Since Calin Popescu Tariceanu had tried to find out, directly from Traian Basescu, the very day Dinu Patriciu had been illegally arrested, how his investigation was going on, we can formally assume that the Prime Minister had been fully aware of the President's position on this matter since the summer of 2005. The same judgement can lead us to the idea that, given the circumstances, it would have been useless for the PM to give himself up by the means of a written note in which he would ask the chief of state to influence Justice. However, if the poisoned note Elena Udrea refers to exists, as Traian Basescu himself reluctantly admitted, then an ordinary question rises up. Why has the President covered an infraction - a severe case of an attempt of traffic of influence - for such a long time? After all, Basescu would have had an excellent occasion to put the presumptive note in connection with the "phone call scandal", the same Elena Udrea launched last year and which was investigated by the CSM (Superior Council of Magistrates). Had it been submitted the poisoned note, if there is one, CSM might have not given its verdict in favour of Tariceanu, basically sweeping off Udrea's accusations. For certain, finding out the truth cannot be far. By their sharp statements, the two politicians have left no room for a retractile move. Basescu confirmed - a little bit stammeringly, it is true - Elena Udrea's accusation and, implicitly, the existence in the presidential archive of a note by which the PM asked him, in black and pink or yellow, to influence Justice in favour of Patriciu. This happened while Tariceanu said it was an artifact. There are no half measures any longer under these circumstances. If there is such a poisoned note, as Basescu's adversity towards Tariceanu is well known, it is logic that the chief of state would have kept this document carefully, right in his wallet all the time. He would have done this precisely with the idea of launching this bomb on the market. In the worst case, it would have been carefully archived, being well preserved where the documents of the presidential institutions are kept. That is why the short poisoned letter, if there is one, should be brought forward. If there is valid evidence against Tariceanu, he is to face the strictness of the laws. However, no matter the scenario, I think it is mandatory to hear the president, in full accordance with the Constitutional provisions, in the Parliament. For such procedure, the agreement of only 30 per cent of the senators and deputies is necessary. The opposition can easily gather this percentage. And the president will have to explain, at the hearing, why he kept silence in relation with this note, if there is one, why he concealed an infraction. He has to make us understand why his former counselor, the frivolous madam Elena Udrea, now one of the leaders of the presidential party, had to come out on TV and launch such an accusation for this case become public and have the chance to be investigated by the Justice. Maybe Ms. Elena Udrea should also be heard to establish whether there is an agreement between her and the president in this respect. It should also be established whether her allegations are an attempt of blackmail, an attempt of blocking the investigations related to the billions of lei she had received, in a suspicious manner, from RAPPS (Public Autonomous Administration of the State Protocol Patrimony), a public institution. However, if the note such as it was presented does not exist, we will be obliged to recall in detail other topics on which Traian Basescu made uncovered statements: the fraud of the elections; the declassification of the CSAT (Superior Council of National Defence) minute; the Snagov group of interests that might have determined Tariceanu not to resign and so on and so forth. The dispute is ongoing.

Sorin ROSCA STANESCU