Are you genuinely interested in the answer, or are you using rhetorical techniques to create the illusion of ambiguity when a quick search for the facts of the case produce a clear and definitive answer?
In some ways, this reminds me of Bernard Tapie, called "a man with 1001 lives". It's a really interesting story from 1980s/90s of a self-made-businessman, turned politician, getting to the very top, doing deals with African leaders, becoming minister, having his football club (Marseille) win the European Champions League; which however was a turning point that started his downfall, as they bought a domestic game just before, to avoid injuries before the big final.
A very interesting documentary [2] explains all this. There's also Netflix series that I didn't watch though.
Sounds about right tbh - any politician claiming they want to be "tough on crime" invariably (and ironically) means "I'm going to break some laws that apply to me in order to punish some out-group".
We, French, are very proud of having put an ex-President in jail, for his crimes of having tried to whitewash a dictator responsible for the death of more French people than the Bataclan terror attacks in exchange for money.
This person humiliated our country, and we're glad our justice put him behind bars
Doesn't France have a fundamentally different legal system from the US and British versions? IIRC, USA etc. rely primarily on precedent for their legal systems. France, Germany, and others rely on written law specifically.
I imagine in the latter form, it's easier to get big boys in jail, because simply being defeated once doesn't weaken all future attempts. I could be completely misremembering though.
By the way, this is not possible in the U.S and in many other countries. When someone is convicted of a crime, they don’t usually start serving a prison sentence until the case is final. If they appeal, the sentence is automatically paused or can be stayed by the court. In practice, this means you don’t go to prison (unless you are already in preventive detention because of flight risk or danger) while your case is still being fought in higher courts.
What about Silvio Berlusconi? The Italian “premier”, multiple times prime minister, founder of multiple parties and leader of the right.
Owner of Milan FC and involved in constructing large parts of Milan city. Multiple people in his parties were condemned for corruption, the co-founder of his main party “Forza Italia” called Marcello Dell’Utri went in jail for concussion with Mafia. Berlusconi had a mafia boss - Vittorio Mangano - living permanently in his mansion near Milan. Owner of large construction companies, movie companies, a large bank, publishing companies, multiple newspapers, a lot of investments and three of the main TVs in Italy, and never went in jail a single day. He was able to create laws ad personam, like that the tree most important political positions in the country got immunity from law persecution, and he also was able to shorten the limitation period for crimes, in order to avoid charges.
He got sentenced or prosecuted for: fiscal fraud for his Mediaset TVs, underage prostitution, prostitution racket (some of the girls were appearing in TVs and got elected as politicians to get $$$ government pensions), mafia murders ‘92/93 (where Falcone e Borsellino died, the two judges that brought to international attention the danger of Italian Mafia), multiple accounting frauds, criminal appropriations, and corruption. He had few personal lawyers which the main one of them, Niccolò Ghedini, got elected in parliament.
When I read about Sarkozy or Trump, I think they’re just bad clones of Berlusconi. They read his manual. Congratulations to France to take politics and corruption more seriously then Italians.
P.S. Berlusconi was best friend with Putin and Gheddafi.
Why when a high profile politic is sentenced it goes to a 5 star suite while the rest of mortals are thrown to a hole?
It seems that when you cross a certain invisible threshold "justice" applies just a bit differently. Same in Argentina with corrupt and ex-robber Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner.
Something really scary in France right now is that you can see really clearly how most mainstream media are used for propaganda.
Since a few days, there is an abundance of cover and articles in most major newspaper here with propaganda and repeated lies supporting him.
It's hard to imagine but non stop.
You have everyday interviews of his family saying that it is an injustice, that he did nothing, that the judgement was rigged, that he was a great men that served France and so should not be treated like everyone else. Article about how sad the poor family is. Number of articles repeating friends of him verbatim s that the judgement was fake.
Almost none speaking about the facts, the grounds for his sentence, the big number of other trials against him that are running. And also the other definitive convictions he got. Like for attempting to bribe a head prosecutor to get insider info about his case. Using a prepaid line opened with a fake name...
But what you see in the end is that 90% of medias in France belongs to a few wealthy families that are friends with him.
Always has been, for those willing to pay for smart and unscrupulous people to manipulate the news. People must know this is what is happening but they are still seduced by the media. The brilliant Chicago press conference musical number comes to mind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBM82Ju2kJU and the source material there was essentially the same techniques working to making murderers sympathetic, in 1924.
At least in France he’ll serve a sentence- in the US we might have elected him again and let him make the charges go away.
> But what you see in the end is that 90% of medias in France belongs to a few wealthy families that are friends with him.
