Marine Le Pen found guilty in EU funding embezzlement case

[Ernst_Brenner]

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwyq40yz70qo

"France's Marine Le Pen has been found guilty of misappropriating European funds to finance her far-right National Rally (RN) party, in a case which could lead to her being barred from standing in the 2027 presidential election."

A shame U.S. courts haven't taken care of Trump this way yet.

[Jamiet99uk]

Some good news for once.

And yes, clearly Trump should be in jail.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

All I can think is "careful what you wish for".

It's good to see a political elite held to account for breaking the rules of democracy.

But it's not a particularly shocking campaign finance scandal. It's going to be impossible to dispel the idea that some aspect of the trial and sentencing were politically motivated. There's a good chance this ultimately emboldens the RN in 2027.

[Octavious]

Some aspects? Sometimes it feels like the strategy being deployed to stop the far right destroying democracy is to destroy it ourselves before they can get their hands on it. It's a bloody disgrace, and will likely be overturned achieving nothing but to give additional weight to the Le Pen's argument that the establishment is out to get her.

The one bright light in this sorry affair is the number of French politicians who are expressing their discomfort or anger about this.

Good God, you'd think some lessons would have been learned from the American experience of what happens when you try to tell the people what to do. And the French have always been more bolshie than the Yanks.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

One thing missing from your analysis Oct is that Le Pen and co really did appear to break the law.

The perception of a political witch hunt is damaging, but so too is allowing the political class to break the rules that structure democracy with impunity.

The scandals that Canadian politicians get away with seem to get more egregious over time, while the penalties (legal and electoral) get lighter. The US appears to have gone very far down this path.

If Le Pen did the crime she should do the time. But progressives and liberals have nothing to celebrate — Le Pen's approach to campaign finance have been admonished by a court, but her ideas and her party have not been scorned by voters. The goal should always be to present a better alternative, not to hope your political opponents get jailed.

[Octavious]

Absolutely, but the punishment should be clearly defined and consistently applied. This is nether the time nor the place for surprise verdicts.

[Jamiet99uk]

Octavious, on what basis do you make these claims?

Le Pen was found guilty of masterminding a very serious campaign of embezzlement of EU funds which she funnelled into the coffers of her party, to the tune of millions of Euros. She has shown no repentance or remorse for this very serious fraud, and she has been sentenced by three independent, experienced judges. Judges in France are appointed by an elected Council designed to be independent of undue political influence. (Compared, for example, to the highly corrupt system of political patronage for appointing judges in the USA).

You are making the very serious allegation that these judges have handed down a "disgraceful" sentence, and it appears you allege that this sentencing is politically motivated, or corrupt in some way.

On what basis do you make this assertion?

[Octavious]

Mostly the BBC reporting on the subject, to be honest. I know the Beeb isn't what it was, but it remains reliable for the most part and it's been backed up from what I've read around the subject. Let Monde, for instance, reported that Emmanuel Macron struggled to conceal his astonishment at the decision and Prime Minister François Bayrou was troubled. Eric Ciotti, former leader of the Republicans, described it as outrageous. When you got reactions like this it is safe to assume that the result was surprising

[Jamiet99uk]

Mostly the BBC reporting on the subject, to be honest. I know the Beeb isn't what it was, but it remains reliable for the most part and it's been backed up from what I've read around the subject. Let Monde, for instance, reported that Emmanuel Macron struggled to conceal his astonishment at the decision and Prime Minister François Bayrou was troubled. Eric Ciotti, former leader of the Republicans, described it as outrageous. When you got reactions like this it is safe to assume that the result was surprising

That's not much of an answer.

Tell me how you got from "surprising" to "disgraceful"?

[Jamiet99uk]

And as you clearly think the current President and Prime Minister had nothing to do with it, who exactly are you accusing of engaging in a disgraceful erosion of democracy?

Do you think all three of the judges in this case are secret members of the Communist Party?

[Octavious]

I very much doubt that the President and PM were behind it, yes. They are far too politically astute to try anything quite so stupid, and I would even go so far as to say that it would offend their democratic instincts. I am no fan of Macron, but I believe that he sees himself as the good guy and tries to act accordingly for the most part.

No, what I see are judges who have seen an opportunity to use their power to influence events in the direction of what they consider to be the greater good. It's what I'd imagine you would do if you happened to be a judge. There is sufficient evidence to find her guilty, and in the range of punishments available is the opportunity to remove her from the Presidential race where she can do a huge amount of damage to your country, so you exercise your power to do just that.

