5 ms·

Stop blaming the courts (and really, the legislature for making the law). Le Pen is the person responsible, as is her party: Don't commit crimes, don't make le

by mmooss 2y ago

Stop blaming the courts (and really, the legislature for making the law). Le Pen is the person responsible, as is her party: Don't commit crimes, don't make leaders of people who commit crimes, and you won't have problems. Yes, there is a potential for abuse, but eliminating the rule of law for political leaders is very dangerous. (Edit: You can't take a popular vote on whether someone - especially a political leader, and one in a populist movement - committed a crime.)

wdr1 2y ago
> Don't commit crimes, don't make leaders of people who commit crimes, and you won't have problems. Not to be disrespectful, but this is naive. In a perfect world only "real" crimes would be prosecuted. But almost every despot prosecuted their opponents by claiming they were criminals. Remember Nelson Mandela spent decades in prison as a criminal. The leaders of the KPD & SPD parties were both arrested as criminals during Nazi Germany. Putin has arrested many of his opponents, citing criminal behavior. Saying "don't commit crimes" overlooks that the "crimes" themselves may not be real.
- 1659447091 2y ago
  I read the part >>don't make leaders of people who commit crimes, as covering that scenario . Arresting people for "crimes" of getting in your way to power, is a crime in and of itself - even if it is not on the books, so don't make leaders of them.
- mmooss 2y ago
  It's not naive. I agree the world isn't perfect, but we have to operate with imperfect human systems - that's life. More imperfect is politicians with impunity for corruption - at least when they arrest someone, there is rule of law, it requires a trial (even a jury, if the defendant desires), etc. You are reaching far beyond France to South Africa's minority dictatorship and Nazi Germany for examples. The latter is a great example of political leaders with impunity. Can you provide any examples at all in modern democracies, at any level of government?
  - animuchan 2y ago
    - Russian Federation is technically a democracy. - Belarus, same thing. - Ukraine, same thing. They're all in Europe, too. - Israel, where the Netanyahu's trial is commonly seen (by both sides!) as a way to prevent Netanyahu from serving as the PM. - Arguably, US with the Trump conviction. These are the ones I'm personally aware of, it's more than likely there are better examples. (In a "no true scotsman" way of thinking, it's easy to debunk any such cases by saying they're bad examples of a democracy. Then again, it's the same argument with any political system — proponents of communism will say that communism was never implemented properly, for example.)
    - mmooss 2y ago
      > technically I don't know what that means, but Russia is not a democracy - the people don't have self-determination to choose their government. Nor is Belarus. Anyway, what are these examples of? When in a real democracy has a court corrupted the democratic process? Not in Ukraine either - their laws just push off elections during wartime IIRC. And was that done by the courts? Have they jailed the opposition? > Arguably, US with the Trump conviction Trump was elected after that!
      - animuchan 2y ago
        > Russia is not a democracy How do you determine this though? There are candidates. Majority of the people vote. The one voted for the most wins. Sure, _some_ candidates are in jail (or dead) — but that's strictly because they were convicted in a fair trial, they're criminals, you see. I argue that there are similarities between two regimes blacklisting political candidates from the democratic process. > When in a real democracy If we cherry-pick the ones we like to be "real", and the ones we dislike to be "fake", then by definition the "real" ones are the good ones. > Not in Ukraine either E.g. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/20/ukraine-suspends-11-political-parties-with-links-to-russia https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/20/ukraine-suspen... Sure, not a court per se — it was apparently the country's national security and defense council that took the decision to ban the parties from any political activity. But I agree, it's whatever. > Trump was elected after that! Yep, despite well-documented efforts to block him from running. The outcome is I think a win for democracy. That democrats think of this as a defeat is amusing to me. (I'm an foreigner and don't live or vote in the US, so no horse in the race either way.)
rayiner 2y ago
The problem is that criminal laws can't be applied, even in principle, without the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Criminal laws are written broadly and legislatures trust prosecutors to apply the laws to the subset of conduct that falls within the arguable letter of the law. That makes prosecution of political figures incredibly dangerous, because prosecution is inherently a discretionary act. Consider 18 USC 1343: > Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. A politically motivated prosecutor willing to stretch phrases like "property" and "false ... representations" could use 18 USC 1343 to turn minor infractions into federal felonies with the prospect of 20 years in prison. It's entirely up to the prosecutor to ensure that the atomic bomb of 18 USC 1343 is applied only to conduct that actually warrants such extreme charges. I'd note that, had Jim Comey been willing to push the law as far as the words would allow, he would've had a legal basis to prosecute Hillary Clinton for felonies relating to handling of classified information: https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-dir.... Comey's statement in connection with the decision to recommend no charges is instructive: > Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.
- mmooss 2y ago
