Christine lagarde was found guilty of negligence, in favor of someone else. Marine Le Pen was found guilty of deliberately embezzling money for her own party. The cases are in no way comparable.

And why would Lagarde neglect several hundred million Euro in favor of someone else?

Lagarde allowed a different between Mr Tapis and the state to go to arbitration where a panel of three judges awarded the several millions - not her. This choice was found to be negligent by the CJR, a court composed mostly of politicians, after the pay out was invalided by the French justice system 8 years later. Lagarde was found guilty of pushing for arbitration as a minister when she shouldn’t have.

To quote the linked article: “The verdict came as a surprise as even the public prosecutor had admitted the evidence against Lagarde was “weak” during a five-day trial last week.”

This has absolutely nothing in common with what’s happening to Marine Lepen. Dozens of emails and messages prove that she presided over a setup designed to embezzle millions for the EU while being fully aware this was illegal.

Interestingly, the Lagarde case was not ruled by "regular" judges, but by a special court "of politicians, by politicians, for politicians". The idea, being, precisely, to try and deal with separation of power, and avoid the judiciary ruling against "the will of the people".

At the time, the decision was controversial because it was too "nice" with the former minister. I'm pretty sure you can find an archive of the FN/RN spokepersons of the time criticizing the "Cour de Justice de la République."

So, instead, let "normal judges" make decisions about all citizens, voters and elected alike ?

Suddenly that does not sound that appealing.

She will run again. She will keep her deputy job. Her "jail" will be much more confortable than Navalny's. She'll have other decades to run in other élections.

Her party will keep winning some, provided gas prices and taxes and rents still go up. I don't see a politician trying anything against that. She'll be fine.

> the decision was controversial because it was too "nice" with the former minister.

The decision was controversial because the elements presented as proof were weak.

Let’s not rewrite history and remember that Lagarde was guilty of pushing for arbitration where a panel awarded the sum and didn’t herself decide the pay out.

> Interestingly, the Lagarde case was not ruled by "regular" judges, but by a special court "of politicians, by politicians, for politicians"

This is not what the CJR is. It’s a special court which is only competent to judge actions committed by members of the government as part of their function. It mixes elected members of the parliament and senate (six each) and two judges.

It’s important to realise that before the CJR was created, there was only members of parliament in its predecessor the Haute Court and it was never called granting de facto immunity to ministers.

> This is not what the CJR is. It’s a special court which is only competent to judge actions committed by members of the government as part of their function. It mixes elected members of the parliament and senate (six each) and two judges.

Sure. However, it has been criticized for being too "soft" on politicians since the late 90s.[1]

https://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2016/12/23/pour...