So where are they and what are they doing?
FR

Translated into English.

ZO Zorba Veteran ·
Jean-Philippe Derosier’s opinion is irrelevant because no one asked the people to decide whether Marine Le Pen could run. That’s just hot air! This is a judicial matter.

All we know is that a court ruled Le Pen ineligible in its reasoning. The real question is: is that reasoning legitimate?
TA Tatra Globetrotter ·
Good evening, The VFiennes are inspiring today. 🙂

In a healthy democracy, at the risk of further undermining citizens' trust in their representatives, shouldn’t this be enough to permanently bar the guilty party or parties from any claim to holding political office, especially when it comes to the highest position?

Well... How should I put this? I’m always wary of referring to a situation as "pure" or "healthy," or setting a perfect ideal, even as a "regulatory fiction," as someone once wrote. I’m also wary of idealistic positions without nuance, like the one you’re expressing here by emphasizing "permanently." I’m cautious because I remember Robert Badinter’s speech in October 1981 about justice being fallible by nature since it’s human, and thus should never ostracize without the possibility of return. Your idea would have kept A. Hitler out of power, certainly, and maybe B. Mussolini. But it would have also barred Vaclav Havel, Lech Walesa, Nelson Mandela, Lula da Silva, and Mario Soares from power. I don’t think it’s a good idea. Politics isn’t inherently a virtue contest.

Michel
AT Attila Globetrotter ·
What’s the connection between the question asked in the introduction (and travel in general) and Marine Le Pen’s conviction?

Where is she, and what’s she up to?

Who cares.
MA MaitairoaOff ·
“No one asked the people to decide whether Marine Le Pen could run for office.

In our country, which is certainly still far from perfect but is trying to get by as best it can, and in the name of a certain vision of "democracy," we already give the right to vote to the people—that is, to everyone... including that category of people who have no education/culture/political awareness or who still don’t understand the rules and principles by which justice is carried out!

... you wouldn’t seriously want, on top of that, to ask these people to write the law and dispense justice, would you?

"We only know that a court ruled Le Pen ineligible in its reasoning. The real question is: is that reasoning legitimate?"

In the Le Pen case, where the misuse of public funds has been proven (we know that too!), and even if it’s just hot air to you, court decisions only ever legitimately rely on the laws that define justice, which stipulate that, depending on the circumstances of the case, it’s up to the judges to decide whether or not to enforce the sanction immediately.

Whatever! 😎

What you’re doing, as is now both obvious and regrettable, is grossly and unfortunately confusing the concept of "justice" with that of "democracy."

Justice clearly isn’t made for you...

... hey, you should try economics—a fascinating field whose brilliant representative, John Maynard KEYNES, once said this truth: "You can’t make a donkey drink if it isn’t thirsty."

... it’s no coincidence: this specialty is made for you! 🙂
ZO Zorba Veteran ·
Thank you for attributing all sorts of abilities to me, including the one of not understanding justice. You can add my difficulty in grasping the twists and turns of your reasoning.

Now it’s my turn to ask if you can understand a one-line text and respond without beating around the bush:

Are the court’s considerations legitimate?

(I’m not mentioning the embezzlement of funds but the immediate execution for possible disturbance of public order and cessation of the offense by someone who is no longer a European MP.)
MA MaitairoaOff ·
(I’m not mentioning embezzlement of funds but rather the immediate execution for possible disruption of public order and cessation of the offense by someone who is no longer a European MP)

... but who could very well become one again, whatever she says today!

The decision, which you claim to have read and understood, says nothing else:

"The existence of ongoing mandates, or even the intention to seek such mandates, is likely to perpetuate a risk of fraudulent use of public funds... and due to the disruption that would arise in this case from the fact that someone who has already been convicted at first instance—particularly to an additional penalty of ineligibility—could run for office, for example and notably in the presidential election, or even be elected."

So I don’t understand what you don’t understand...

... or perhaps I understand it all too well: your side and your sympathies have little regard for honesty, even intellectual honesty!
ZO Zorba Veteran ·
Hello there. I don’t like your manners.
MA MaitairoaOff ·
... just because there are other stinky situations doesn’t take anything away from the one we’re talking about here! 😐
MA MaitairoaOff ·
Right back at you, sir, but that doesn’t mean I’m saying hello either!
AT Attila Globetrotter ·
I wasn’t expecting anything more from this discussion.

And then Marine Le Pen wakes the dead...🙂
UN UnaMilanese Veteran ·
Good evening Michel,

It’s very likely I have a distant view of this matter, which I’ve barely followed. Illegal use of funds, trial, conviction, sanction = ineligibility. Nothing surprising there. These "legal considerations" that seem to obsess you—and which I imagine are the subject of debate in France—are completely obscure to me.

The European election is a party-list vote; the idea that elected officials might consider the funds allocated to them as intended for their party’s activities, both at the European and national levels, seems perfectly understandable to me.

Don’t you have anything less specious to suggest? Because if everyone follows their own little logic, their personal interpretation—which has no reason to be common or shared—rather than the laws and regulations laid out to govern actions and behavior, it’s likely to create a magnificent mess.

