• JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    20 hours ago

    Good. In my country, a former PM who embezzled 1.6B is on the verge of being set free, with little in the way of jail time, while a construction worker who stole a loaf of bread got 40 years. Wtf.

    Edit: I got the bread story wrong. Not the 1.6B.

  • robador51@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 day ago

    Of course Le Pen’s reaction is that this is politically motivated. I’m not familiar with the ins and outs of this case, but am assuming the verdict is sound. Reactions like this are in my mind more serious than the actual offence; they undermine the rule of law. If found guilty in her appeal they should take this reaction into account and ban her from office forever.

  • ArxCyberwolf@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    2 days ago

    What? A right-wing politician actually being held accountable for being awful and a criminal?

    Never thought I’d see the day. Good job, France!

      • Sigilos@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        61
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        I don’t have an issue with a public servant holding office and having a criminal record. People make mistakes, and people can change. However, I think the fact the current president has made public and copious comments about dismantling the democracy that exists while showing a blatant disdain for the rights of people, that I have an issue with.

        • The Quuuuuill@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          31
          ·
          2 days ago

          i think we need there to be like… enough time for someone to rehabilitate themselves. trump didn’t, and also the nature of his convictions were political corruption.

          like. i think we fundamentally agree is what i’m saying, and i oversimplified it for my short little statement. i think there’s all sorts of people in prison right now who once out deserve to have their voting rights restored and be allowed to participate in society (drug charges and political imprisonments mostly), but the nature and recency of donald trump’s crimes should have disqualified him for running again, but the right is too addicted to power to risk giving it up to do the right thing.

          • Sigilos@ttrpg.network
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            2 days ago

            I agree, the nature of the convictions should be a factor. I also agree that a sort of “cooldown” from a conviction would be reasonable, before having eligibility for holding political office restored. I’ve been leary of the simplified “convicts shouldn’t hold office” statement though, since the original intention of that lack of disqualification criteria was, to my understanding, to prevent political imprisonment from barring opponents from holding office. That seems like the sort of thing the current administration would jump on if they could, as well.

        • Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          I think there are enough qualified people to be president in the all of 350 million in the states and that it’s OK if we disqualify people who’ve been convicted of a felony.

          I think democracy would survive if not thrive.

          Honestly, if we are going that far I say just do away with the president role all together. Democracies do fine with out this symbolic position.

          • VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            2 days ago

            So, you know how Erdogan recently threw bogus charges at a candidate and revoked the guy’s degree to make him ineligible? That’s why banning people with criminal records isn’t a good idea; the current government can just bar the opposition from running.

            • Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              2 days ago

              My guess would be you’re already long fucked when that becomes the case. There may be obstacles and exceptions needed but I still wouldn’t dismiss the idea.

        • GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          Not an american but personally I think thats too low a bar for the leader of a country. Why shouldn’t we ask of the people we give ultimate power to that they be better than the average dipshit?

          • Renohren@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            2 days ago

            Because there are people getting into prison because they are political opponents. Navalny or The mayor of Istanbul are examples of such tactics.

        • redwattlebird@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          Felons for government admin positions? Fine. But the head of a nation? Especially with the powers that the US political system gives? No way. There are plenty of other jobs that can be taken.

        • scarabic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          I’m very much in favor of felons having access to work, but that doesn’t necessarily mean equal access to every single form of work, and I’d be quite content to ban them from the highest office in the land.

        • The Quuuuuill@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          2 days ago

          i did. and i encouraged as many people as i could to do so as well. my struggle is the people saying voting does nothing and the only way to get our scumfuck politicians to do anything is the way malcolm x did. and those people reveal something about themselves when they say that. malcolm x said “the ballot or the bullet.” he necouraged democratic participation AND radical action. you have to both. and what’s more is voting takes so little effort. i find it hard to believe people who are unwilling to put in the effort to vote are willing to put in the effort to take radical action. and frankly, that’s what i see out in the streets. who was protesting with me before the election were people saying we need to vote. and it’s all those same people now. i don’t see all those “we hate blue maga” people here on lemmy out in real life putting the work in to support the movement of meaningful justice, equity, and peace.

    • Jaberw0cky@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Sure, but it needs to be because she actually committed a crime, not as a convenient way just to block someone you think might win from running. I am going to assume in this case she is guilty and was found guilty fairly.

      • BrowseMan@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        I don’t know how politicaly motivated the harshness of the judgment was (and not in a “the politics in power wanted her gone”, more in a “the judiciary system realised shit is hitting the fan between US crazyness and Russian influence and decided to take a step and make an example”) but the evidence were damming.

        Proof is: the defense didn’t even try to fight the evidence, rather the interpretation of it and the harshness of the sentence.

        Another point to keep in mind: an ex president is being judged for corruption and the sentence requested by the DA is enormous. Apparently the judiciary system publicly told they wanted to put an end to a perceived leniency on the politics and regain public trust.

        I’m just afraid this will result in an opposite effect.

        • tikifire@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          22 hours ago

          It’s 5 years and statutory evidently. This isn’t as bad as you’re making it out to be.

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    97
    ·
    2 days ago

    When convicted for embezzlement, someone should NEVER be allowed to run for government offices ever again

    • Robbity@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      2 days ago

      Funnily enough, when the law was introduced a few years ago, her party wanted the penalty to be lifelong ineligibility. They are probably happy it’s 5 years, now.

    • DicJacobus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      coincidentally, according to conspiracy theorists and paranoid schizophrenics… Embezzlement is the “fake” charge that The Deep state, The Man, The new world order, the lizard people, etc will always bring against the persecuted patriotic good guy.

      in other words. the European and Russian far right will say the charges are fake and that its a political witch hunt.

  • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    So presidential! She could be our new president here in the US! Imagine that! First Felon woman president!

    Man! We’re busting glass ceilings!