I should note that this was NOT my original assumption. I assumed this was like Georgescu, or Khan in Pakistan or the arrest of Istanbul’s Mayor: politically motivated bullshit, designed to make sure a popular politician can’t run and either disproportionate or a stitch-up.
It’s true that LePen is leading the polls and would probably be the the next President, yes, but as best I can tell it’s also true that she’s guilty of misusing public funds and that the court case and the sentence are not politically motivated.
The sentence is:
4 years prison (2 years suspended, 2 years at home under electronic monitoring), a €100,000 fine, and most devastatingly, 5 years of ineligibility for public office with immediate execution.
The best summary I’ve found is this one by Arnaud Bertrand. But I’ll summarize the salient points:
- The case started in 2015, and it was dragged out so long by LePen’s own lawyers who filed every delaying motion they could think of, the timing is not a government plot.
- Parties, including LePen’s, were using EU parliamentary assistant funds to pay for party matters. LePen is not the only one to do this, but she did much more of it than the other French party, the MoDems (Macron’s party): 2.9 million vs. 204,000, plus did it longer and the MoDems stopped before being forced to while LaPen kept doing it until she couldn’t. The MoDem’s punishment was minor, LePen’s is savage, but this appears to me to reflect the seriousness of what each did.
- There really isn’t any question that the RN and LePen are guilty. They are.
- Being forbidden from running is part of the law: if found guilty, you can’t run for office. However the court could have delayed that until after appeals.
So the questions are:
- Is the sentence disproportionate to what was done to the MoDems. (No, I’d say.)
- Is the timing based on LePen now being the front runner. (No.)
- Should the court have held off on banning LePen from running until the appeal?
Again, I’d say no. There’s no question she’s guilty. If it was a case where there was some doubt, then holding off would make sense. The intent of the law is clear: if you have misappropriated funds, you shouldn’t be in office. This seems like a reasonable law: we don’t want politicians who misuse public money in office. The appeal won’t change the fact she’s guilty, and if guilty, she shouldn’t be allowed to be President.
This is unfortunate but the law is reasonable, there’s no case that she’s innocent and she did do something wrong and didn’t stop until forced to.
This isn’t Lawfare. This is justice, and the system working the way it should (except the case took too long) to enforce a law which is entirely reasonable, and not un-just. The higher penalty compared to the MoDems is also reasonable, because it is proportionate to the different actions of different defendants.
It’s easy to be cynical right now, to assume that law enforcement and justice is always corrupt, because it so often is. But on the rare occasions where it is reasonable and just, we should admit it and celebrate.
LePen is guilty, and she shouldn’t be allowed to be President of France and the court was right to rule both things, and was following a law which is actually reasonable and just.
edwin
Whether true or not, it will be a hard sell to claim that this is not political. There is a pattern here: Romania, Germany, Latvia (I think it was Latvia and not Lithuania), and now France. Political censorship and contempt for project democracy is all the rage in Europe. The targets are the far right and far left and anyone who is Russian origin. Oh, and lets not forget the shooting of Fico.
I want to add Aurelien’s comments to Arnauld. They draw some thoughts about the nature of RN from all of this.
“by e-mail:
She’s speaking at the moment but it doesn’t look good. What she did was not unprecedented in the French system (basically moving money around to meet costs elsewhere) but it was done very clumsily, and left a paper trail behind. She also denied everything from the word go, in spite of the evidence, and her defence witnesses were very unconvincing. It just goes to show that the RN is actually a pretty amateurish organisation, with a very limited capability outside Le Pen herself. I don’t think anyone else is capable of running in 2027. The political consequences are effectively impossible to predict at this stage.”
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2025/04/links-4-1-2025.html
eg
Frankly, if National Rally only amounts to Le Pen, then its aspirations were entirely a mirage to begin with.
We’ll know soon enough.
DanFmTo
It’s also worth noting the law that allows such bans was passed in 2016 under Hollande, when the National Rally held 2 seats, so it doesn’t look like it was jammed through to nail LePen 9 years later.
https://www2.assemblee-nationale.fr/scrutins/detail/%28legislature%29/14/%28num%29/1347
Oakchair
it’s also true that she’s guilty of misusing public funds and that the court case and the sentence are not politically motivated.