The only way the current wave of right-wing media ends if by finding a new way to fund media & making it impossible to concentrate in the ends of a few rich folks.
And good luck with that, folks don't want to pay for media.
What incentive does the French media (or any media for that matter) has to tell the truth?
I do not want to be all about doom and gloom but I do not think that there is any media on this planet that delivers factual information without lying (either directly or by omission) to shape the opinion. And no, having a narrative is not lying as long as all the facts are presented, which allows the reader to make their own judgement whether they are buying into the narrative or not. Unfortunately, today journalists/editors believe that they have to report in a specific way as otherwise the “fight” would be lost.
This is hopelessly naive. Heads of state should not be prosecuted in democracies. It sets a bad precedent and there is no easy way to apply the rule of law to the head of state. There are too many examples in history of abusive lawfare practices. Better not to nitpick about "crimes" in such cases and let the man disappear from the stage. Aggressive prosecutions only increase the likelihood he'll try to mount a political comeback.
> there is no easy way to apply the rule of law to the head of state
Then you don't have either rule of law or, very soon, a democracy. What is obeying the outcome of an election but a legal matter? What's to stop the head of state from simply wiring the contents of the Treasury to his personal bank account? Deciding he doesn't like the official residence and having it demolished to build a palace?
The fact that he is even going to jail, or that there was a trial at all, is amazing. In Canada, top-level corruption like this just gets covered up by RCMP (who are directly top-down controlled by PM) - many cases of this.
In the last years I've noticed a huge number of pro sarkozy videos with epic soundtracks and diverse appearances from the guy. He is clearly a good speaker, but also clearly incompetent and mostly a good actor. I also noticed how much they invited his son to talk about important topics when the guy is just... The son of sarkozy
Most of western media is extremely biased and not different than Chinese media. Good luck finding a job as a journalist with controversial ideas. Only the selected minds are offered positions. Of course we in the west still have a choice to read from different sources, but 95% of the people are stuck with propaganda news outlets.
I mean he's going to jail. If anything that's better than most countries. In India, a chief minister who instigated racial riots never even had to go to court for it and he even became the current de facto autocrate
it should be repeated ad-nauseam that he is a crook, a shame for the country and its values and that the whole discourse about the injustice of the sentencing has heavy anti-liberal vibes
The real question I have in my mind, observing this from Germany, is: How much dirt does Sarkozy have on these families that own the media/press?
Was this a regime similar to Putin's role in the FSB when he collected all the dirt on oligarchs until everyone was controllable?
The logical choice for a media agency would be to disassociate themselves from Sarkozy, not the other way round. There has to be something else at play here, and I'm assuming it's not financial control because Sarkozy's family should not have much influence left there, given that the Judicative rulings already are done.
A former Prime Minister of a first world country in jail is insane. He must have made a crime without the help of others because in political scandals usually a whole gang of public people is liable. Then you have to convict the monkey with the bananas and the whole tree.
If we follow the French justice, in my country (Greece) about 10% of people including almost all the politicians of the last decades should be in jail.
Chirac also got a jail sentence, though it was suspended on account of his age.
In Ireland, we prefer to just tie them up in tribunals for the rest of their lives: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Haughey (PM til '92, under investigation from '97 to '06, at which point he died)
Imagine, a land full of mother sauces, divine cuisine and pastries, and a corrupt and sentenced felon actually facing (eventual) justice for the crimes they committed. This sounds like a magical land (all is relative).
France sucks for living tbh. I have a family there and while it's nice to visit, I would never live there. Salaries are low, there are no many jobs even in Paris, rent is high, taxes are high, everything is expensive and less comfortable than in US or Canada.
I miss my suburban home after a week there, every time.
There is no excuse for corruption. However, everyone in all countries should ask themselves whether or not most of the representatives in their congress/parliament would, if investigated, be found guilty of the same sort of corruption. Power corrupts.
This is slightly off-topic, but is it "jail" or "prison"? I see this switch all the time, and French does not make a difference. But, in English, and many other languages, jail is more specific than prison, and is usually for short term or pre-sentencing holding. If someone is sentenced, it's usually a different facility called "prison". Is BBC making a mistake, or are they actually saying Sarkozy will be held in in an actual jail?
South korea and Brazil have already punished their criminal ex-prime ministers and ex-presidents. And, now France. It's high time the suit is followed here in US as well. The next right step at this point is to throw the clown behind the bars!! Serve the Justice!!!
61 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 79.2 ms ] threadHe delayed the case enough (almost 13 years) so that he's now more than 70 though and I doubt he stays to long in prison because of his age.
But it's nice to see that he couldn't run away from justice forever and is finally in jail.
A very interesting documentary [2] explains all this. There's also Netflix series that I didn't watch though.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Tapie
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_football_bribery_scanda...
