Formal requirements “a weapon of mass destruction of the democratic game”. At the trial against the parliamentary assistants of the National Front (FN), Me Rodolphe Bosselut, Marine Le Pen’s lawyer, began pleading on Wednesday 27 November to convince the court of his client’s innocence, or at least not to condemn her to immediate ineligibility.
Like the lawyers of 24 other defendants and the RN before him, Me Bosselut warns that he will “we ask for release”. But first, him “some observations”. In particular on the requests of the Prosecutor’s Office, which asked for five years of imprisonment for his client, two of which can be adjusted, a fine of 300,000 euros and, above all, a sentence of ineligibility with provisional execution with immediate application.
This request for immediate ineligibility suddenly made the possibility that Marine Le Pen might not run in the next presidential election very real, and took everyone by surprise, provoking criticism in her political field and beyond. “It’s not just about Marine Le Pen, it’s about at least 13 million voters or even the entire electorate, and not even the sincerity of the vote, it’s nothing”defended the three-time presidential candidate’s advice.
An “unjustified, gratuitous” “severity” of the accusation
Beyond “city emotion”you need a “legal emotion”. In this file, “Provisional execution would have disproportionate legal consequences”he said. “Irremediable, definitive. » This “severity” the parquet is “unjustified, gratuitous”A “request for political elimination”. Elle “casts doubt on the very intentions of the judicial institution”accusation.
The day after the requisitions that you had reported “violence” et “excess”Marine Le Pen sums it up like this: “Who is calling for my political death”. The prosecution had justified it with the risk of “reiteration” embezzlement of public funds, which he had “repeated” for 12 years (between 2004 and 2016) and had not done so “discontinued” only because of the European Parliament report, which estimates its financial damage at 4.5 million euros.
As for the defendants who categorically denied the existence of a “system” established to pay parliamentary assistants “fictitious” with European money they did not demonstrate at the hearing “interrogate”had accused the prosecution. “We are not here in a political forum, but a judicial one
A parliamentary practice “free from any fraudulent intention”
Me Rodolphe Bosselut began his plea by praising the “ total good faith” of his client during the trial. “He came almost every day wanting to explain himself”. Not “naive” about what he was risking, but with the ” Force “ From “those who know they are innocent”he pleaded.
“She answered all the questions with seriousness and sincerity, she did not shy away from any of them, she remained on the stand for several hours… We can blame her for many things, but not for having disdained the court or the judicial institution as said the prosecutor »he claims. “Is there any arrogance in defending yourself? »in a folder full of “passion” AND “pressure”.
“What I would like to convince the Court of is that the parliamentary practice of the European Parliament from 2004 to 2016 accused by my client and the other defendants was not only banal, harmless, because it was shared by all European parties, but free from any fraudulent intention because it was deemed admitted”.
News
“ Politics “
Every week “Le Monde” analyzes current political issues for you
Register
The court will announce the sentence on March 31, 2025 at 10:00 am. Before the suspension of the hearing, President Bénédicte de Perthuis gave the floor to the defendants one last time. Marine Le Pen did not want to say her last words in the bar, as she had announced the day before.
#Marine #Pens #defense #speaks #political #elimination #sentence #pronounced #March #31st
Interview between Time.news Editor and Legal Expert on Marine Le Pen’s Trial
Time.news Editor (TNE): Welcome, everyone. Today, we have the pleasure of speaking with Dr. Elise Benoit, a legal expert specializing in political law and electoral integrity. Dr. Benoit, thank you for joining us.
Dr. Elise Benoit (DEB): Thank you for having me.
TNE: We’re here to discuss the recent trial involving Marine Le Pen and the parliamentary assistants of the National Front. Me Rodolphe Bosselut, her lawyer, has pleaded for her innocence, arguing against the severe requests from the prosecution. How significant is the demand for her immediate ineligibility in this case?
DEB: It’s incredibly significant. A request for immediate ineligibility means that Marine Le Pen could potentially be barred from running in the next presidential election, which would have profound implications not just for her career, but also for the political landscape in France. The prosecution’s argument of potential embezzlement over a lengthy period makes this even more serious.
TNE: Indeed. Bosselut referred to this request as a form of “political elimination.” Is there a precedent for such a harsh legal action in political cases in France?
DEB: While there have been cases where politicians faced legal challenges, a push for immediate ineligibility is quite drastic. It suggests a level of seriousness from the courts that could hint at broader political ramifications. French politics has seen its share of scandals, but this situation appears particularly charged because it intertwines legal consequences with electoral ones.
TNE: He also called the severity of the prosecution’s accusations “unjustified” and “gratuitous.” From a legal standpoint, how valid are those claims?
DEB: This framing suggests that he may be attempting to argue that the prosecution is overreaching. If he can convince the court that the prosecution’s case lacks sufficient legal basis, it could undermine their demands. However, success will depend on the evidence presented and how persuasive the defense is in framing these charges as excessive.
TNE: Bosselut has claimed Marine Le Pen showed good faith throughout the trial and wasn’t dismissive of the court. How does this play into legal strategy during such high-stakes proceedings?
DEB: Good faith and cooperation can play a crucial role in legal defense strategies. If a defendant is seen as respectful and earnest before the court, it may impact the judge’s view and lead to more lenient outcomes. It positions the defendant as someone engaged in the process rather than someone exploiting it, which could humanize Le Pen in the eyes of the court.
TNE: You mentioned the serious implications for the electoral landscape. With over 13 million voters supporting her, what could be the potential fallout if she were to be barred from the next election?
DEB: If Le Pen is barred, it could lead to significant unrest among her supporters. We’ve seen in the past how political disenfranchisement can foment frustration and division. This situation could galvanize her base, possibly leading to protests or a heightened sense of political alienation. It’s more than just a legal battle; it’s a question of party loyalty and the perception of political fairness.
TNE: It seems that the trial is poised not only to affect Le Pen’s future but also the broader landscape in France. In your view, how should spectators and political analysts interpret these unfolding events?
DEB: I think it’s critical to view this trial through a dual lens of legal and political significance. The outcome can potentially reshape public trust in the judicial system and influence voter sentiment toward the entire political structure. It’s imperative for observers to consider not just the courtroom discussions but also the socio-political context that they arise from.
TNE: Thank you, Dr. Benoit, for your insights on this complicated matter. It’s a crucial time in French politics, and we appreciate your expertise in navigating these turbulent waters.
DEB: Thank you for having me. It’s a pleasure to discuss such important issues.
TNE: And thank you to our audience for tuning in. We’ll continue to keep you updated on this trial and its implications for democracy and politics in France.