——
The boy who cried wolf. This is a problem when you have an establishment that has shat on the truth, ethics, and democracy blatantly for so so long. How many people will believe them when the wolf is actually there?
bruce wilder
Of course it is lawfare. Enabling lawfare is the whole point of making it possible to ban someone from running for office, whether as a supposed penalty for crime or otherwise.
A ban from elective office, like a ban from voting or deporting a legal resident for legal protest activities is a misuse of law.
The crime which Le Pen and her Party committed was not a moral outrage against the laws of nature’s god. It was a political crime only, a by-product of political contrivance. Abstracting it as “misappropriation” or “embezzlement” to gin up a dollop of moral outrage is a distortion of reality. There is, or ought to be in our moral instincts and judgments the ability to discern such distinctions. The EU has a parliament to which Members are elected by popular vote. The European Parliament no real power or responsibility. Electing MEPs has furnished an alternative career path and platform for politicians and parties, including parties and politicians on the outside in their home countries. Le Pen and her Party went further in exploiting the possibilities, by giving Party functionaries jobs as Parliamentary assistants. As a practice, it was clearly against the law, a law predicated on the political fiction that the European Parliament is more than purely performative and a “Parliamentary Assistant” has actual and substantively important work to do. It is a bit like Tammany Hall giving a ward healer a job in the City Clerk’s Office that no one needs to do. Except presumably the City Clerk’s office has real work it must do for the City to function well and should do that work and nothing else.
My point is that the ban on running for office is gratuitous and clearly instrumental for Le Pen’s political opponents. I would think a ban on running for office was misplaced if she had robbed a stranger or murdered a colleague, but in those cases, I could justify moral outrage at the crime. Her Party had no other use for the European Parliament than as a source of patronage and indirect party finance. That is a political stance in opposition to those seeking to eliminate a threat to their power. Of course, this is lawfare.
Jessica
I politely disagree. I think that how this will be seen by her supporters matters.
I think democracy would be better served by not using the law to crush one’s opponents on technicalities. And to me, taking funds given to her party for one set of its political functions and using it for another function is a technicality. And saying that she deserves banishment because she did it more amateurishly than the establishment in effect is just another way of saying that those who have passed through elite institutions (and be vetted for their loyalty to the current elites) have a special claim on power.
I would reserve using the law to banish opponents for only those cases that most everyone would recognize as morally objectionable, such as rape, physical assault, murder, stealing large sums from party or public funds for one’s own personal use, influence peddling to a potential enemy country.
Of course, war crimes and collusion in them should be grounds for imprisonment and political banishment, but in actually existing democracy that would be asking for too much. Also, the “everyone does it” defense would be too powerful, at least in the US and most of its allies.
Given that the EU is accumulating a track record of banning opposition through deeply non-democratic means, that broader context will make this wound to the French body politic that much more severe. The impact will spread further if this move emboldens Germany to ban the AfD.
I dread the coming to power of the farther right in Europe and elsewhere, but putting this off with tricks like this, rather than by solving what is bothering people, will only make the situation worse.
Failed Scholar
Yeah I’m definitely with Oakchair on this one. EVEN IF she is *guilty* (and I personally believe this is entirely a stich-up on behalf of the eurocrats), who will believe a thoroughly corrupted political establishment at this point? The corrupt jailing the corrupt. It’s not only easy to be cynical about this, Ian, it is your sacred duty! lmao
Additionally, while I am a huge fan of locking up politicians, I don’t think laws banning people from running for office is necessarily a good thing. The voters should ultimately get the final word, because the temptation on behalf of the political elites to go full on Cardinal Richelieu (ie: “If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.”) is far too great, especially in our times when the authoritarian impulse of our so-called elites is so great. If you cannot vote for radical change in a democracy, then you are no true democracy. More a farce if anything. This is a ‘cheat code’ our misleadership class (who so despise actual democracy) will abuse, you can absolutely bet on that.
Also, wasn’t Navalny put in prison for embezzlement as well? France living up to the Western well worn motto of “It’s OK when we do it”
Purple Library Guy
I think Mr. wilder and Jessica are missing the point to some extent. The point is, government and electioneering are supposed to be separate. If you take government money that is supposed to be used for functions of governance, and you instead hand it to your political party to use to get elected, that is not just stealing government money, it also gives your political party an unfair advantage.