[2] https://lcp.fr/programmes/les-mille-et-une-vies-de-bernard-t...
edit: Ah right, there was Strasser. The Schüssel government sure was great.
This person humiliated our country, and we're glad our justice put him behind bars
The Count of Monte Cristo is a good choice.
"Why?"
"It saves time."
I imagine in the latter form, it's easier to get big boys in jail, because simply being defeated once doesn't weaken all future attempts. I could be completely misremembering though.
Owner of Milan FC and involved in constructing large parts of Milan city. Multiple people in his parties were condemned for corruption, the co-founder of his main party “Forza Italia” called Marcello Dell’Utri went in jail for concussion with Mafia. Berlusconi had a mafia boss - Vittorio Mangano - living permanently in his mansion near Milan. Owner of large construction companies, movie companies, a large bank, publishing companies, multiple newspapers, a lot of investments and three of the main TVs in Italy, and never went in jail a single day. He was able to create laws ad personam, like that the tree most important political positions in the country got immunity from law persecution, and he also was able to shorten the limitation period for crimes, in order to avoid charges.
He got sentenced or prosecuted for: fiscal fraud for his Mediaset TVs, underage prostitution, prostitution racket (some of the girls were appearing in TVs and got elected as politicians to get $$$ government pensions), mafia murders ‘92/93 (where Falcone e Borsellino died, the two judges that brought to international attention the danger of Italian Mafia), multiple accounting frauds, criminal appropriations, and corruption. He had few personal lawyers which the main one of them, Niccolò Ghedini, got elected in parliament.
When I read about Sarkozy or Trump, I think they’re just bad clones of Berlusconi. They read his manual. Congratulations to France to take politics and corruption more seriously then Italians.
P.S. Berlusconi was best friend with Putin and Gheddafi.
It seems that when you cross a certain invisible threshold "justice" applies just a bit differently. Same in Argentina with corrupt and ex-robber Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner.
Since a few days, there is an abundance of cover and articles in most major newspaper here with propaganda and repeated lies supporting him. It's hard to imagine but non stop. You have everyday interviews of his family saying that it is an injustice, that he did nothing, that the judgement was rigged, that he was a great men that served France and so should not be treated like everyone else. Article about how sad the poor family is. Number of articles repeating friends of him verbatim s that the judgement was fake.
Almost none speaking about the facts, the grounds for his sentence, the big number of other trials against him that are running. And also the other definitive convictions he got. Like for attempting to bribe a head prosecutor to get insider info about his case. Using a prepaid line opened with a fake name...
But what you see in the end is that 90% of medias in France belongs to a few wealthy families that are friends with him.
At least in France he’ll serve a sentence- in the US we might have elected him again and let him make the charges go away.
Faith based society is not just the domain of the religious. 1984 been the norm since well before Orwell wrote the book.
The only way the current wave of right-wing media ends if by finding a new way to fund media & making it impossible to concentrate in the ends of a few rich folks.
And good luck with that, folks don't want to pay for media.
That isn't a problem if the electorate aren't easily influenced.
I do not want to be all about doom and gloom but I do not think that there is any media on this planet that delivers factual information without lying (either directly or by omission) to shape the opinion. And no, having a narrative is not lying as long as all the facts are presented, which allows the reader to make their own judgement whether they are buying into the narrative or not. Unfortunately, today journalists/editors believe that they have to report in a specific way as otherwise the “fight” would be lost.
Then you don't have either rule of law or, very soon, a democracy. What is obeying the outcome of an election but a legal matter? What's to stop the head of state from simply wiring the contents of the Treasury to his personal bank account? Deciding he doesn't like the official residence and having it demolished to build a palace?
I mean he's going to jail. If anything that's better than most countries. In India, a chief minister who instigated racial riots never even had to go to court for it and he even became the current de facto autocrate
it should be repeated ad-nauseam that he is a crook, a shame for the country and its values and that the whole discourse about the injustice of the sentencing has heavy anti-liberal vibes
Was this a regime similar to Putin's role in the FSB when he collected all the dirt on oligarchs until everyone was controllable?
The logical choice for a media agency would be to disassociate themselves from Sarkozy, not the other way round. There has to be something else at play here, and I'm assuming it's not financial control because Sarkozy's family should not have much influence left there, given that the Judicative rulings already are done.
If we follow the French justice, in my country (Greece) about 10% of people including almost all the politicians of the last decades should be in jail.
In Ireland, we prefer to just tie them up in tribunals for the rest of their lives: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Haughey (PM til '92, under investigation from '97 to '06, at which point he died)
I miss my suburban home after a week there, every time.