An immediate penalty with no possibility of a suspensive appeal: does that seem consistent with the idea of justice to you?

No possibility to appeal?

I still find it quite hard to follow you: the idea that the RN’s program, project, or vision could only become majority-backed through manipulation, a conspiracy, or cheating. What if that project actually garnered majority support—what would the problem be? Reading you, I get the impression of hearing that France Inter commentator who, every Friday morning, only had scornful qualifiers, sweeping generalizations, and dogmatism on his lips to try to banish any thought different from his own.

It’s been 20 years since I last listened to France Inter. Or any French radio, except for nostalgia sometimes on long highway drives through the Massif Central, or a few France Culture podcasts about writers when I feel like hearing my native language.

On the other hand, I’m a bit surprised to see the same kind of rhetoric popping up here that I heard from Berlusconi for years: judges are in the pay of/complicit with my political enemies, who use them to take me down. That only reinforced his popularity among his supporters, convinced he was the victim of a plot by those terrible baby-eating communist-judicial types (and some people actually believed it without irony).

Catherine
MA Mathews Globetrotter ·
in the name of a certain vision of "democracy," the right to vote is already given to the people, meaning everyone...

So, in plain terms, you want to take away the right to vote from the people if I understand correctly?

including that category of people who have no education/culture/political awareness

What category of people are we talking about here? In short, if I understand correctly, you’re taking part of the population for idiots? Or even bordering on considering the people who post on this forum... I wonder how the people who came before me didn’t pick up on this and let this argument slide.
TA Tatra Globetrotter ·
Hello Catherine,

It’s very likely I have a distant view of this matter, which I’ve barely followed. Illegal use of funds, trial, conviction, sanction = ineligibility. Nothing surprising. These "findings" that seem to obsess you and that I imagine are the subject of debate in France are completely unclear to me.

Justice isn’t a mechanical process—it justifies its decisions and has broad discretion in choosing and applying sanctions. Here, it’s invoking reasons and considerations that simply don’t make sense. Do you know of any decisions that are accepted if they aren’t understood as making sense? I don’t. It’s precisely these differing assessments that, a few months ago, spared the current French prime minister from being convicted—or even rendered ineligible—for a very similar case involving the use of European funds for party operations.

No possibility of appealing the decision?

No, not when it comes to the immediate enforcement of ineligibility.

Michel
ZO Zorba Veteran ·
I noticed since I no longer keep in touch with that oddball.
ZO Zorba Veteran ·
the judges are in the pay/complicit with my political enemies who are using them to take me down. Following Berlusconi

We absolutely cannot generalize; our country has many high-quality magistrates, and there’s no doubt that at the Court of Appeal level, their professionalism will correct the partisan bias and amateurism shown in this initial ruling.

I feel targeted as a "Berlusconi supporter." Yes, the man made me laugh, just like Meloni, for their quintessentially Italian character—much funnier than the dull figures running our country. When a journalist asked him why he had the ear of the Russian president or other world leaders, he replied, "It’s due to my charm." And Meloni, who shot Macron a withering look at a reception. It said it all—pure gold. I know I haven’t suffered under them and that we should look beyond the anecdotes. Still, I can’t help but smile.

Beyond the Le Pen case, there’s a broader movement to block political figures from running through legal means. We remember the Fillon affair, then Trump’s case, and now it’s spreading to Romania and Le Pen.

We should take note of former European Commissioner Thierry Breton’s comment (who, by the way, is Senegalese!???), which speaks volumes about the European Commission’s mindset:

In January 2025, on RMC, Thierry Breton claimed it would be possible to annul the results of the 2025 German federal elections if the AfD wins, thanks to the DSA, because it would be the result of foreign interference—referring to American entrepreneur Elon Musk’s support for Alice Weidel’s party: "We did it in Romania, and we’ll obviously have to do the same in Germany if necessary."[171], [172], [1. Source: Wikipedia

What’s the point of voting? (DSA: Digital Services Act)
UN UnaMilanese Veteran ·
Hi!

There she invokes reasons and assessment elements that simply don’t make sense; do you know of any decisions that are accepted if they aren’t understood as making sense? I don’t.

Fortunately, Maitairoa (post 527) transcribed here the excerpt that’s causing such outraged reactions. I fully understand the reasoning: postponing the enforcement of the penalty until the appeal ruling could lead the country to have a head of state recognized as a criminal and ineligible. As a result, his voters would cling to the democratic mandate to defend him, while those who voted against him would rightly deny any legitimacy. Avoiding such a conflict for the country seems very sensible and rational to me.

It’s not the party or its ideas that are ineligible.

Catherine
UN UnaMilanese Veteran ·
Hi,

Otherwise, we have to move past the Le Pen case, because there’s a movement to prevent political figures from running through legal means. We remember the Fillon affair, then it was Trump’s turn recently, then it affected Romania, and now Le Pen.

This is open to interpretation. My take is that political figures aren’t above the law.

