It is, to say the least, a strange day that was chosen for the release of the findings. It coincided with the anniversary of the Turkish invasion. Some will say it was a coincidence. Others will say it was a convenient coincidence, so that a case that had preoccupied public opinion for months would go unnoticed.

What matters most, however, is the content.

The report essentially adopts the line put forward by the President’s Office from the outset.

• It refers to a hybrid war targeting the Republic of Cyprus
• it questions the authenticity of the video
• finds nothing wrong with the way the First Lady’s Fund operates, in contrast to
• concludes by characterizing the allegations as “nonsense” and “hot air.”

Such language, in a case with such serious political implications, can hardly be considered an adequate response.

Because labels aren’t enough. Explanations are needed.

SEE ALSO: Videogate Findings: The “empty rhetoric,” the “nonsense,” and the parties’ reactions | AlphaNews

Mr. Paschalidis himself acknowledges that two of the three key figures reaped financial benefits from the alleged investors. So, where does “bluster” end and influence peddling begin?

Giorgos Lakotrypis, for example, appears in the video promising access to the government and attempting to prove it by citing the presence of the then-director of the President’s Office, Charalambos Charalambous.

In the recent report on the “Mafia State,” similar practices were assessed differently, and there was talk of influence peddling. The public is reasonably asking what sets this case apart and why the two situations are being treated differently.

The problem with the report isn’t just what it says. It’s also what it leaves unanswered.

Videogate did not trigger a crisis of confidence because of whether or not a criminal offense had been committed. It triggered a crisis of confidence because citizens saw people presenting themselves as figures with access to power, promising favors, and linking that access to financial interests.

The question, then, is simple: following this finding, are citizens beginning to regain their trust in institutions? The impression given is that no effort is even being made to restore that trust. On the contrary, instead of the shadows being dispelled, they are growing larger.

See Marina Oikonomidou’s analysis: