Posted by tlogan 3/31/2025
This will help her in the long run too.
And even more precisely, that the judges expressed this political motivation explicitly through the use of MLP running in the presidential election as presenting a risk to public peace.
I'm not claiming it is really in the deliberations as I'm yet to read those.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Sarkozy_corruption_t...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/19/christine-laga...
Lagarde's case was about 400 million Euro. Le Pen is convicted of embezzling 474.000 Euro.
Honi soit qui mal y pense.
At the time, the decision was controversial because it was too "nice" with the former minister. I'm pretty sure you can find an archive of the FN/RN spokepersons of the time criticizing the "Cour de Justice de la République."
So, instead, let "normal judges" make decisions about all citizens, voters and elected alike ?
Suddenly that does not sound that appealing.
She will run again. She will keep her deputy job. Her "jail" will be much more confortable than Navalny's. She'll have other decades to run in other élections.
Her party will keep winning some, provided gas prices and taxes and rents still go up. I don't see a politician trying anything against that. She'll be fine.
The decision was controversial because the elements presented as proof were weak.
Let’s not rewrite history and remember that Lagarde was guilty of pushing for arbitration where a panel awarded the sum and didn’t herself decide the pay out.
> Interestingly, the Lagarde case was not ruled by "regular" judges, but by a special court "of politicians, by politicians, for politicians"
This is not what the CJR is. It’s a special court which is only competent to judge actions committed by members of the government as part of their function. It mixes elected members of the parliament and senate (six each) and two judges.
It’s important to realise that before the CJR was created, there was only members of parliament in its predecessor the Haute Court and it was never called granting de facto immunity to ministers.
Sure. However, it has been criticized for being too "soft" on politicians since the late 90s.[1]
https://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2016/12/23/pour...
To quote the linked article: “The verdict came as a surprise as even the public prosecutor had admitted the evidence against Lagarde was “weak” during a five-day trial last week.”
This has absolutely nothing in common with what’s happening to Marine Lepen. Dozens of emails and messages prove that she presided over a setup designed to embezzle millions for the EU while being fully aware this was illegal.
The left is in the same bath:
https://www.france24.com/en/20170718-france-far-left-leader-...
Since this case is making jurisprudence, the likeliness of them being convicted just become even higher.
"The preliminary investigation - already targeting members of France's centrist MoDem party, conservative party The Republicans and the Socialist Party - was opened after a member of Marine Le Pen's far-right National Front asked the Paris prosecutor to look into the issue."
I glad all such allegations will be investigated.
But crime is crime and justice should always be applied equally.
At best, that trait is highly localized.
And compared to (say) "1900's standard" levels of corruption in Democrat-controlled big American cities - Le Pen's crimes were nickle-and-dime stuff.
https://borgenproject.org/10-facts-about-corruption-in-greec...
(BTW, it ain't been 100 years. Mayor Daly Sr. ran Chicago into the 1970's. Mayor Young ran Detroit into the 1990's. Etc.)
Not saying the left is particularly corrupt, there are examples on all sides.
Why would you say so? Are there any studies on proportional crime distribution among politicians worldwide?
Allowing a populist criminal to run for office is not great for democracy.
Better than not doing anything and allowing them to become actual leaders.
It is a brave thing to do, to hold popular people accountable for their actions (especially things like leaking secrets to geopolitical adversaries resulting in the deaths of intelligence personnel, or, other things like what Le Pen is guilty of), but it is necessary. Once you let it go, your country becomes ruled by authoritarians.
Factually you can't call her or her party "fascist", either. This is really one of those terms that is over-used to an extent that is not useful at all.
I therefore reject your claim this is improper labeling.
The roadmap ends with a strong man dictator that has removed any and all hurdles towards absolute power so that the agenda can be implemented without compromise.
Any roadblock towards this is called "anti-democratic" which is the ultimate irony as those preaching it fully support the end of democracy.
The US is now an inch away from being a dictatorship as the last line of defense, judges, are under severe attack. They're targeted to be impeached, called "radical left" and Musk is throwing money at flipping votes.
This process is happening in several countries and it's baffling how many people eat it up, including in these comments.
I suppose it is true that democracy is fragile and that with a few nudges people vote to dismantle it themselves.
All of the people who remember the last round of fascism in the 1920s to 1940s are dying off, only those of us who never experienced it are left.
If someone on "my side" was found guilty of embezzlement or fraud -- through due process in a court of law with sufficient evidence that there was no path of appeal -- then I have ZERO problems denouncing the individual and would celebrate their punishment.
This is the fundamental problem with the left in the US: the standards for ethics, principles, judgement, and character are simply higher and the left will more readily fault candidates for even small lapses while the right has no such qualms.
Should justice not be served because she’s above the law?
Also the current government is, by the most lenient definition in France, center-right. Although it shouldn't interfere with the justice system in any direct way, lest we want to enshrine even more the fact that politician in position of power shouldn't ever face consequences.
I think we can agree this would be bad.
Also in the case of the Romanian candidate he was helped by Russian agencies. Again convicted by a judge.
In both countries judges are not appointed politically. So what makes this that the left bans the right?
IMO, let her run, but still put her in jail. If the electorate still chooses her as the best option then it's hard to get away from the continued will of the majority. Don't let her out, but give the people who (and what) they wanted.
Actually I wouldn't have an issue with that had she been convicted of, say, assault. In that case it would be reasonable for the electorate to decide if her being convicted of assault makes her illegible in their eyes.
But here she has been convicted of fraudulent use of EU money to fund here own party. That money could be used to buy her votes.
France, and most EU countries I think, have strict laws about funding of political parties and campaigns in order to have a level playing field and prevent rich candidates / parties having an undue advantage. If politicians could illegally fund their campaigns beyond what is authorized that could be used to unfairly influence the vote.
This wouldn't work, there's an obvious loophole:
1. Commit crimes to get elected.
2. If you're caught and sent to prison, offer your supporters campaign money and political favors to vote for you.
3. Once elected, use the powers of your office to pardon yourself, reward your followers, and jail your opponents.
You could do something like: offer your billionaire friends control over government agencies that regulate their industries, and in return they could run sweepstakes where they offer your voters a chance to win $1M if they vote for you.
Edit: https://bsky.app/profile/kfile.bsky.social/post/3llodejyyl22...
Not a fan of screenshots as sources though.
It's quite a simple concept in democracies under the rule of law, not sure if it's alien where you live.
Also, define the meaning of "left", since even if I try to stretch it to absurd levels I do not see how a French government led by Macron can be considered "left" but I live outside of your brain, pretty hard to understand what the boogeyman means to you.