  That is a problem, yet the law must still be enforced. There is no perfect solution but that isn't an argument for lawlessness, especially for powerful political leaders. Most importantly, whatever the prosecutor does they cannot convict someone. That must be done by a court, an independent agency (in the US).
refurb 2y ago
I see countless discussions on HN about: - innocent people convicted in court in error - laws selectively enforced where this person never gets charged, yet this person gets put in prison for the exact same thing - a byzantine legal code that the average person can't understand ("show me the man, and I'll show you the crime") Now take that and layer on top a competitive legal system where your political opponent doesn't have to defeat you at the ballot box, they can just get you disqualified by having you convicted of a crime. It's a system that is ripe for abuse. Bobby Sands sticks out for me - a member of the Provisonal IRA who became a Member of Parliament while in British Prison. I thought it reflected quite well on the UK - despite this man committing violent acts in an effort to break Northern Ireland away from the UK, he was allowed to stand in Parliament of the very same system. Then look at the Singapore system - even a relatively minor conviction like defamation (a fine only) will disqualify you from office. A fact the ruling party has used again, and again and again to eliminate opposition politicians once they get popular enough.
- mmooss 2y ago
  No system or person is perfect; no god will come down and save us; we need to find solutions using human institutions. What also is ripe for abuse is a system where politicians have impunity for corruption. At least being arrested, prosecuted, and convicted requires several agencies and branches of government and a public trial that follows laws. Democracy has done very well in that regard. The US is an exception, in many ways, in that it generally won't prosecute current heads of state. Netanyahu is being prosecuted and investigated for another crime, even after abusing power to avoid it. France has charged sitting high officials, so have others.
  - refurb 2y ago
    But what is gained from barring people convicted of a crime from holding public office? - Keeping people out with questionable character? - Preventing crimes from being committed while in office? Neither of those are all that convincing. Voters will be aware of the criminal past of any candidate. They can make their own personal judgement when they vote. And I’m not sure what you mean by democracy has “worked well in that regard except for the US”. If your goal is to ban people with criminal records to prevent corruption, there are plenty of democracies with a far worse track record when it comes to democracy than the US.
jonathanstrange 2y ago
Le Pen herself voted for that law.
- guizmo 2y ago
  Not sure about which law you're talking about but she couldn't have voted for a law that applied to her case as she was elected to the Assemblée Nationale in 2017. The case she has been sentenced for is about facts that happened before that, while she was a member of the European Parliament (until 2016).
  - jonathanstrange 2y ago
    You're absolutely right. My fault. I should have checked what I read. Unfortunately, I cannot change the original comment any longer. In any case, given their involvement in embezzlement the Front National/Rassemblement National would likely not vote for laws against corruption.
NVHacker 2y ago
Cannot help comparing with another case: 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...
- belter 2y ago
  Lets continue the comparisons, instead of attacking the credibility of French courts, who have a fantastic reputation of making politicians of all sides of the political spectrum accountable... "Nicolas Sarkozy's trial: Prosecutors request 7-year prison sentence for the former president" - https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2025/03/27/nicolas-sarkozy-s-trial-prosecutors-request-7-year-prison-sentence-for-the-former-president_6739578_7.html https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2025/03/27/nicolas-... "Former French Prime Minister François Fillon sentenced to five years" - https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/29/europe/france-franois-fillon-jail-intl/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/29/europe/france-franois-fil... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:French_politicians_convicted_of_crimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:French_politicians_co...
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - thiht 2y ago
    Another one with Cahuzac: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affaire_Cahuzac#:~:text=En%20mai%202018%20%2C%20Cahuzac%20est,en%20Corse%2Ddu%2DSud. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affaire_Cahuzac#:~:text=En%20m... Don't remember the right whining about how ineligibility is undemocratic with this one (Cahuzac is left leaning)
belter 2y ago
It's hard not to notice a pattern here. Posts involving DOGE, Elon Musk, or critical takes on the erosion of legal norms in the U.S. are flagged within seconds. Take this post, for example, flagged almost immediately: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43544534 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43544534 https://youtu.be/6DsYAoIN3l8?t=65 https://youtu.be/6DsYAoIN3l8?t=65 It tells the story of a Maryland father wrongly imprisoned in El Salvador due to an "administrative error." The U.S. government admitted fault in court, yet refuses to take corrective action. Silence follows. Meanwhile, a post discussing Marine Le Pen...A MAGA adjacent figure remains untouched. Funny how moderation seems oddly selective when certain narratives are involved.
- mdhb 2y ago
  And Dang will basically call you a conspiracy theorist if you even suggest that something untoward is happening despite the mountains of evidence.

