Former French President Nicolas Sarkozy sentenced to jail in historic ruling

For what? Sarkozy was guilty.

 

Like what? Sarkozy bribed someone, when did Trump do that?

 

For WHAT? Are you so afraid of him you need to ban him from politics?

 

Yeah his attorney was GUILTY of multiple crimes. The Feds have such little faith about his testimony on Trump they won't even name him.

 

No they don't, they just need RGTS, plenty of people who are innocent are investigated and the SDNY is notoriously partisan and corrupt.

 

''We got him this time' #2406.

 

France is quite delighted.
About time.
BTW Sarkozy was one of the more right wing presidents we have had in recent times...not well liked.

 

Your days are numbered Dirty Don

Bolsenaro's next, the Fall of the Fascist Freshening

 

If you look across the major players in international western politics I see a real weakening of the right wing influence.
Italy's Lega Norda is almost defunct.
Greece's Golden Dawn is almost defunct.
Hungary is wobbling as is Poland.
Trump is gone and the virus has put UK's right wing spending and priorities on hold for some time.
The rush to the right seems to be losing speed. IMO.

 

I expected as much.

There is no Great Depression on now. People need to be desperate before they willingly give their freedom to right wing tyrants.

 

You understand that the SDNY has to go thru a Judge and provided evidence to get them right ? And apparently they had enough to evidence that every court up to and including the SC agreed that they had the evidence required to get the taxes.

 

And the judge exhibits bias. Why do you think the SC have majority verdicts, not every Judge thinks the same way. Just because they can justify looking at the records it doesn't signify guilt.

 

LOL!

 

So you just keep making things up to meet your agenda.

There were MULTIPLE courts that this went thru. Just admit that their IS evidence to support the SDNY getting the taxes.

And just so were clear. The SDNY did not get them while he was president because he was the president. This should have been adjudicated ;one ago....

 

Which is not a sign of guilt, you can't say "Oh they must be guilty otherwise they wouldn't have been investigated"

 

I Never said he was guilty. Again, you got proven wrong so now you're moving the goalposts once again.

 

Nobody is protected from corruption, and if we have a real problem with our leaders, that's quite positive that our leaders are judged for their acts. I don't have an opinion if Trump should or shouldn't get sentenced, and if he is, he should be on the basis of real law not simple ressentment.

 

French law has found Sarkozy guilty.
Let the same be said for Trump. It is merely a matter of time.

 

If anyone breaks the law, that person should be duly charged with a crime, a fair trial should ensue, and if the person (ANY person) is found guilty, then punishment should be meted out, also according to law.

BTW, welcome aboard here in the Forum. You'll find it's an interesting, informative, and often entertaining form of 'trench-warfare', where the Left and Right fight it out continually. Grab your weapons and join the fray!

 

Thanks.
In respect of trial and punishment may I say that "equality" is one of the four pillars of French law and refers to equality before the law.
It has been since the end of the 18th century post Revolution of 1789. and it is strictly followed today. It came into being about the time that USA gained its independence from the UK 1776 and actually informed the American revolutionists how to consider their constitution 1787.
The two countries fought for equality before the law about the same time.
It was "in the wind".

 

Hardly, you seem to hate Trump so much you want to jail him first and then find what he's guilty of later.

 

Well so far it's been 5 years and nada so...?

 

It's been nada bull SH*T

The Mueller Report found Trump guilty of Obstruction of Justice on TEN occasions, 4 were "slam dunks" and 6 were still likely convictions if they ever went to court. They didn't prosecute these ONLY because there is a Justice Dept memo from the Watergate era that prohibits indicting a sitting President. Over 1000 former and sitting AGs, all attorneys with professional reputations to protect, have signed a letter saying they would prosecute Trump for these offenses if they could. INALB my understanding is that it can be seen as a serious breach of ethics for an AG to prosecute a case where no "prima facie" (on the face of it) case exists. Trump is, of course, presently an innocent man entitled to due process until he is convicted, but it is a strong likelihood that will happen.

 

That is LITERALLY the opposite of what I posted.

but again, you cant debate what I said so you make things up

 

Are you reading the news ? There is a pretty big economic crisis right now.