Those are political sins that point directly to what you would do if handed a public office, and merit a political response. I actually think that being guilty of murder should NOT disallow running for office (you should still get jailed for it, obviously). Murder says something about you as a person, but it does NOT necessarily say anything about you as a politician. Of course most people probably wouldn’t vote for a murderer, I hope, but being a killer doesn’t necessarily imply you’ll treat public funds as if they belonged to you.
I suppose Americans are pretty desensitized to this kind of thing, because most political corruption is legal in the United States. When bribery is just the normal way of doing politics, and the amounts are so large, it’s hard to get excited about a little supplement coming from the coffers of government. But US level electoral corruption is not normal, and enforcing this kind of law will help stop it from becoming normal.
Mark Level
I agree generally speaking that if our “Betters” who wield the levers of power were held legally accountable that is desirable and should happen. It will never happen in the US however, the Criminal Class has complete political impunity.
Raising an OT issue that might (?) pique or interest Ian. This young Canadian historian Matt Ehret went on at length on the Duran on the Trudeau dynasty, Gladio-type stuff in Canada in the 1970s and why, apart from Alberta, he believes Canada lacks a national identity and has been kept weak under the Yanqui (my word) thumb. Are you familiar with him, Ian? He had a very good take on the appearance of the Waffen-SS Hunka in the Parliament and most other issues as far as I can tell. Here is a link if you have any interest or would like to bring insight into future Canada posts– https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRXOCKLYLvY
DanFmTo
The crime is fairly serious contact sentiments above. The EU taxpayers fund staff for elected MEPs, using that money or the people it funds to conduct party level partisan activity is theft of the funds and an unfair advantage over other competing parties which are using these resources only as intended (constituent services, legislative affairs).
It’s a crime against democracy itself, really. You can fairly easily imagine some marginal/competitive seats for NR being pushed over the victory line using these resources. It’s quite different from personal crimes like assault or rape, but if anything stealing the power over government in society is more serious than those interpersonal crimes. A government can kill, imprison or deport millions with the powers of state at its disposal.
How serious should the punishment be? If you don’t punish cheating severely, you incentivize cheating and seeing what you get away with, because hey if you win, what does a modest fine matter, your party is in power. You also make such corruption endemic, as every party knows you either cheat or you lose.
In university, cheating is punished severely with either a zero on the paper or exam, or even a zero on the whole course. Why should cheating at democracy be punished more leniently?
Jessica
Purple Library Guy and DanFmTo,
Your arguments apply just as well to Macron as to LePen.
different clue
I agree with Purple Library Guy and DanFmTo.
Senator-Elect
Thanks Mr. Welsh. I have little knowledge of the merits of the case, but the idea that laws should be set aside just because a politician breaks them–that they have some inherent right to run for office–is distressing. I’m sad to see someone like bruce wilder, who used to write edifying comments, sign on to this backwards view of the rule of law. Just because the law has not been enforced against the ruling classes for decades does not mean it should not be enforced on anyone; the opposite is true: it should be enforced on all! Every enforcement action is a positive, a step toward a restoration of a decent society. Trump should have been charged, convicted, jailed and barred from the presidency. So should every other fraudster and corrupt pol. That’s about the only hope we have.
eg
@Mark Level off-hand I imagine the Quebecois would like a word with Mr. Ehrets regarding national identity, eh?
Alberta, really? As what, Texas North?
shagggz
Banning anyone from running for office should not be allowed, due to the opening it creates for lawfare fuckery. Same reason that voting rights should be inalienable. Equal playing field, immune from paternalistic chicanery.
However, when one is already in power then restrictions on using public resources to advantage themselves make sense, as that is in service of said equal playing field.
mago
It’s another Lady Macbeth moment. Everyone’s got blood on their hands.
Out out damn spot
Then they shot the dog.
Just playing around. Don’t mind me.
Jessica
I think that two sets of commenters are answering two different questions:
1) Should laws be enforced against politicians? The answer to this is, of course, yes, and those answering this question are evaluating the offense in question to be severe.
2) Should laws be enforced differentially mostly against non-establishment politicians? Should such differential enforcement be used to banish non-establishment politicians from public life? Those answering this question are saying No and are playing down the severity of the offense in question.
Does anyone know how the French Left has responded? Are they rejoicing in LePen’s downfall or are they seeing how easily they could be next?
Chris Smith
If she can win the vote, she gets the office. Period. Full stop. The people decide who their leaders are no matter how foolish the decision. That’s democracy. This is lawfare.
