Moreover, it is defined as the BINOMIAL. I repeat, in an official SRI document.
I was saying that, as most of you know, the SRI-DNA Binomial is an expression that we can find in our daily conversations and we are under the impression that it is established by Ion Cristoiu. The earliest reference I found is in one of his editorials from February 2015. It has to do with Traian Basescu's interventions during the PMP Congress, in which, says Ion Cristoiu, former President of Romania jumped to defend the SRI-DNA Binomial against the accusations of Elena Udrea.
This would be the beginning of the story that marks Romania's history in recent years.
Just that the reality is completely different!
Ion Cristoiu did not invent the phrase "SRI-DNA Binomial", he just consecrated it in public consciousness! The Master's opponents might accuse him of plagiarism, but until now they had no idea that this phrase appears in official documents of the State. They are not classified, but only had to be (re) read with the knowledge we have now.
SRI-DNA Binomial existed for a long time, in fact, we don't know exactly how long, but it was much more comprehensive, being presented in official documents. What documents is it about? The activity reports of SRI from 2004 ahead, which I had the stubbornness to read for half a day. To be honest, I was looking for something else, but I remained silent in awe when I found written black on white what I was affirming for months and was saying that is not true! So I don't keep you in suspense, here is a significant quotation from the activity Report of SRI in 2013:
"The main cooperation activities have been conducted on the relationship with the Public Ministry, MAI, SIE, MApN, SPP and the Ministry of Justice. The SRI – Public Ministry Binomial functioned in 2013 at optimum parameters, a fact reflected in the dynamics of the results both from the perspective of knowledge, prevention and countering threats to national security, and also from the standpoint of criminal instructions".
Stop! What does the INSTITUTIONAL BINOMIAL mean? So in 2013 there was an institutional cooperation between SRI and General Prosecutor's, DIICOT, institutions that are reunited under the title of Public Ministry, which is reflected in the PLAN OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS? In the indictments, evidence, criminal files, cases before the court. Well don't we begin to see more clearly SRI General's Dumitru Dumbrava statement, who told us how SRI aims a file from investigating phase up to the conviction? They had all means, isn't it? Moreover, the BINOMIAL functioned in the optimal parameters in 2013 as in 2012.
Well, as if no such thing existed…
Ion Cristoiu must be very disappointed. He will disappear from history books category creators, because the term of SRI-DNA BINOMIAL should be accorded to the anonymous author of SRI's Activity Report for 2013.
But don't believe that things stop here, the careful scrutiny of all SRI reports brings to light unsuspected details!
The SRI report from 2008 states clearly:
"The contribution brought by the Service to the fulfillment of the responsibilities of the research and criminal investigation organs resulted in:
-making available to the Public Ministry organs of some raw data and information which gave rise to SRI complaints/information;
-transmission – at request- to the prosecution organs of certain data and information relating to persons involved in criminal activities;
-resolving, at the request of judicial, the solicitations for declassification of documents/information;
– participation, in joint operative teams made up with the Public Prosecutor, to joint analysis with prosecutors;
– making available the results of scientific findings and surveys;
– resolution the request to transmit to judicial organs of some data, information and documents relating to the former and the present employees of the Romanian Intelligence Service, involved in criminal files."
Another bomb! So in an official document of the SRI is stated that information officers attended in OPERATIONAL MIXED TEAMS to JOINT ANALYSIS with PROSECUTORS!
What DNA and the Prosecutor's Office are disproving for months goes on (at least) from 2008 onward.
How big is the lie which we were served these days? Huge I could say!
SRI legal experts, involved not only in surveys, but also in criminal procedure.
Let's get back to the 2013 report that seems most free in matters of institutional language. There are some statements there that are worth analyzing with a pan in hand. I give you another example:
Chapter 2. 3
2. 3. Informing and referral to law enforcement and criminal research agencies
A major coordinate for the cooperation with the prosecution was represented by the transmission of data, information and documents required by them, for the purposes of criminal research, as well as resolving some requests, in this context also being relevant the diversification of activities involving SRI legal experts, meaning that common analyses is not just limited to material aspects (the research of the constitutive elements of crimes), but were extended to matters of procedure."