by mmooss 2y ago

wdr1 2y ago

> Don't commit crimes, don't make leaders of people who commit crimes, and you won't have problems. Not to be disrespectful, but this is naive. In a perfect world only "real" crimes would be prosecuted. But almost every despot prosecuted their opponents by claiming they were criminals. Remember Nelson Mandela spent decades in prison as a criminal. The leaders of the KPD & SPD parties were both arrested as criminals during Nazi Germany. Putin has arrested many of his opponents, citing criminal behavior. Saying "don't commit crimes" overlooks that the "crimes" themselves may not be real.

1659447091 2y ago
I read the part >>don't make leaders of people who commit crimes, as covering that scenario . Arresting people for "crimes" of getting in your way to power, is a crime in and of itself - even if it is not on the books, so don't make leaders of them.
mmooss 2y ago
It's not naive. I agree the world isn't perfect, but we have to operate with imperfect human systems - that's life. More imperfect is politicians with impunity for corruption - at least when they arrest someone, there is rule of law, it requires a trial (even a jury, if the defendant desires), etc. You are reaching far beyond France to South Africa's minority dictatorship and Nazi Germany for examples. The latter is a great example of political leaders with impunity. Can you provide any examples at all in modern democracies, at any level of government?
- animuchan 2y ago
  - Russian Federation is technically a democracy. - Belarus, same thing. - Ukraine, same thing. They're all in Europe, too. - Israel, where the Netanyahu's trial is commonly seen (by both sides!) as a way to prevent Netanyahu from serving as the PM. - Arguably, US with the Trump conviction. These are the ones I'm personally aware of, it's more than likely there are better examples. (In a "no true scotsman" way of thinking, it's easy to debunk any such cases by saying they're bad examples of a democracy. Then again, it's the same argument with any political system — proponents of communism will say that communism was never implemented properly, for example.)
  - mmooss 2y ago
    > technically I don't know what that means, but Russia is not a democracy - the people don't have self-determination to choose their government. Nor is Belarus. Anyway, what are these examples of? When in a real democracy has a court corrupted the democratic process? Not in Ukraine either - their laws just push off elections during wartime IIRC. And was that done by the courts? Have they jailed the opposition? > Arguably, US with the Trump conviction Trump was elected after that!
    - animuchan 2y ago
      > Russia is not a democracy How do you determine this though? There are candidates. Majority of the people vote. The one voted for the most wins. Sure, _some_ candidates are in jail (or dead) — but that's strictly because they were convicted in a fair trial, they're criminals, you see. I argue that there are similarities between two regimes blacklisting political candidates from the democratic process. > When in a real democracy If we cherry-pick the ones we like to be "real", and the ones we dislike to be "fake", then by definition the "real" ones are the good ones. > Not in Ukraine either E.g. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/20/ukraine-suspends-11-political-parties-with-links-to-russia https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/20/ukraine-suspen... Sure, not a court per se — it was apparently the country's national security and defense council that took the decision to ban the parties from any political activity. But I agree, it's whatever. > Trump was elected after that! Yep, despite well-documented efforts to block him from running. The outcome is I think a win for democracy. That democrats think of this as a defeat is amusing to me. (I'm an foreigner and don't live or vote in the US, so no horse in the race either way.)

rayiner 2y ago

The problem is that criminal laws can't be applied, even in principle, without the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Criminal laws are written broadly and legislatures trust prosecutors to apply the laws to the subset of conduct that falls within the arguable letter of the law. That makes prosecution of political figures incredibly dangerous, because prosecution is inherently a discretionary act. Consider 18 USC 1343: > Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. A politically motivated prosecutor willing to stretch phrases like "property" and "false ... representations" could use 18 USC 1343 to turn minor infractions into federal felonies with the prospect of 20 years in prison. It's entirely up to the prosecutor to ensure that the atomic bomb of 18 USC 1343 is applied only to conduct that actually warrants such extreme charges. I'd note that, had Jim Comey been willing to push the law as far as the words would allow, he would've had a legal basis to prosecute Hillary Clinton for felonies relating to handling of classified information: https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-dir.... Comey's statement in connection with the decision to recommend no charges is instructive: > Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

mmooss 2y ago
That is a problem, yet the law must still be enforced. There is no perfect solution but that isn't an argument for lawlessness, especially for powerful political leaders. Most importantly, whatever the prosecutor does they cannot convict someone. That must be done by a court, an independent agency (in the US).