Mark Level
Thanks, eg. I don’t know much about Canada, though I’m just over 100 miles away as the crow flies . . . I think his point was about Alberta’s economic strength and cohesive culture was that it could be a kernel for wider development. I didn’t forget about the Quebecois either, however I lived in Cajun country, Western Louisiana for nearly 2 years in my early 20s. It’s not exactly the same, but a separate culture just numerically cannot overcome the larger one.
Ehret called out the faithfulness to the colonial master, UK, esp. in British Columbia. He discussed how some wanted to integrate with Lincoln’s successful administration in the 19th century but were blocked. And how the US has continually blocked its economic growth and autonomy (it can’t partner with China, which would be more positive than doing so with the US) and it is a stymied place.
He practically doubled my knowledge of Canadian history and issues in 90 minutes. (That reflects a little badly on me, I know a lot of world history, just missed it as it’s not really a stand-out country, has stood in the US’s shadow for much of its history.)
Revelo
I’m with Bruce Wilder on this. Embezzlement of political funds, even stealing for her own use, such as buying clothes or whatever, should be punished by requirement to pay the money back, pay a fine, possibly ban on future funds, but it’s not a crime deserving of prison or being barred from office. Same as Trump’s similar “crimes” related to miscategorizing payoff money to Stormy Daniels.
And yes, politicians unfortunately have to be considered above the law since everything related to war is actual war crime or tantamount to war crime and all politicians at the national level get involved with war. We don’t hold politicians to account for their serious war crimes so it debases the idea of justice to make too big deal out of trivial accounting shenanigans, especially those which are done openly. Better to punish politicians harshly for perjury and coverups of actions versus the actions themselves. If they are honest and forthright about their crimes, like Trump with his support for Israel and his crypto scams, punish those crimes at the ballot box, not through the judicial system.
Oakchair
I’m going to have to agree with Bruce and others.
No one should be barred from running for office, even someone sitting in jail.
First they came for the “criminals”, and I did not speak out
Because I was not a criminal
Then they came for the “racists”, and I did not speak out
Because I was not a racist
….
….
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out
Feral Finster
“In this country, no judge can put you in jail for a single day if the prosecutor never brings charges.”
Ron Nash
Oji
Thanks for the take, Ian.
BTW, apropos of something you said in a previous post, but declined to provide detail.
Had the same thought, and it relates to sunshine, swamps, and gators.
Warvigilent
well just so glad you are all so committed to democracy you will let its destroyer walk into power, no wonder trump got away with everything. Such hardcore liberals and their love of the system that enables and promotes the worst , and when the shitty status quo is just too good they flock to the new propaganda promoted shit sandwich and they can do nothing but defend it no matter how obvious it is far worse.
La Pen objectively would have made things worse for the middle class and poor, ya know the VAST FUCKING MAJORITY . fair never existed, sure as hell was never fair for the left. OH no , a moronic fascist finally got comeuppance, the left gets beat by riot cops, infiltrated by spy agencies, and its followers and leaders killed, but one leader facing a mild consequence for yes stealing money that in amounts would see one of us little people jailed for a lot longer. im tired of these fucking right wing pity parties. come back when right wingers are being pulled from their homes and sent to death prisons . come back when the french government is making lists of right wingers who protested covid so they can be dissapeared to camps. come back when left wing governments are threatening to annex their neighbors. what the hell is wrong with you ?
somewhat over the top but makes some important points, so I’m letting it thru – Ian
Jorge
@eg-
“Frankly, if National Rally only amounts to Le Pen, then its aspirations were entirely a mirage to begin with.”
Here’s how French politics works: 1) You want to be President. 2) You start your own party and build it up. Let’s call it the You Party. 3) You put together a coalition with the You Party as majority power. 4) You become President, and others who want to be President nibble away at the You Party. 5) You’re out, and the You Party crumbles away.
It is probably an overly unstable system.
Jan Wiklund
The really ridiculous thing about Le Pen’s complaints is that she, herself, demanded a stronger law back in 2013. She demanded corrupt politicians to be banned for life. See https://www.paudal.com/when-marine-le-pen-demanded-life-ineligibility-for-elected-officials/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
And now she whines.
Jim
Thomas Fazi disagrees with you, Ian.
https://www.thomasfazi.com/p/le-pen-ruling-lawfare-european-style