Utopia Talk / Politics / Le Pen banned from running for office

williamthebastard Member	Mon Mar 31 05:30:27 for 5 years after being sentenced for stealing $3 million. And she was doing so well after her fawning over her likeminded far right criminal cronies Putin and Trump blew up in her face. Whether she will be sentenced to prison will be revealed later today
williamthebastard Member	Mon Mar 31 05:34:36 12 of her assistants sentenced for having recieved stolen goods lol...the far right is, as always, just criminals who have stumbled their way into politics
Rugian Member	Mon Mar 31 05:36:06 More European "democracy" in action. Ban the candidates you don't like.
williamthebastard Member	Mon Mar 31 05:39:34 France has, of course, always been more of a republic than the US ever since their revolutions (both funded by France), and less controlled by royal families, and thus less afraid of prosecuting criminals trying to take over the country
williamthebastard Member	Mon Mar 31 05:47:45 In Rugians fake little world where he openly lies about everything, criminals should not be allowed to vote for the highest office, but they should be allowed to run for the highest office. Its like felons convicted for gang violence should not be allowed to have hand guns, but they should be allowed to have nukes.
williamthebastard Member	Mon Mar 31 06:00:26 Sentenced to 4 years in prison. Beautiful lol
williamthebastard Member	Mon Mar 31 06:00:48 So even without the ban, her run for office would be over. Beautiful lol
Sam Adams Member	Mon Mar 31 06:12:21 "More European "democracy" in action. Ban the candidates you don't like." Correct. Europe is cucked.
williamthebastard Member	Mon Mar 31 06:15:03 ^More: Felons should not be allowed to have guns but they should be allowed to control nukes.
williamthebastard Member	Mon Mar 31 06:24:05 Dont worry, though, the Kremlin is in total agreement with you "DMITRY PESKOV, KREMLIN SPOKESMAN "Well, indeed, more and more European capitals are going down the path of trampling over democratic norms."
Paramount Member	Mon Mar 31 11:05:16 If you can’t murder them (Donald Trump, Robert Fico), jail them.
murder Member	Mon Mar 31 12:31:26 "More European "democracy" in action. Ban the candidates you don't like." You don't appear to be asserting that she's innocent, so I can only assume that you believe that criminals shouldn't be punished as long as they hate the right people. -
Rugian Member	Mon Mar 31 13:03:37 She's guilty of running afoul of lawmakers. Ooh, a decade ago she paid her staffers with EU funds even though they were working on non-EU items. Quick, ban her from French politics and throw her in jail. I mean, are you fucking kidding me.
Rugian Member	Mon Mar 31 13:03:54 lawmakers -> lawfare
Daemon Member	Mon Mar 31 13:47:54 x thread (automatically translated): http://x.com/ComEymery/status/1906666794267394428 On #LePen and #ineligibility Her sentence: 4 years imprisonment, 5 years ineligibility for misappropriation of public funds For comparison: Henri Emmanueli: 18 months suspended, 2 years ineligibility for prohibited party financing Alain Juppé: 14 months suspended and 1 year ineligibility 1/ for fictitious employment of party employees by the City of Paris Jean Tibéri: 3 years ineligibility for election fraud Yamina Benguigui: 1 year ineligibility for incomplete asset declarations Serge Dassault: 2 million EUR fine and 5 years ineligibility for money laundering 2/ Léon Bertrand: 3 years imprisonment and 3 years ineligibility for corruption Thomas Thévenoud: 12 months suspended sentence and 3 years ineligibility for late/non-declaration of income 3/ Jérôme Cahuzac: 4 years imprisonment (2 suspended) and 5 years ineligibility for tax fraud and money laundering Patrick Balkany: 4.5 years imprisonment and 10 years ineligibility for tax fraud and money laundering 4/ Conclusion: It affects both left-wing and right-wing politicians. Penalties have been rising since the first convictions in the early 2000s. The punishment against Ms. Le Pen fits this trend. 5/5
williamthebastard Member	Mon Mar 31 13:54:19 Rightwingers hate the rule of law
murder Member	Mon Mar 31 16:28:35 "Rightwingers hate the rule of law" When it's applied to them.