And since Meloni makes you laugh, I’ll just say that here too, sometimes, it’s better to laugh than cry—to dilute the anger.

https://youtu.be/un6yUqy-mkM?si=L6Ep5cMhrXbJ0EOr

Catherine
ZO Zorba Veteran ·
You’re cruel because you shattered the image I had of Meloni that made me laugh, with that sketch—and I still didn’t even catch what she was saying. Fair game, though! Well played.

Of course, politicians aren’t above the law, especially when it comes to criminal matters. The issue is delicate because of Montesquieu’s separation of powers: Can a judge walk into the National Assembly to see how MPs’ allowances are being used? No. A president has even shut the doors of the National Assembly in a judge’s face. Can a parliamentary inquiry look into how judges’ offices and clerks operate? No. Can a judge decide who can run for president? I hope not—otherwise, that would be a major overreach of the judiciary into the executive branch.

As for message 527, sorry, but I don’t read it the same way as you. I don’t have a desperate need to be right, but what do I see? Simply an assumption of intent and amateurism from the judge: if we let this elected official get re-elected, she’ll do it again! Does the judge have psychic powers? What does she know about Le Pen’s intentions? She’s just making assumptions.

That’s not how the law works. If authorities found out you *wanted* to rob the Bank of Italy, they couldn’t do anything but wait to catch you in the act—after wiretapping your calls, for example.
JO Jojoone1 Globetrotter ·
I haven’t paid much attention to MLP’s judicial case. She was particularly bad during her two televised debates for the presidential election runoff, which, in my opinion, completely undermines her credibility—if she ever had any to begin with. This party is nothing more than a small family business that’s been keeping its members fed for decades, and that’s about it. Expecting this party to win is as naive as the Greeks who voted for the far left a few years ago. Once in power, it took them just two days to do the same as—or worse than—their predecessors. Indeed, all it takes is a threat from the Americans to let things slide or to raise interest rates, and everyone obediently falls back in line. It’s pretty much for the same reasons that Islamist infiltration is only half-heartedly fought: the Gulf monarchies lend us hundreds of millions every weekend to balance our banks’ books, or else one fine Monday morning, we’d wake up to some very nasty surprises. This is the aftermath of the 2008 disaster, where we’re trying to patch up—or rather delay—the inevitable consequences with quick fixes and endless money printing, the LAST thing we should be doing (see the 1930s).

We also have to consider the issue of campaign financing. If politicians stuck to what’s legally allowed, they wouldn’t make it. That’s why we hear stories about Pasqua’s bag carriers for Chirac, the Khadafi-Sarkozy affair, and suspicions of Algerian funding for Macron—all of which shed interesting light on Manu’s strange benevolence toward that country.

On another note, our universities and justice system have swung completely to the left. You’d be shocked if you really knew what goes on there. More than ever, rulings reflect judges’ moral principles rather than the actual application of the law. The explanation? After nearly half a century of freedoms—which also had the perverse effect of eroding national pride, order, discipline, analysis, organization, and foresight—many people have become progressive, ultra-leftist, or even anarchist. After being stuck under authoritarian rule for so long, the pendulum has swung straight into carelessness, slowly leading us toward third-world status.

What’s more, 99% of humanity are just pawns on the chessboards of a few. The entire West is now nothing more than the lackey of the Anglo-Saxons, while most people’s reasoning is black-and-white—pro or anti—with no nuance or real dialogue. Individualism has made almost everyone narrow-minded, sectarian, bitter, and vindictive. That’s why it’s pointless to hope for a real dialogue with opponents, especially since some seem completely unhinged based on the style and substance of their responses.

No matter what individual efforts or election results we see, we’re once again caught in one of history’s cycles, heading toward a major clash. After which, it might be possible to temporarily rebuild on solid foundations. Then again, maybe not—the worst is never certain.
ZO Zorba Veteran ·
Not bad! I mostly agree with your analysis, except for:

suspicions of Algerian funding for Macron, which shed interesting light on Manu’s strange benevolence toward that country

The reason is different, but I can’t talk about it without being labeled a dreadful conspiracy theorist.

As for the Le Pen family, it’s damning that we can only have these people as the main opposition. And Bardella? An RN member once let slip that he’s a bit of a fool. If I focus on exposing the flaws in MLP’s conviction, it’s not for her sake, but because of my idea of justice and to warn about the serious danger threatening our democracy. See Thierry Breton and the European Community. Anyway, I can’t support a party that seeks recognition from a country that massacres women and children.

Still, I’ll tell you a great story: under the Fourth Republic, France was in even worse shape. General de Gaulle came to power and appointed Jacques Rueff as Finance Minister. Rueff turned the accounts around and paid off the debt. As a result, the General had the means to kick the Americans out. What followed were massive infrastructure programs that we still benefit from today, along with widespread decolonization. Who today could rise to that challenge? On the other hand, I foolishly believe the French people are extraordinarily talented, but they need to be inspired and deserve leaders worthy of them.

Similar discussions

You might also like