An extremely serious consequence of the fact that a convicted criminal has become the President of the United States and has made a habit of attacking and threatening judges is that this type of toxic behavior has a high platform of validation.
If for Călin Georgescu, Musk was indignantly sent forward, in the case of Mrs. Le Pen the comment came directly from Donald Trump:
"Many people thought she wouldn't be convicted (...) She was banned from running for five years, and she is the favorite candidate. It sounds a lot like our country. It sounds very similar to our country."
Yes, he is right. He was convicted by the American justice system for misusing campaign funds, diverted to buy the silence of a porn actress. He didn't actually go to jail because he has immunity, but he has the status of a convicted person. The protection granted by the position does not diminish the seriousness of the act and does not excuse its commission, said the judge who convicted him.
Mrs. Le Pen was not convicted for any political statement, but for embezzlement, involving a prejudice of 2.9 million euros, European public funds, in a case very similar to the Dragnea case - individuals salaried for a public position, but working for the party. Mrs. Le Pen could go to jail and is banned from running for 5 years.
Normally, such a court decision would be accepted and enforced. The French justice system has promptly convicted even a former president of the state, who could soon physically go to jail in a second case. In the era of Trump, conviction is treated as a badge of honor, a reason for maximum victimization, with justice being fiercely attacked and the principles of the rule of law being annulled.
We are not exempt either, even beyond Călin Georgescu
Victor Ponta promises that "cases related to candidacies, political positions, political attitudes expressed online should no longer exist." Which specific cases of this kind have existed and should no longer exist?
What will be the criterion by which a country's president, theoretically without access to prosecutors' files, can determine whether a case is political or not? And how will he act concretely if he reaches the personal conclusion that it is a political case? Like Donald Trump?
Crin Antonescu declares Liviu Dragnea a political victim, commenting on two court rulings without having minimal legal training, only opinions and instincts:
"I believe Liviu Dragnea was convicted very easily and with a political tint, in that case related to the referendum. At the same time, the second case, in which he was convicted for two hired ladies, whom he did not sign for. The accusations are quite thin. There is an impression that a political scent hovers over Dragnea's trial."
What criteria does Mr. Antonescu, a graduate of the history faculty, use to evaluate the thickness or thinness of a case he hasn't even read?
Is it acceptable for a potential president of Romania to express such ignorant views on such delicate subjects, which require a lot of well-done schooling in the field?
But if the White House is free to attack and humiliate justice, why not?
Immunity of Criminals
We are heading towards validating the absolute immunity of a politician running for office. Whatever you have done, from the moment you become a candidate, justice against you becomes political persecution. The effect is not only to encourage political leaders to commit acts, but also to attract criminals to politics. Even more than now.
And all this not under the shadow and light of Moscow, but under the White House that fiercely attacks Europe for the unacceptable habit of enforcing the law.
Only Europe is undemocratic and fallen into the sin of political persecution for the criminal Trump. He didn't say a word when the mayor of Istanbul, Erdogan's main opponent, was directly thrown into jail.
Just as we haven't seen him concerned about Putin's practices, whose opponents have all kinds of lethal accidents, either in freedom or already in jail. Only Europe has faulty standards. For all Trumpists allergic to the law.