Paramount Member	Tue Apr 01 01:06:25 According to the The Duran, this is pretty much a standard procedure in France. Everyone is doing it. But according to them, not everyone is being prosecuted. So the Duran believes her sentence may political motivated. The liberal authoritarian elite is after all scared to death for her and her party now that her party has so much support that it threatens their rule. And if you ask me, I believe it is common throughout all of EU – that people take and use EU money for something else that it wasn’t intended for. It is like a sport. Who can trick the EU the most and get the most money from it. The EU itself is deceiving its citizens and taxpayers. In addition to a very generous monthly salary, every EU MEP gets a €5,000 office allowance to cover the purchase of office supplies, such as pens and such, and technology. How many pens do you get for €5,000? How many fking pens do you need every month? You can buy a new Macbook Pro every month. How many new Macbook Pro's do you need every year? 12? It is fraud with EU funds. The liberal elite of the EU should be put in jail. The EU elite is probably afraid that if France votes for Le Pen, then she may reform the EU and stop the Liberal Elite from robbing the taxpayers.
Paramount Member	Tue Apr 01 01:35:45 MEPs don't even have to show receipts for their purchases. So no one knows if the grant money is really going to what it's supposed to go to, office supplies. It is literally set up for fraud. MEPs can buy booze and prostitutes with our tax money. They can send the money to Hamas, Israel or Russia if they wish. Which some probably do. How come the liberal EU elite is not put in jail for fraud with EU funds, but Le Pen is? Does the Genocide Liberals hate the rule of law?
Seb Member	Tue Apr 01 02:18:27 Criminals under sanction can't vote. Why the fuck should they be able to run for office? She's clearly guilty of embezzling public funds - why would you want to let someone convicted of stealing public funds run for office with control of public funds? Rugian: There's a reason the EU isn't allowed to find domestic politics. It's to prevent exactly the kind of interference you long accuse the EU of doing. Meanwhile you support Putin funneling cash to his proxies. Can you make up your mind, or at least he explicit: you want no bars on the behaviour of the far right, but tight constraints on everyone else.
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Apr 01 05:00:40 [Rugian]: ""More European "democracy" in action. Ban the candidates you don't like." [Sam Adams]: "Correct. Europe is cucked." Yup. The slavish euro-leftists probably believe that these crimes are totally above-board and not at all manufactured. This would be consistent with the stupidity of U.S. leftists, who truly believe that Trump committed crimes (this is by no means an invitation for another tumblefag meltdown). These are the types of retards we'd see on Reddit desperately saying, "Convicted felon." They are too stupid and myopic to realize that the international Regime is playing the Cardinal Richelieu game of finding the crime. It does not occur to them that the Regime will do this to *any* of their opposition because the goal of the Regime is to push ever-leftward to effect a slave revolt and dysgenic warfare. But the left's opinions no longer matter. The veil is lifted. The West will be liberated from the leftist and from the international Bolshevik.
murder Member	Tue Apr 01 05:14:12 "These are the types of retards we'd see on Reddit desperately saying, "Convicted felon." They are too stupid and myopic to realize that the international Regime is playing the Cardinal Richelieu game of finding the crime." Of course. The guy that tried to overthrow the government and install himself as US dictator would never commit a crime. The guy talking about serving another term in violation of the US Constitution would never commit a crime. The guy selling Teslas and meme coins from the oval office in violation of the law would never violate the law. You're in a cult. -
Seb Member	Tue Apr 01 05:52:25 So is the argument: A. that she didn't do embezzlement and so shouldn't be banned B. that she did do embezzlement, but it's wrong to ban people from public office for abuse if public office C. that she did do embezzlement, it's correct to ban people from public office for abuse of public office, but it's unfair because other people aren't A seems open and shut to me. B is a perfectly valid but moronic position to take C is just factually incorrect if you look at the number of French politicians subject to such sanctions after criminal convictions. Honestly the US overthrew a colonial system where they felt kings were above the law, contrary to prior rights asserting the opposite. That 200 odd years later it has reached the reverse conclusion, that rulers must be above the law to express the will of the people is just a rehashed version of Hobbes's Leviathan.
