> the decision was controversial because it was too "nice" with the former minister. The decision was controversial because the elements presented as proof wer

> 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.