est la plus grande grève de l'histoire du Brésil ».

    Dilma a salué le mouvement : « La mobilisation en défense des droits des travailleurs et du système des retraites montre la force de la résistance ».

    Lula a qualifié la mobilisation de « succès total ». Lula, favori des instituts de sondages pour les élections de 2018, plaide pour des élections anticipées, Temer n’étant plus en état de gouverner.


  • Vive la Gauche portugaise

    La gauche portugaise a réussi quelques exploits.

    En un, parvenir après les élections de 2015 à une alliance électorale de tout l’éventail de la gauche, et une alliance qui a duré, ce qui reste un modèle.

    En deux, s’affirmer dans l’Europe, car le repli dans les frontières ne veut rien dire, et dans l’Union européenne, parce qu’il faut respecter des engagements d’État, et surtout, parce que la critiquable et tant décriée Commission Européenne, contrairement à la légende, n'impose pas les politiques d’austérité. Avec insistance, elle rappelle qu’un pays qui s’endette devient la proie des banques, et que plus des banques rendent leur argent disponible pour les Etats, moins il en reste pour les entreprises et les particuliers. La relance par l’emprunt public a ses vertus, mais ce n’est plus d’époque. 

    Le gouvernement portugais a tracé sa voie : réduire le déficit sans passer par les politiques d’austérité. Le Portugal a ramené son déficit public à 2 % en 2016, avec comme perspective 1 % en 2018 puis l'équilibre budgétaire en 2020. Tu piges, mon pote ? Mário Centeno, ministre de l’économie, souligne la qualité du résultat : « Nous avons une occasion unique d'en finir avec la théorie selon laquelle l'Europe est condamnée à un avenir fait seulement d'austérité. Notre modèle est une recette exportable dans tout le continent ». Une réussite pour Antonio Costa, le premier ministre socialiste et son gouvernement de gauche.

    Et oui… Les dirigeants portugais ont renoncé à de grands plans de dépenses, genre les grands travaux… et à l'austérité. Ils ont misé sur la cohésion sociale, en cherchant à redonner confiance aux classes moyennes. Le gouvernement a allégé la pression fiscale sur les ménages, a relevé le salaire minimum et retraites et a restitué les 35 heures pour les fonctionnaires. Avec une prudence de sioux, il a compensé par une augmentation de l'imposition sur les sociétés et sur l'immobilier, et il a créé de nouvelles taxes.

    Ces chocs ont été acceptés, parce que le renforcement de la cohésion sociale, appuyé sur les exportations et de tourisme, a dopé l’économie : pour cette année, la croissance sera entre 1,5 à 1,8 %.

    La gauche, ce n’est pas « changer la vie » ! Let me be... Renforcer la société et la solidarité, pour redéployer les vraies forces de l’économie, cela suffit largement. Bravo aux dirigeants portugais, véritable contre-modèle aux discours illusionnistes de la gauche en Europe.

    Si j’étais portugais, je n’aurais pas de mal à savoir pour qui voter…


  • Allemagne : Merkel bien partie pour rempiler, la droite nationaliste dans les choux...

    Autant, en France, la politique est insaisissable voire évanescente, sans un seul candidat qui fasse la maille, autant elle est solide et maîtrisée en Allemagne, et c’est vraiment une excellente nouvelle pour vous. La Grande-Bretagne engage le processus long, complexe et incertain du Brexit, l’Italie et l’Espagne ne sont pas trop en forme… Bref, nous comptons de plus en plus sur l’Allemagne comme pilier de l’Europe et premier protecteur de la France... qui va être en live pendant cinq ans avec un président pantin et une majorité parlementaire insaisissable.

    Hier, des élections avaient lieu dans la Sarre. Pas une affaire majeure, car la Sarre est le deuxième plus petit Land d'Allemagne, ancienne région minière de moins d’un million d'habitants, mais un test important alors qu’on annonçait l’écroulement de la CDU et de Merkel, la montée irréversible de la droite nationaliste, et le renouveau de SPD, qui vient se donner un nouveau leader avec Martin Schulz. Un vrai vote, donc l'équivalent de 100 sondages, et ce à 6 mois de l'élection fédérale du 24 septembre, qui est notre vrai rendez-vous politique. Plus important que la présidentielle, je me permets de souligner.

    Le résultat est clair. La CDU l'emporte nettement, renforçant son score de 5%, pour arriver à 40,7%. Alors que la pression était forte pour ce scrutin, Merkel a laissé la leader locale Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer mener les affaires. Elle est venue uniquement une fois, la dernière semaine, pour un meeting de soutien. C’est donc du solide.

    Pour le SPD, ce n’est pas une bonne opération. Le score du parti est en recul de un point, à 29,6%. Encouragé par des sondages gaillards, le SPD visait le renversement de majorité, en passant un accord politique avec la gauche radicale de Die Linke,… laquelle se retrouve également en repli, à 12,9%. Il manque deux sièges à la CDU pour atteindre la majorité, et on va donc vers une coalition CDU/ SPD… Pas vraiment le schéma pour s’élancer pour septembre prochain.

    La droite nationaliste de l’AfD fait son entrée dans le Parlement de Sarre, avec 6,2%, mais ce score est en recul sur les élections et sondages de la dernière période. On n’a même pas encore eu la baudruche,… et ça se dégonfle déjà.

    Chères amies, chers amis, ne perdons pas espoir. Il reste encore parfaitement possible en Europe de conduire des politiques à long terme, avec des leaders responsables, qui créent l’adhésion populaire autour de leurs projets et savent conduire des coalitions gouvernementales, avec un bilan simple : l’économie est en ordre, et l’extrême droite se fait niquer.

    - Dis donc, Annegret, toi qui parles si bien le français, ça te dirait pas de te présenter en France ?  


Toute l'info avec 20minutes.fr, l'actualité en temps réel Toute l'info avec 20minutes.fr : l'actualité en temps réel | tout le sport : analyses, résultats et matchs en direct
high-tech | arts & stars : toute l'actu people | l'actu en images | La une des lecteurs : votre blog fait l'actu