(Thanks again to the provocative details and questions provided to me by my co-author, Andrei Ursu.  For Andrei’s insightful comments on this part of the video see below.)

https://rolandothomassonphd.home.blog/2020/04/26/the-most-accurate-available-transcript-of-the-trial-of-nicolae-and-elena-ceausescu-i-the-ceausescus-argue-with-the-soldiers-trying-to-tie-their-hands/

A Ceausescu per – M1 Panoráma – 5. rész

Note:  Unfortunately, currently, there does not appear to be anything near the full trial in Romanian on the internet.  Here one has to listen to the (imperfect) Hungarian translation superimposed over the original Romanian, which is nevertheless thankfully still audible, if weak.  It is still far better than either the incomplete transcriptions of this in Romanian available on the internet, or the English translation in FBIS, which unfortunately suffered from being twice removed, Romanian to German to English, and is incorrect in points.
Presed:  Dar la Bucuresti, in tinerii care au murit, cine a tras, peste care au trecut tanchetele Securitatii? A unei parti… [“tanchetele Securitatii, a unei parti…” this may be a reference to the ABIs of the USLA and/or a mistake/intentional mischaracterization of the concomitant participation of Army tanks in the Bucharest repression of 21/22 December 1989]

E.C. (Elena Ceausescu):  Pai, da, tero…

(N.C. (Nicolae Ceausescu) ii face semn sa taca) (Nicolae Ceausescu signals her to be quiet) [this is very revealing…clearly, Elena was stumbling into saying more than she should and Nicolae wanted to cut her off)

Presed:  Teroristi?  Teroristi?

E.C. Teroristii se spun ca sint, pe aicea vorbeau oamenii, ca sint al Securitatii…

Presed:  Teroristii sint ai Securitatii?

E.C. Asa se vorbea.

Acuz:  Si Securitatea nu era a comandamentului suprem?

I believe it’s faithfully transcribed, and now we have the audio proof! Fantastic!

She says “se vorbea aici teroristii erau ai securitatii”, which is not very damning.

But: 1. She seems to take a big gulp of air as she concedes this fact (whereas they both denied answering pretty much every other question / accusation) which seems to show she perceived it as a fact that might improve their prospect in the trial (she tries the same tack again at the end [note:  see part one of this series]). She seems to have surmised that the securitate snipers were the ultimate accusation against themselves, and it was a PROVEN fact (given the judge’s words “tanchetele securitatii”). In other words, she thought that the accusers had securisti-terorirsti in their hands (maybe captured), so there wasn’t much use denying their existence nor identity. So she was inclined to believe (against NC’s calculations) that their only hope was to offer the securisti, while trying / hoping to distance themselves from them (didn’t work well, since the judge’s next line was “dar securitatea nu e a comandantului suprem?”

2. He cuts her off, like it’s the most delicate matter, a trap, etc.

3. She realizes she might have blown it, so she retreats vehemently: “nu am raspuns”, etc.

I can hear “pai da [erau] tero…” then “teroristii se spun ca sint pe aici vorbeau oamenii ca sint ai securitatii”. (flat statement, without question mark!)