It is less a conspiracy and more of an instinctive reaction from the elites or the blob or the powers that be (or whatever you want to call them) to protect their establishment. Similar to how Justin Welby allowed himself to make painfully bad choices over the abuse scandal, even though I have no doubt that he tries to be a good man.

[Jamiet99uk]

If the judges have acted within their powers, and they have sentenced her according to whatever sentencing guidelines are in place, bearing in mind this was a very serious case of deliberate fraud, stealing millions of Euros from taxpayers, then they have done no wrong.

If the judges have over-stepped their powers by acting outside of the sentencing guidelines, then she will likely succeed in having her sentence reduced on appeal.

This is normal process under the rule of law.

I see nothing "disgraceful" and continue to question your use of highly emotive language.

Ms. Le Pen has been found guilty of a serious conspiracy to defraud the public purse. She should be punished accordingly. If I embezzled millions of Euros I would expect to be punished severely. Wouldn't you?

[Octavious]

That the power to remove her from contention even exists is disgraceful. That the judges have taken action that has caused surprise across the French political spectrum shows it is not normal process. The appeal process in France typically takes one and a half to two years. The election is 21 months away. Even if the appeal is fast tracked that will massively eat in to the time and resources she has available to fight the election. If the French courts in a year or two's time say "you know what, you were right. It was a bit harsh" and pretend that this is the normal process under the rule of law it will simply not wash

[Jamiet99uk]

That the power to remove her from contention even exists is disgraceful.

Why?

[Jamiet99uk]

Why should political party leaders be immune from prosecution?

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

One very funny wrinkle here is that Le Pen supported the law she is now being tried under. Moreover, she went as far as advocating that any politician committing this type of crime should receive a *lifetime* ban on standing for election (ultimately the law didn't go this far).

So what's more democratic?

In the US a court could identify harm caused to the electorate by preventing a leading candidate from running for office and, in doing so, adjust the penalty to punish Le Pen personally while still allowing her to run for office. That would give voters a chance to demonstrate whether they care about her misuse of public funds at the ballot box.

But taking the approach above would fail to respect democratically-decided laws (that Le Pen herself voted for). Failing to uphold election finance laws erodes democracy. A slap-on--the-wrist punishment would signal that political elites can get away with crimes and would make justice for political elites appear to be contingent on their electoral fortunes (we wouldn't have this conversation if she were 10th in the polls rather than first).

[Octavious]

That the power to remove her from contention even exists is disgraceful.

Why?

Because who is President must be determined by the will of the people. Ultimately the execution of justice should be the will of the people too. That's why we have a jury system and don't simply rely on the judgement of judges. It is almost always the case that the judges will be more qualified to make the decision over whether someone is innocent or guilty, but we require more than qualifications. We need human judgement that has been untarnished by years of experience in law. We need the people to have the ultimate say in both politics and law. The judges have put their own judgement over that of the people, which is fundamentally wrong

[Octavious]

Why should political party leaders be immune from prosecution?

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

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

That the power to remove her from contention even exists is disgraceful.

Why?

Because who is President must be determined by the will of the people. Ultimately the execution of justice should be the will of the people too. That's why we have a jury system and don't simply rely on the judgement of judges. It is almost always the case that the judges will be more qualified to make the decision over whether someone is innocent or guilty, but we require more than qualifications. We need human judgement that has been untarnished by years of experience in law. We need the people to have the ultimate say in both politics and law. The judges have put their own judgement over that of the people, which is fundamentally wrong

In France (and most of continental Europe), the legal tradition is civil law, not common law. Judges play an active investigative role and there’s much less reliance on jury trials. Jury trials in France are reserved mainly for serious criminal offenses like murder. White-collar crimes, corruption, and financial fraud—like Le Pen’s case—are typically judged by panels of professional magistrates. Even in the U.S., where the jury system is more central, the vast majority of cases (especially civil and administrative ones) are decided by judges, not juries. The idea that justice is—or should be—entirely “by the people” through juries misrepresents how legal systems actually function, even in the most jury-driven democracies.

Judges aren’t ruling over the people—they’re enforcing laws made by the people’s representatives (including Ms. Le Pen). The idea that we should override legal accountability because a politician is popular is just the logic of might makes right—that popularity trumps principle. The role of the judiciary is to be counter-majoritarian when needed: it exists precisely to hold the powerful accountable, even when doing so is unpopular or politically inconvenient. The suggestion that popularity should override legal accountability flips democracy on its head. That’s not rule of law—it would rule by polling.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

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.