top | item 45666424

(no title)

ajnin | 4 months ago

This is disinformation.

The tribunal didn't rule he didn't personally benefit. It ruled that he conspired to corrupt the leaders of Lybia to steal money from the Lybian people and fund his electoral campaign. In my book becoming president of France is certainly a "personal benefit". There are numerous factual evidence, documents from Lybia, fund transfers, secret meetings of his closest friends with Abdullah Senussi, who has been convicted to life in prison in France for orchestrating the bombing of UTA flight 772 which resulted in 170 deaths and is also currently investigated for another plane bombing.

The money he got allowed him to spend about twice the allowed amount on his campaign, giving him an unfair advantage in the election. In other words he dealt with terrorists to potentially steal the presidential election. What Sarkozy did is extremely severe, I'd call that high treason. He got far less that he deserved.

Also it's worth mentioning that it is his third conviction. He already got a 2 years and 1 year sentence which were confirmed in appeal in other cases.

discuss

order

guizmo|4 months ago

I read that the ruling mention that they couldn't prove the money was used for the campaign and that the conviction is all about the participation in the conspiration you mention.

To be honest, what I would want to know is if he sent us to war in Libya to hide his crimes. That would be the real evil to me.

Getting him to jail for asking someone for campaign money really gives a weird feeling in that sense.