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Apr 01 06:02:41 [murder (left-wing dogma bot)]: "The guy that tried to overthrow the government and install himself as US dictator" False premise. Lies. Distortions. LIE: "The guy talking about serving another term in violation of the US Constitution" LIE: "The guy selling Teslas and meme coins from the oval office in violation of the law" You are in a cult. Your cult is based in lies and deceptions. You have to lie because otherwise people would look directly at you and see what a pathetic dysgenic freak you are. But I see you, and I foresee your obliteration. .. I like that sebfaggot is such a delusional treasonous Bolshevik swine that he couldn't even produce more than those three options. The true option is that these charges were falsified to poison the well and that those who falsified the charges should be hanged by the neck until dead — i.e., the crime is irrelevant since it is purely a theater of the absurd. Sebfaggot, being a liar, will protect his fellow liars because the outcome is the removal of a political opponent. That is the only principle of the rootless cosmopolitan: power through any lies and any deceptions, with no act being too immoral to commit in the name of the enslavement and annihilation of the West. Recall, similarly, that the Democrats not only attempted this with Trump to the extreme — even provoking a55a55ination when their attempts failed — but did in fact successfully remove the Green Party candidate from the ballot using flagrant and cynical lawfare. They literally were able to remove her on a filing technicality and celebrated this transparent abuse of the system because they only cared that it might get them a few more votes in a contested state. So, naturally, sebfaggot would believe that this latest issue is merely a matter of the law preventing a leader who is "above the law". But that is not the case. His principle would flip if the Right did the same to the left, since his ideological consistency is based only in enslavement and degradation. He cannot help but lie to fulfill these ends. It is in his sickly nature, and thus he is rightly subjugated by his own lack of character.
jergul large member	Tue Apr 01 06:11:25 Her loss of civil rights is a distinct ruling that does not follow from felony status. Felons in France retain the right to vote and other civil liberties compatible with incarceration. It is very hard to read the additional sentence as anything other than political repression tailored to block a presidential front-runner from competing in the next presidential election. At the very least, the optics are horrible. France is undermining confidence in its democratic system. There is however still an appeal process. We shall see. I would like to find the name of the sentencing judge. There is a double-digit % chance he is tied to Macron somehow by virtue of how France's elitist system works.
jergul large member	Tue Apr 01 06:12:38 CC His position would definitely flip if we were talking about a Russian opposition figure.
williamthebastard Member	Tue Apr 01 06:18:10 The ban means nothing for her chances of running for office. The 4 year criminal sentence already excludes her from running for office, the next election being in 2 years
williamthebastard Member	Tue Apr 01 06:20:59 France 1 a) Ineligibilities arising from the holding of certain posts or the exercise of certain activities for a period of five years from the date on which the conviction becomes final, persons convicted of any of the offences provided for by Articles 432-10 to 432-16 of the Criminal Code (offences against public administration committed by public office-holders and constituting a failure of integrity, particularly misappropriation, accepting bribes, 'log-rolling', illegal promotion of interests, infringement of the freedom of access and equality of candidates for public contracts, misappropriation and embezzlement), by Articles 433-1 to 433-4 of the Criminal Code (offences against public administration committed by private individuals, particularly bribery and 'log-rolling', intimidation of public office-holders, misappropriation and unlawful removal of goods from a public warehouse), or for concealing any of these offences.
williamthebastard Member	Tue Apr 01 06:22:18 Even her fascist defenders here agree that she is guilty of misappropriation, and according to french law "particularly misappropriation" bans her from holding office. The end.
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Apr 01 06:26:52 "agree that she is guilty of misappropriation" Who the fuck are you even talking about, you fucking psycho?
williamthebastard Member	Tue Apr 01 06:29:22 The ban is probably just a neccesary formal paragraph arising from her conviction for embezzlement and misappropriation of funds
williamthebastard Member	Tue Apr 01 06:42:40 In fcat, that seems to be exactly what happened here. It gained immediate force because the law says it gains force for 5 years from the "date of the conviction", as noted above
williamthebastard Member	Tue Apr 01 06:59:37 The media portrays her ban as if it were the primary sentence, but its just a formal by-product of her financial conviction that applies to everyone who gets sentenced for financial and other crimes.
