"Le Figaro" is a French weekly newspaper founded in 1826. Has a circulation of 313,000. So it's got a lot of reputation on the line.
Four days ago Le Figaro published an article claiming that the central government of France--under socialist Hollande--ordered the city of Nice to destroy the video surveillance tapes from six municipal security cameras for the 24 hours before the deadly terrorist attack, "and also all the images after the attack started."
The order listed the specific cameras that Hollande's government wanted erased, by both location and camera number. Makes ya wonder how they knew exactly which cameras, by number, eh? 
A police supervisor in Nice said "It's the first time we've ever been ordered to destroy evidence." (The guy said it in French, of course, but that's an accurate translation.)
If you're a liberal/Democrat you probably don't believe this story, because it doesn't *seem* to make any sense: If you're trying to determine whether the truck attacker was part of a larger plot you'd want as many sets of trained eyes on these videos as possible. It's not unusual for some detective examining photos from a "cold case" to see something *and grasp its significance* after dozens of other officers didn't notice anything unusual.
If you don't believe that the French government demanded the videos be erased, click on this link to the original story.
If you don't speak French, the problem of translation is easily solved.
The *stated* reason given by central government for ordering the destruction of the video record was to avoid "uncontrolled dissemination" of the vids. The government said the problem with that was that ISIS could use them for propaganda purposes. Except there are already 20 cell-phone vids already on the internet--and unlike the surveillance cams, they're pointed at the truck instead of at a random street corner. So this stated reason, while *plausible*, isn't the real one.
The second objection the Paris government noted to dissemination of the vids was that if victims' families saw them, they'd be distressed. Again, plausible. But again, 20 better vids are already on the net. So the potential for distress--other than actually, y'know, having a loved one killed--is already there. Families wanting to avoid more pains know not to view 'em.
So what's the *real* reason? It's to avoid identifying the official in the Hollande government who initially put out the false but de-fusing initial fable that the attack was a) the work of a single crazy guy, totally spontaneous, and had nothing whatsoever to do with Islam; or alternatively b) the work of a "lone wolf" who was absolutely acting alone, not on behalf of Islamic terrorists.
This official is the mole--well, one of probably dozens, but you get the picture. While his nominal job is improving security of French citizens, his real goal is to keep those very people--the people he nominally "serves"--from connecting this attack with Islam--in any way, shape or form.
BTW, for the moment the mayor of Nice has refused to destroy the evidence. But I predict this refusal is only temporary: national governments have virtually unlimited money with which to convince local officials to do as the central government orders. "Want that new highway interchange you need so badly? Do as we ask. Otherwise, sorry."
A decade or so ago a former military guy explained that when a serious problem arose, the fastest way to solve it involved 4 steps:
Observe: Find out everything about what's happening;
Orient: How do the things you've observed fit into the picture of what's happening?
Decide what action will solve the problem;
This was shortened to "OODA."
Here's something you need to put at the top of your "Observe" checklist: The mainstream U.S. media--which is totally, completely Democrat-supporting--will *never* tell you the truth about anything that negatively affects the Dem/liberal/"progressive" agenda.
If you're a Democrat or liberal or young you think this can't be true. And the fact that you're wrong about this isn't because you're stupid, but because you simply cannot, *cannot* believe the wunnerful media would LIE to you. They're so...enlightened. So seemingly sincere.
They'll do anything--anything--to support the "progressive" agenda, truth be damned.
So...watch for the bombshell story at the top--socialist government demanding that Nice erase all the vids--to appear in the U.S. media. Guess how many papers will run it. It'll be on the Agence France Presse wire service, so every major U.S. media organ will know about it, but....
Okay, the Pocono Valley Observer--circulation 1200--might pick it up.
I rest my case.
So, did any of you sleuths spot the *hidden* bombshell in the government's demand that the vids be destroyed--the proof that their *stated* reasons for doing so were complete, utter bullshit?
Go back to the 2nd 'graf: Remember that the socialist (pro-muslim) government stated the reasons they were demanding the vids be destroyed (i.e. the *nominal* or cover reasons) were 1) to prevent ISIS from using 'em for propaganda; and 2) to spare victims' families?
Both those are plausible, eh? But why would surveillance videos for the 24 hours *before* the attack have any bearing on those two stated reasons?
Have a *great* day, as a free person willing to defend freedom.
1. Obviously not a coincidence. Here's how it worked: Within hours after the attack the Nice police sent an initial report to the central security office of the Hollande government detailing what they knew, including what the city's surveillance cameras showed. So the central government knew what cameras should be erased.
Having a "mole" in your opponent's intel service lets you know exactly what they know, usually before anyone else in the country knows it.
(Care to guess how many pro-Soviet moles are in our CIA?)
H/T Gates of Vienna