4 ms·

Would you not expect the same standard to be held for prominent politicians outside the far right?

Perfudital 2y ago
[flagged]
pjc50 2y ago
Yes. I'd expect the law to apply equally. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Sarkozy_corruption_trial https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Sarkozy_corruption_t...
- adev_ 2y ago
  And to be fair, not even only on the right side. The left is in the same bath: https://www.france24.com/en/20170718-france-far-left-leader-melenchon-eu-parliament-funds-investigation 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.
  - baggachipz 2y ago
    Good. Criminals should be held accountable. I can't believe there's even an argument about this. Whataboutism only breeds more criminal activity.
    - leereeves 2y ago
      That hasn't happened yet though, it's only a preliminary investigation.
  - r00fus 2y ago
    This is really just a "they're all doing it too" finger pointing from Le Pen's party. "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.
- raffael_de 2y ago
  Lagarde 2016, comparable case, same country, very different outcome. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/19/christine-lagarde-avoids-sentence-despite-guilty-verdict-in-negligence-trial 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.
  - phtrivier 2y ago
    Interestingly, the Lagarde case was not ruled by "regular" judges, but by a special court "of politicians, by politicians, for politicians". The idea, being, precisely, to try and deal with separation of power, and avoid the judiciary ruling against "the will of the people". 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.
    - StopDisinfo910 2y ago
      > the decision was controversial because it was too "nice" with the former minister. 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.
baggachipz 2y ago
Absolutely, I would. It just seems that the criminals tend to be from one end of the spectrum.... But crime is crime and justice should always be applied equally.
- pc86 2y ago
  If she's a clear cut fascist criminal and everyone on the other side is great then why wouldn't you want her to run? Should be easy to trounce her if she's as bad as you say.
  - baggachipz 2y ago
    You'd think so, but other elections have proven this to be false.
  - piva00 2y ago
    She committed crimes, and having the potential for a felon to achieve power over the government doesn't seem to be conducive for them to be punished under the law. Allowing a populist criminal to run for office is not great for democracy.
  - stfp 2y ago
    So if someone is proven to be corrupt we should just let them run in elections and trust that they won’t use corruption or other immoral or illegal means to get elected? Or that they won’t do more of that if they do get elected. Maybe we should never convict any politician of any crime, what could go wrong
    - throwaway173738 2y ago
      I mean why wouldn’t we just take anyone accused of a felony and just hold an election for some high office right there? Then if they win it’s because no crimes were committed, and if they lose obviously it’s because they were criminals. A simple majority should suffice and there’s no need to review any evidence of wrongdoing.
- bell-cot 2y ago

[flagged]

Yes. I'd expect the law to apply equally. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Sarkozy_corruption_trial https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Sarkozy_corruption_t...

adev_ 2y ago
And to be fair, not even only on the right side. The left is in the same bath: https://www.france24.com/en/20170718-france-far-left-leader-melenchon-eu-parliament-funds-investigation 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.
- baggachipz 2y ago
  Good. Criminals should be held accountable. I can't believe there's even an argument about this. Whataboutism only breeds more criminal activity.
  - leereeves 2y ago
    That hasn't happened yet though, it's only a preliminary investigation.
- r00fus 2y ago
  This is really just a "they're all doing it too" finger pointing from Le Pen's party. "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.
raffael_de 2y ago
Lagarde 2016, comparable case, same country, very different outcome. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/19/christine-lagarde-avoids-sentence-despite-guilty-verdict-in-negligence-trial 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.
- phtrivier 2y ago
  Interestingly, the Lagarde case was not ruled by "regular" judges, but by a special court "of politicians, by politicians, for politicians". The idea, being, precisely, to try and deal with separation of power, and avoid the judiciary ruling against "the will of the people". 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.
  - StopDisinfo910 2y ago
    > the decision was controversial because it was too "nice" with the former minister. 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.

baggachipz 2y ago

Absolutely, I would. It just seems that the criminals tend to be from one end of the spectrum.... But crime is crime and justice should always be applied equally.

pc86 2y ago
If she's a clear cut fascist criminal and everyone on the other side is great then why wouldn't you want her to run? Should be easy to trounce her if she's as bad as you say.
- baggachipz 2y ago
  You'd think so, but other elections have proven this to be false.
- piva00 2y ago
  She committed crimes, and having the potential for a felon to achieve power over the government doesn't seem to be conducive for them to be punished under the law. Allowing a populist criminal to run for office is not great for democracy.
- stfp 2y ago
  So if someone is proven to be corrupt we should just let them run in elections and trust that they won’t use corruption or other immoral or illegal means to get elected? Or that they won’t do more of that if they do get elected. Maybe we should never convict any politician of any crime, what could go wrong
  - throwaway173738 2y ago
    I mean why wouldn’t we just take anyone accused of a felony and just hold an election for some high office right there? Then if they win it’s because no crimes were committed, and if they lose obviously it’s because they were criminals. A simple majority should suffice and there’s no need to review any evidence of wrongdoing.
bell-cot 2y ago