jergul large member	Tue Apr 01 07:01:24 The is EU law, not french law. The french penalty is: "est puni de dix ans d'emprisonnement et d'une amende de 1 000 000 €, dont le montant peut être porté au double du produit de l'infraction." Is punishable by up to 10 years with up to a million fine or double the gains from the infraction. My translation. The upto is very correct. No mandatory loss of civic rights.
williamthebastard Member	Tue Apr 01 07:02:25 "Like many other countries within the civil law legal tradition, France's judicial system is divided between ordinary and administrative courts. The ordinary courts accepted the supremacy of EU law in 1975, but the administrative courts accepted the doctrine only in 1990."
jergul large member	Tue Apr 01 07:04:55 Dont seaman lawyer me. You are citing rules for running in the EU parliament, not rules for running for French president. The loss of civic rights (which is the actual sentence) in not mandated by french law.
williamthebastard Member	Tue Apr 01 07:08:38 Huh? France The required personal qualifications for a candidate for the presidential elections are the same as those for any other official election, as set forth in the French Electoral code (Code électoral). A candidate for an election must be: a French citizen, have attained the age of 18 years, be qualified to vote, not be ineligible by reason of criminal conviction
murder Member	Tue Apr 01 07:13:05 "LIE: "The guy talking about serving another term in violation of the US Constitution" LIE: "The guy selling Teslas and meme coins from the oval office in violation of the law"" Clearly you are being denied TV privileges and have you internet use strictly monitored.
jergul large member	Tue Apr 01 07:15:05 The ineligibility was created by a separate and distinct sentencing above jail time that specifically curtailed her civic rights for 5 years. The point here is that the judge did not have to give that additional sentence. The optics of doing so are horrible, it undermines confidence in French democracy and smacks of establishment cronyism. In other countries, we would call it political oppression of the opposition.
williamthebastard Member	Tue Apr 01 07:17:17 https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/blow-le-pen-french-constitutional-court-rules-immediate-bans-public-office-are-2025-03-28/ The only difference is that the prosecutors demanded that it be made effective immediately in this case, even while her appeal is pending, which was granted (and which would be revoked if her appeal case finds her innocent, which seems completely inpossible)
williamthebastard Member	Tue Apr 01 07:19:59 if she proves she didnt misapprioriate funds, she will be allowed to run for office, and her appeal case will certainly occur before the election. The optics are not nice, but thats partly due to everyone focusing on the formal additional penalty that applies to convictions for misapprioriation/embezzlement
williamthebastard Member	Tue Apr 01 07:20:44 but I dont think anyone believes for a second she was innocent of misapprioriating funds
jergul large member	Tue Apr 01 07:21:37 Reread you link. The Constitutional court ruled that local politicians could be banned while waiting appeal, not that they must be banned waiting appeal. She is also not a councilman or other local politician. She is a national politician. The ruling may not apply in her case.
williamthebastard Member	Tue Apr 01 07:22:14 *misappropiating
williamthebastard Member	Tue Apr 01 07:23:04 "The Constitutional court ruled that local politicians could be banned while waiting appeal, not that they must be banned waiting appeal." Thats what I said. "The only difference is that the prosecutors demanded that it be made effective immediately in this case, even while her appeal is pending, which was granted (and which would be revoked if her appeal case finds her innocent, which seems completely inpossible)"
williamthebastard Member	Tue Apr 01 07:25:08 The only thing that isnt automatic is the ban on her running from office YET, because the law only says that must occur upon "final" conviction. She hasnt yet appealed and received a final conviction yet. But the prosecutors demand was granted in this case and will almost certainly be upheld when she receives her final conviction.
williamthebastard Member	Tue Apr 01 07:27:00 one could equally spin this as giving her party a chance to spend the next couple of years looking for a new candidate instead of her being found guilty and automatically being refused to run for office after the appeal case has been tried, closer to the election.
williamthebastard Member	Tue Apr 01 07:29:00 Of course, if she doesnt appeal, this IS her final conviction.
williamthebastard Member	Tue Apr 01 07:33:09 Its quite possible the judge determined that there's no chance in hell she will be found innocent in an appellate trial and weighed that in. Had there been a degree of uncertainty in the evidence that could give her a chance of winning an appeal, he might not have granted the prosecution's demand
jergul large member	Tue Apr 01 07:41:59 An appeal can also involve resentencing. The political ban may not be upheld for example.
