Marine Le Pen found guilty in EU funding embezzlement case

[Jamiet99uk]

The judges have put their own judgement over that of the people, which is fundamentally wrong

On what basis do you make this wild claim?

[Jamiet99uk]

Why should political party leaders be immune from prosecution?

They shouldn't. A suspended sentence and hefty fine would have been perfectly justified

That's your opinion.

What qualifies you to be a judge?

[Jamiet99uk]

Because who is President must be determined by the will of the people.

So if a Presidential candidate walked into primary school and started shooting children in the head, murdering 100s of children, you would say "they cannot be jailed, it is for the electorate to determine their fate". Correct?

Major presidential candidates are immune from prosecution, and may commit crimes without recourse, according to Octavious.

[Jamiet99uk]

Octavious thinks fascists could be immune from prosecution and should be allowed to commit crimes without any checks and balances.

[Jamiet99uk]

Why should political party leaders be immune from prosecution?

They shouldn't. A suspended sentence and hefty fine would have been perfectly justified

While I disagree with Oct’s reasoning, I do think the idea of preserving electoral choice should have factored more into Le Pen’s sentencing—and still could at the appeals stage.

Other RN figures convicted in the same case received lighter sentences that wouldn’t have barred them from running. The law is the law, but sentencing always allows for some discretion. In this case, a slightly different ruling could have punished Le Pen without also punishing her voters.

There's a real trade-off to make. It's ugly in both directions. And it could have political impacts in both directions - taking Le Pen off the ballot may help the FN more than it hurts them.

Trump and his gang (including Octavious, who only ever posts here when he wants to support Trump) have poisoned your mind.

A person should NOT be able to stand for election if they have recently been found GUILTY of a serious crime against the people.

This should be basic fucking shit that even you people should be able to be capable of understading.

Fucking hell.

[Jamiet99uk]

We protect democracy this way, you fucking cretins.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Both of you are missing the mark in different ways.

Jamie is taking an unrealistically rigid view of the law, downplaying the discretion that always exists in sentencing—and seems comfortable doing so because the outcome aligns with his preferences. Oct, meanwhile, is leaning into a kind of populist absolutism, where any legal consequence that narrows voter choice is treated as inherently undemocratic—largely, it seems, because he dislikes the result.

I don't think either of you would hold your respective views on this case if it weren't for your like/dislike of the FN.

There’s a genuine tension here between legal accountability and electoral legitimacy. Pretending it’s open-and-shut doesn’t help. The law was broken and sentencing involves judgment. We haven't seen what will happen yet with appeals. The FN could benefit electorally from either outcome (which is very unfortunate in my view).

[Octavious]

Trump and his gang (including Octavious, who only ever posts here when he wants to support Trump) have poisoned your mind.

This is a conversation about the French presidential election. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Trump. You are literally proving yourself wrong in a single paragraph. You are the person here with the Trump obsession who apparently can't see anything except through the prism of Trump these days.

A person should NOT be able to stand for election if they have recently been found GUILTY of a serious crime against the people.

It is not a serious crime against the people. She used EU funding to employ assistants who, as part of their work, liaised with the party, drafted speeches, and advising on strategy. That is it. In the British system this wouldn't be considered a crime at all, let alone a serious one. In the French system it is considered against the rules, and it is a rule that has been broken by pretty much every French party as a matter of routine. It was considered a minor infringement that would get a slap on the wrist if anything at all. That was why Le Pen wasn't expecting the verdict. That was why no one was expecting the verdict.

To quote from the BBC

Le Pen's incredulity can be better excused, perhaps, in the context of the moment.

A consensus had almost established itself across France's political world that this ultimate sanction by the court could not, would not – in the end – take place.

It was not just Le Pen's followers who said it. Her enemies agreed, from Jean-Luc Melenchon on the far left to Prime Minister François Bayrou in the centre and Justice Minister Gérard Darmanin on the right

I don't think either of you would hold your respective views on this case if it weren't for your like/dislike of the FN.

Then you're a fool. The Nation Front are, and always have been, a nasty bunch of skinhead thugs led by a lunatic family who shouldn't be anywhere near government. But the principle that it is the people who get to decide what the fate of the National Front should be is sacrosanct. Restricting who the public can vote for is what the bad guys do. That is one of the ways you can tell they are the bad guys

[Jamiet99uk]

It is not a serious crime against the people. She used EU funding to employ assistants who, as part of their work, liaised with the party, drafted speeches, and advising on strategy. That is it. In the British system this wouldn't be considered a crime at all, let alone a serious one. In the French system it is considered against the rules, and it is a rule that has been broken by pretty much every French party as a matter of routine. It was considered a minor infringement that would get a slap on the wrist if anything at all. That was why Le Pen wasn't expecting the verdict. That was why no one was expecting the verdict.

A long time ago I worked for a period of time as a Parliamentary Assistant for a Labour Member of Parliament. My employment was regarded as "MP's expenses" but I was on the payroll of the House of Commons and officially also a civil servant for employment purposes.

In that role I was expressly forbidden from carrying out Labour party campaigning activity and it was made clear to me from the outset that doing any local campaign work for the Labour party which did not expressly relate to my role as the MP's Parliamentary Assistant would be a violation of the expenses system and I should be careful to avoid such activity in the course of my job.

[Octavious]

Hmm, that goes against what I've read on the subject but I have no reason to doubt you. It goes a long way to explaining why you see this as a more serious offence. Hopefully it will help convince Berti that his pet theory of us mindlessly finding excuses to back the side we want to win is a nonsense

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Jamie is clearly linking this case to his outrage with Trump. He celebrates taking a leading candidate out of the contest in France because he (reasonably) dislikes her politics. It obviously colours his analysis of how serious the crime was.

Oct apparently disdains judges and over several issues has made it clear he's suspicious of the idea that democracies can/should ever restrain themselves. This case is red meat for someone who thinks the "will" of the people (at this very moment, no less) should strongly influence even the judicial branch of government.

Maybe you're both just extraordinarily principled. My guess is your views would be flipped if a somewhat minor campaign finance scandal had instead threatened the candidacy of some prominent and likely-to-win socialist party leader (or at the very least Oct just wouldn't have engaged lol).

[Octavious]

Maybe you're both just extraordinarily principled. My guess is your views would be flipped if a somewhat minor campaign finance scandal had instead threatened the candidacy of some prominent and likely-to-win socialist party leader (or at the very least Oct just wouldn't have engaged lol).

If there's one thing that should have become self evident over the years is that there are no shortage of principles here . As far as choosing a leader goes I am a one man one vote absolutist. The judge should indeed have an influence, and that influence should be in their ability to put an x in a box. I would be as equally troubled by the exclusion of a leading Communist or any viable candidate. If this surprises you then I can only conclude that you've ignored most of what I've said since you've been here, which in many ways is more insulting than Jamie when he's trying really really hard to insult you . As far as juries go, I was using them to make the point that blind faith in judges is not considered the ideal, rather than to insist that juries should do everything. Although in a case like this where the result has such profound significance there is a strong argument that a jury of Le Pen's peers would likely have had a significant benefit.


Whether I engage or not depends largely on what else I'm doing (sometimes I'm just too busy) and where the thing is taking place. America, France, Germany, Australia, Canada etc is far more likely to attract my attention than somewhere like Moldova. There are a few countries that have family ties and old friends that put them higher on my radar than you might expect, such as South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Venezuela. I make no claim to being particularly consistent in this, nor would I expect it from anyone else