I'll be damned, how come the SRI experts collaborated in procedure matters with the Organs? Common analyses with extended character, not only material, meaning how we transform information notes in indictments, how enclosures are made, how do we write the accusation papers, how we control all items in the Tactical Field of the SRI General Dumbrava…
How extensive was the cooperation of SRI-DNA-DIICOT- General Prosecutor according to the same SRI report? Let the Organs explain black on white:
"Legal experts from the Service, within the Central and territorial structures, have been co-opted as members in the joint operational teams for the cooperation with local and central structures of law enforcement inspectors in 463 cases (compared to 314 in 2012).
Under the joint operational teams were held numerous meetings in which experts in the SRI judicial field have fulfilled an important role in assessing the legal situation and of the measures proposed for documenting criminal activities.
In this context was acted permanently by exercising specific competences, in increasing the value of use of the informational product intended for the information of the prosecution inspectors, both in terms of ensuring a foundation for achieving the objectives related to the protection of security values and the strengthening of the role of the Service in terms of combating criminal phenomena that's affecting severely, on various components, the national security.
These have resulted in positive effects and reactions at the level of beneficiaries, many of the material being valued under probation in criminal cases".
More than 460 cases, compared to 314 in 2012…
If this is not an extended activity, then I wonder what a restrained one means. And the final phrase about valuing the SRI material in criminal probation, appreciated by the beneficiaries, meaning DNA, DIICOT, General Prosecutor, deserves an award for concision and expressiveness.
Daniel Morar didn't put a price on the briefing of SRI.
One last public query gets an answer in the same SRI official documents: since when the Binomial exists and in the bases of which document?
Here you have the answer!
The General Protocol of Cooperation was the base of the collaboration between SRI and DNA-DIICOT-General Prosecutor, and the mixed teams and joint plans of action were just one aspect.
Aspect that cannot be found in the report on 2004, which defines the institutional collaboration in a completely different way:
"In terms of exchange of information, the most consistent cooperation were carried out with the Ministry of Administration and Internals, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of National Defense, the Foreign Intelligence Service, SPP, Special Telecommunications", without mentioning the Public Ministry (DNA-DIICOT-General Prosecutor) among the privileged partners.
One of the keys of interpreting this situation must be in the relations that have existed between Daniel Morar, former Chief Procurator of the DNA (2005-2012), the heads of SRI George Maior and Florian Coldea and Laura Codruta Kovesi -Attorney General of Romania (2006-2012). Under his eyes, and with the approval of the President of Romania, Traian Basescu, Daniel Morar refused to receive only fragments of information from SRI, asking each time to provide the full content, including recordings made on the mandate of national security.
According to sources from SRI, Daniel Morar had a poor opinion of how he received information from SRI, it seems that he verified a few of them and has seen that there are manipulations of information.
As a result of the conflict SRI-Daniel Morar, at the Cotroceni Palace was held a meeting in the presence of Romanian President Traian Basescu in which Morar, Maior, Coldea have confronted tough enough. From that moment began a state of sharp animosity between them.
Analyzing the figures that indicate the flow of information transmitted to research and criminal pursuit institutions, we can see that in 2006, the first year in which is mentioned in the SRI report the inclusion of corruption as its mission, the Department/National Anti-corruption Direction gets 183 complaints, DIICOT -227 complains and the Attorney General's Office- 32, it comes to a blast! Every year they keep this report, indicating a preference of SRI for the structures led by Kovesi, against the DNA-led by Daniel Morar, until the switch takes place. Then you can see how SRI is the leading provider of information for DNA.
In 2014, DNA receives 1. 226 complaints, DIICOT – 826, only 126 complaints being dedicated to the Prosecutor's Office.
This is how the Binomial history was written according to official documents!
Te-ar putea interesa și: