Ah, well, that's America for you, they've always been weirdly okay with criminal politicians.

But more broadly, no, it is not a democratic norm that politicians should be allowed to commit multi-million euro frauds with no consequences.

Seems like this is the true meaning of "american exceptionalism".

It used to be the case in France too.

For a truly incredible version of it see the helicopter affair : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Toubon?wprov=sfti1#Con...

In many ways, sending high profile politicians to prison or semi-prison ( Sarkozy, now Le Pen ) is new.

Bridgegate resulted in no punishment, but not because politicians are special. It was because of their lawyers attacked legal nuances of their specific convictions.

In a sense, I guess, but the legal nuances are part of a general pattern that politicians are special. The Supreme Court has essentially legalized political bribery, for example; after McDonnell v. US you can accept bribes for setting up a meeting or scheduling an event, and after Snyder v. US you can accept bribes for anything at all so long as you do the thing you're being bribed for first. (These cases were based, yes, on legal nuances of the specific convictions: McDonnell's actions didn't constitute an "official act", and Snyder's after-the-fact bribes were technically not bribes at all but "gratuities".)

These legal nuances don't seem like that. The court held that creating a traffic jam between states did not violate a civil right to travel between states (because that right does not exist). And that it wasn't fraud because it just made people's lives miserable as opposed to depriving them of something physical.

What crime do you think was committed?

Intentionally interfering with emergency services, for one.

Try blocking a major bridge in your home town for a day and see what crimes you're charged with.

In Canada as long as it’s in support of a sufficiently left-wing cause you won’t be charged with anything.

I think that it was fraud. Any non-politician who submitted false documents causing the Port Authority to close a bridge lane would be easily convicted of fraud, making knowingly false statements with the intent and effect of preventing the Port Authority from making full use of its valuable property. The Supreme Court ruling is pretty explicit that Bridget Kelly's status as a political aide is why she could not be convicted; because her boss had regulatory authority to close the lanes for honest reasons, the Port Authority has no property interest in any closure she orders, even if it was ordered for dishonest reasons.

No animal of "normal" levels of equality ever escapes punishment to such a degree unless the technicality is something so egregious that it would set a bad precedent and be egg on the court's face.

It's disgusting and enraging the degree to which there is a two tier justice system in this country, one for agents of the government and those who curry their favor, and a neither separate nor equal one for the peasants.

Looked it up and it was a unanimous Supreme Court decision to overturn their convictions because 'they had not obtained "money or property"'

That's just great.

That's the way the law was written but doing something that your boss wants or you think your boss wants that results in harm* should be punishable.

* "This led to major delays for school transportation and police and emergency responses within Fort Lee, both during and after the peak hours of travel."

"In at least one instance, emergency medical workers were forced to leave their ambulance and respond on foot because traffic congestion was so heavy."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Lee_lane_closure_scandal

They weren't guilt of fraud because they had not intended to obtain money or property. Maybe they should or could have been charged under another law. Which law do you think they broke?