It's also worth noting that members of the second system had his picture pinned on a wall called "The wall of the assholes"[1] amongst other political and public servant they did not like. They still claim they are totally independent and impartial when judging any of these figures.

[1] (French Wikipedia article about the affair) https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affaire_du_%C2%AB_Mur_des_cons...

> It's also worth noting that members of the second system

Nope. This picture was found in the office of an Union related to "magistrats".

Magistrats is a broad term that also include Procureurs, Judges but also some Lawyers.

The union is not specifically associated to the position of "Juge d'instruction" by any means.

But yes, generally speaking Politicians do not like Magistrats and Magistrats do not like politicians in France. And honestly, it is more healthy like that.

> Magistrats is a broad term that also include Procureurs, Judges but also some Lawyers.

The also is key: "Juge d'instructions" absolutely are "Magistrats" - just like Procureurs, etc are. Some of those "Juge d'instructions" are part of this union who put a target on the back of some politicians. How can they claim with a straight face that they are not biased ?

Either they know it's bullshit and they are simply lying; or they really believe their claims and they are just delusional. I don't know which one I prefer.

Question: Since when a random Union is representative of the political opinions of an entire profession ?

Spoiler: They never are.

Specially in France.

Even CGT, the biggest union in the country is currently a perfect good example of that.

CGT is loud. They are often extreme in there political opinions, regularly promoting extreme left ideology, some group historically had even close ties with the communists.... And they represent statistically nobody.

They represent less than 10% of people in France because this is currently the percentage of the unionized worker in the country.

They represent the political opinion of people who are affiliated with them. Once you getting involved in organizations that have a clear and defined political agenda; your whole argument that "nothing you do would ever be politically oriented" and that you are "fully neutral in all situation" becomes incredibly weak.

I am sure some "juge d'instruction" try their very best to be as neutral as possible. Some ostensibly aren't even giving this a flying fuck but both are repeating the same "we are non-political" any time they get the chance. When I hear this, I am unable to know if the person if of the first kind or the second kind. There seems to be 0 investigation internally to weed out the liars which thus casts shadow on the entire profession.

Trust is hard-earned, easily lost, and difficult to reestablish. This scandal touched the very essence of the French judicial system, yet had no major repercussion on the internal organization and processes of those "Juges d'Instruction". It's just business as usual. So until they come up with new systems to ensure better attempt at neutrality and they remove the people that have obviously been plaguing the system for years, it's normal and healthy that any mention of "neutrality" is immediately met with heavy skepticism.

Well yes. But no. And that's exactly why there is always a risk of a "politically tainted" investigations.

The "Juge d'instruction" is not an independent judge that will, out of his own will, start an investigation.

He can start an investigation when asked by the "procureur", directly or indirectly under influence of the executive power, or by private citizens, as a "partie civile". The Sarkozy case was started by the former.

On top of that, the "juge d'instruction" is nominated by the Minister of Justice for a period of 3 years, which means it is, once again, linked to the executive power.