refurb 2y ago

I see countless discussions on HN about: - innocent people convicted in court in error - laws selectively enforced where this person never gets charged, yet this person gets put in prison for the exact same thing - a byzantine legal code that the average person can't understand ("show me the man, and I'll show you the crime") Now take that and layer on top a competitive legal system where your political opponent doesn't have to defeat you at the ballot box, they can just get you disqualified by having you convicted of a crime. It's a system that is ripe for abuse. Bobby Sands sticks out for me - a member of the Provisonal IRA who became a Member of Parliament while in British Prison. I thought it reflected quite well on the UK - despite this man committing violent acts in an effort to break Northern Ireland away from the UK, he was allowed to stand in Parliament of the very same system. Then look at the Singapore system - even a relatively minor conviction like defamation (a fine only) will disqualify you from office. A fact the ruling party has used again, and again and again to eliminate opposition politicians once they get popular enough.

mmooss 2y ago
No system or person is perfect; no god will come down and save us; we need to find solutions using human institutions. What also is ripe for abuse is a system where politicians have impunity for corruption. At least being arrested, prosecuted, and convicted requires several agencies and branches of government and a public trial that follows laws. Democracy has done very well in that regard. The US is an exception, in many ways, in that it generally won't prosecute current heads of state. Netanyahu is being prosecuted and investigated for another crime, even after abusing power to avoid it. France has charged sitting high officials, so have others.
- refurb 2y ago
  But what is gained from barring people convicted of a crime from holding public office? - Keeping people out with questionable character? - Preventing crimes from being committed while in office? Neither of those are all that convincing. Voters will be aware of the criminal past of any candidate. They can make their own personal judgement when they vote. And I’m not sure what you mean by democracy has “worked well in that regard except for the US”. If your goal is to ban people with criminal records to prevent corruption, there are plenty of democracies with a far worse track record when it comes to democracy than the US.

jonathanstrange 2y ago

Le Pen herself voted for that law.

guizmo 2y ago
Not sure about which law you're talking about but she couldn't have voted for a law that applied to her case as she was elected to the Assemblée Nationale in 2017. The case she has been sentenced for is about facts that happened before that, while she was a member of the European Parliament (until 2016).
- jonathanstrange 2y ago
  You're absolutely right. My fault. I should have checked what I read. Unfortunately, I cannot change the original comment any longer. In any case, given their involvement in embezzlement the Front National/Rassemblement National would likely not vote for laws against corruption.

NVHacker 2y ago

Cannot help comparing with another case: 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...

belter 2y ago
Lets continue the comparisons, instead of attacking the credibility of French courts, who have a fantastic reputation of making politicians of all sides of the political spectrum accountable... "Nicolas Sarkozy's trial: Prosecutors request 7-year prison sentence for the former president" - https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2025/03/27/nicolas-sarkozy-s-trial-prosecutors-request-7-year-prison-sentence-for-the-former-president_6739578_7.html https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2025/03/27/nicolas-... "Former French Prime Minister François Fillon sentenced to five years" - https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/29/europe/france-franois-fillon-jail-intl/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/29/europe/france-franois-fil... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:French_politicians_convicted_of_crimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:French_politicians_co...
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- thiht 2y ago
  Another one with Cahuzac: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affaire_Cahuzac#:~:text=En%20mai%202018%20%2C%20Cahuzac%20est,en%20Corse%2Ddu%2DSud. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affaire_Cahuzac#:~:text=En%20m... Don't remember the right whining about how ineligibility is undemocratic with this one (Cahuzac is left leaning)

belter 2y ago

It's hard not to notice a pattern here. Posts involving DOGE, Elon Musk, or critical takes on the erosion of legal norms in the U.S. are flagged within seconds. Take this post, for example, flagged almost immediately: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43544534 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43544534 https://youtu.be/6DsYAoIN3l8?t=65 https://youtu.be/6DsYAoIN3l8?t=65 It tells the story of a Maryland father wrongly imprisoned in El Salvador due to an "administrative error." The U.S. government admitted fault in court, yet refuses to take corrective action. Silence follows. Meanwhile, a post discussing Marine Le Pen...A MAGA adjacent figure remains untouched. Funny how moderation seems oddly selective when certain narratives are involved.

mdhb 2y ago
And Dang will basically call you a conspiracy theorist if you even suggest that something untoward is happening despite the mountains of evidence.