Great. And France's courts have an excellent record holding politicians to account--better perhaps than any other Western country. And certainly better than the US which in the end could not convict the egregious Donald.
The fact is that there is very little doubt over the guilt of MLP or the other 23 politicians convicted with her. The judge wrote a very lengthy.(100+ pages) Summation in which she made it clear that this was both organised and of long duration, and that MLP Was at the nub of the crime.
Once it becomes obvious that there is so much evidence that an Appeal is unlikely to change the situation, the judge only has two choices. Does she allow MLP to continue as a politician, with the possibility that she could become president before the outcome of an appeal was known, and that, therefore France could find themselves with a criminal head of state and a constitutional crisis. Alternatively, she had the second option which ultimately she chose to take of banning her immediately. It is possible, although unlikely that an appeal could happen in the next 18 months, but the weight of the evidence makes it unlikely that she would be found innocent, and even if the length of the ban were reduced to 2 or 3 years, it would still prevent her from standing.
MLP has been very judgmental about the transgressions of other politicians, and so she must now be judged by the standards which she herself set.
The case of Sarkozy is telling: the point of the recent change to the law was to punish a crooked politician *before* they get elected to the highest office (hence why the ineligibility can't be appealed). This is particularly important given how Le Pen's position is based, at least in part, on having run decently-financed campaigns in the past, financed with (we now know) stolen money.
Some acutely perspective observations. l strongly believe we have to protect the judiciary and the law they administer, even inevitably imperfectly. Give politicians the power to political vetoes we are all lost. One rule for the people another for corrupt politicians and their patrons and friends. It’s road we should resist going down.
I don’t follow your point at all here, Ben. As you say, courts and the legal process is complicated. Some court processes are legitimate. Some are not. Some legitimate processes produce the right outcomes. Some do not. I haven’t followed the Le Len court case but I’m perfectly prepared to believe it’s a reasonable outcome. On the other hand, even legitimate courts often produce the wrong outcome (such as Trump not being impeached). Are you saying everybody ought to accept this court outcome because it’s never acceptable to criticise it? That really doesn’t make sense. Life is complicated, and everybody has the right to criticise court outcomes, however much you may like them.
The thing is: Politicians, embezzling political funding due to political position, resulting in a political sentencing is entirely appropriate.
All the rules of politics is clear enough. Don't break them.
Great. And France's courts have an excellent record holding politicians to account--better perhaps than any other Western country. And certainly better than the US which in the end could not convict the egregious Donald.
The fact is that there is very little doubt over the guilt of MLP or the other 23 politicians convicted with her. The judge wrote a very lengthy.(100+ pages) Summation in which she made it clear that this was both organised and of long duration, and that MLP Was at the nub of the crime.
Once it becomes obvious that there is so much evidence that an Appeal is unlikely to change the situation, the judge only has two choices. Does she allow MLP to continue as a politician, with the possibility that she could become president before the outcome of an appeal was known, and that, therefore France could find themselves with a criminal head of state and a constitutional crisis. Alternatively, she had the second option which ultimately she chose to take of banning her immediately. It is possible, although unlikely that an appeal could happen in the next 18 months, but the weight of the evidence makes it unlikely that she would be found innocent, and even if the length of the ban were reduced to 2 or 3 years, it would still prevent her from standing.
MLP has been very judgmental about the transgressions of other politicians, and so she must now be judged by the standards which she herself set.
The case of Sarkozy is telling: the point of the recent change to the law was to punish a crooked politician *before* they get elected to the highest office (hence why the ineligibility can't be appealed). This is particularly important given how Le Pen's position is based, at least in part, on having run decently-financed campaigns in the past, financed with (we now know) stolen money.
Some acutely perspective observations. l strongly believe we have to protect the judiciary and the law they administer, even inevitably imperfectly. Give politicians the power to political vetoes we are all lost. One rule for the people another for corrupt politicians and their patrons and friends. It’s road we should resist going down.
I don’t follow your point at all here, Ben. As you say, courts and the legal process is complicated. Some court processes are legitimate. Some are not. Some legitimate processes produce the right outcomes. Some do not. I haven’t followed the Le Len court case but I’m perfectly prepared to believe it’s a reasonable outcome. On the other hand, even legitimate courts often produce the wrong outcome (such as Trump not being impeached). Are you saying everybody ought to accept this court outcome because it’s never acceptable to criticise it? That really doesn’t make sense. Life is complicated, and everybody has the right to criticise court outcomes, however much you may like them.