candide

I guess she is a women of courage to be married to Trump... Oh wait! She's being paid for that!

Irrelevant comparison. Not the same offenses and not the same law (and not the same court). The law applied in the case of Marine Le Pen was voted after the two cases you mentioned.

You don't even know and understand what you are talking about!😆 Not the same offense and not the same law. What is so difficult to understand? France has mainly a Roman law system which specifies which penalty for which offense. It's not an Anglo-Saxon law system. The offenses were different. For example, willful fraud re. public funds is different from negligence in the use of public funds. The law applied is also different from the laws applicable at that time, because it is more recent. The "Sapin II" law was voted end of 2016. It is stricter and includes harsher sentences than the previous laws, and also a mandatory inegibility sanction (instead of an optional sanction before). Had she been judged before this law was implemented, she would likely have received a less harsh sentence and possibly no inegibility sanction.

Your comparisons are completely irrelevant. The offenses and the laws used were different. She's been convicted according to a law (Sapin II), voted after the cases you mention, in order to better fight corruption. According to the law, the inegibility sanction is mandatory, and not any more optional as before. The judges are not allowed to decide otherwise. As she was an autocratic party leader, she was deciding and giving written instructions about how the money was spent, who should be recruited, etc.. She did not leave it to party executives. That's why she was convicted, not as party leader but as the person who directly gave orders to fraud. Executives from a party supporting Macron have been convicted in 2024 for exactly the same offense, according to the same law.

And , luckily, it's not like the automotive sector would represent 14% of UK exports to the U.S.! Oh wait! 😆

More lame conspiracy theory from you! 🤣

Russian propaganda. Zelinski is legally the President according to Ukraine's constitution.

In case I wasn't clear enough. The inegibility sanction is not optional, it is mandatory. The judges (they were three) have to apply it. They are not allowed to decide otherwise.

What is the Big Lie.... https://www.google.com/search?q=trump's+big+lie&client=firefox-b-1-d&sca_esv=94c74ca6f52d2cb2&ei=cuTrZ6PsGJmf4-EP6p_qwAY&oq=trump's+big+lie&gs_lp=EhNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwIg90cnVtcCdzIGJpZyBsaWVI1G5QvQlYsWhwAXgAkAEBmAGjAqABwB6qAQYwLjI0LjK4AQPIAQD4AQGYAhGgAusVqAIPwgICECnCAgUQLhiABMICBRAAGIAEwgIKEC4YgAQYQxiKBcICCxAuGIAEGMcBGK8BwgILEC4YgAQY0QMYxwHCAgwQKRiABBgKGEYYgALCAgUQKRiABMICChAAGIAEGEMYigXCAgYQABgWGB7CAgcQABiABBgTwgIIEAAYExgWGB7CAgoQABgTGBYYChgemAMf8QVRpx1wRt3AiogGAZIHBjEuMTQuMqAH-fMB&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp

B.S.! Judges have to apply the law. The law is clear and the evidence is unambiguous. A law which was voted by lawmakers to prevent politicians from being corrupt.

That's harsh but that's the law. It has been voted after some corruption scandal and is very strict. Politicians from a party supporting Macron have been previously sanctioned for exactly the same reason. Le Pen's problem is that, as she is a autocratic party leader, she decides and give orders about the way the money is spent, which person to recruit, etc... so there is unambiguous written evidence. Unlike the current case about Sarkozy, there is no need for interpretation as there is significant written evidence. The irony is that, like most other far-right politician, she's been complaining for years about corrupt and roten politicians and has been calling for a strict application of laws! 😆

Surprise! That's exactly what Russia is claiming.... 😆

Not the same law...

No. It's about the fact that the U.S. is not being invaded and bombed by Russia. The false equivalence between the U.S. and Ukraine is ridiculous. BTW, does the U.S. constitution forbid to hold elections under martial law?

More ridiculous false equivalence from you...