Pillz Member	Tue Apr 01 07:43:13 9/12 of the last posts are wtb Roflmao
williamthebastard Member	Tue Apr 01 07:43:33 Certainly. In which case she will be allowed to run.
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Apr 01 07:44:06 [murder (left-wing dogma bot)]: "Clearly you are being denied TV privileges and have you internet use strictly monitored." Weak deflection. You simply spoke lies. You're claiming violations which do not exist. Like many syphilitic/leftist anti-thinkers, you anti-think that a proposition is the same thing as the act, and you anti-think that the present conclusion of your cult is the historical conclusion which expands into the past and future. Yours is the delusional thought process of the 1984 totalitarian sycophant. You losers fell for this propaganda with January 6th too. "Overturn" was a lie since the results would have to be finalized for that verb to make any rhetorical sense. You were too stupid to see that the Regime had treated the conclusion as final before it actually was. They lied to you, and you, being stupid and compliant, believed them. Similarly, is "serving another term" against the Constitution? That is arguable. The 22nd Amendment was ratified only 74 years ago, in 1951, which was after Bolsheviks began owning politicians in these United States. There are many arguments for why it is invalid, and more importantly, if it were overturned, it would no longer be against the Constitution. It is unlikely that Trump would even be physically capable of running for reelection in 2028, but it is good and just that leftists should fear this possibility.
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Apr 01 07:44:39 [Pillz]: "9/12 of the last posts are wtb" He's a legit psychopath.
williamthebastard Member	Tue Apr 01 07:54:31 In fact, since her prison sentence has been converted to 2 years suspended and 2 years with an anklet, its possible the judge is being lenient. One would have to compare to other similar cases of embezzlement
Pillz Member	Tue Apr 01 07:55:30 He doesn't even have a frame of reference nor the sense to google it. Just words for the sake of words because they make him feel important.
williamthebastard Member	Tue Apr 01 07:55:58 the prosection were demanding 5 years in prison, which was denied
Pillz Member	Tue Apr 01 07:58:35 That has no bearing on your previous post though. You are stupid stupid. You talk but know nothing. At all. It's not impressive. It's no pathetic. We've gotten to the point where it is an observable pathology and it should be understood. Maybe one day individuals like you won't have to thrash and scream because ideas and knowledge scare them.
williamthebastard Member	Tue Apr 01 08:11:56 Here's the original, relevant french law, google translated: Article 19 By way of derogation from paragraph 1 of this article, the imposition of the additional penalty of ineligibility referred to in paragraph 2 of Article 131-26 and Article 131-26-1 is mandatory for any person guilty of one of the offenses defined in Section 3 of this chapter. http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jorf/id/JORFTEXT000033558528
Pillz Member	Tue Apr 01 08:16:32 Irrelevant in the context of an appeal. And note the lack of minimum or maximum sentence for embezzlement or source for reference of 'typical' sentences. So you managed to post your first source in 3 years and it didn't have any baring on the discussion. That's beyond wow.
williamthebastard Member	Tue Apr 01 08:19:14 In fact, my French is not that good, but it seems from that governmental document that it IS mandatory striaght off, but that the judge is allowed to disregard that mandatory requirement after "special consideration" and he decided, in that case, that she didnt meet the requirements of "special consideration". I would imagine "special consideration" probably refers to things like a president in time of war or something
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Apr 01 13:35:58 Who is he talking to?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Apr 01 13:37:55 Did he do another wtb and fuck up simple stuff like reading and understanding? Well I guess you incels have a PhD in French law!
williamthebastard Member	Wed Apr 02 18:40:08 Meanwhile, the judge is recieving 24/7 protection after serious threats to his life. Even the rightwing are saying that the far right are stirring up dangerous threats and that she was clearly guilty "Xavier Bertrand, the rightwing head of the Hauts-de-France region, said Bayrou should never have said he was “troubled” by Le Pen’s sentence. He told RTL radio that the prime minister and other politicians were “falling into a trap by Marine Le Pen: the trap of victimisation. Marine Le Pen is not a victim of miscarriage of justice. She was found guilty by the criminal court of extremely serious activities: embezzlement of public funds.”"
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: