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.
> 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.
> 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.
Sure. However, it has been criticized for being too "soft" on politicians since the late 90s.[1]
Christine lagarde was found guilty of negligence, in favor of someone else. Marine Le Pen was found guilty of deliberately embezzling money for her own party. The cases are in no way comparable.
Lagarde allowed a different between Mr Tapis and the state to go to arbitration where a panel of three judges awarded the several millions - not her. This choice was found to be negligent by the CJR, a court composed mostly of politicians, after the pay out was invalided by the French justice system 8 years later. Lagarde was found guilty of pushing for arbitration as a minister when she shouldn’t have.
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.
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."
In the United States, you can compare the number of people in each president's administrations in recent years. There's a striking difference between Republican administrations and Democratic administrations.
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.
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
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.
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.
