Marine Le Pen will be decided on March 31 on her fate, and that of possible ineligibility, her lawyer imploring the Paris criminal court to spare her “political elimination” on Wednesday, on the last day of the trial of the RN parliamentary assistants.
“These two months of judicial privacy, as the defense lawyer said, ends today. Many things have been said. The court will now put the case under advisement and will deliver its judgment on March 31 at 10 a.m.”, announced President Bénédicte de Perthuis.
Marine Le Pen did not wish to say “last words” at the bar of the court. But to the press, leaving the courtroom, she said: “See you in four months.” “The time given by the court before its deliberations is quite revealing of the numerous legal issues that the court will have to decide”, and “demonstrates that this case is much less simple than some people wanted to think. I still have hope that we will be heard,” added the leader of the National Rally.
The courtroom of the Paris criminal court was full on Wednesday to hear the pleadings of his lawyer, Me Rodolphe Bosselut. In the first row of defendants, the three-time presidential candidate sits, face tense, between number 2 of the RN Louis Aliot and the ex-treasurer of the party Wallerand de Saint-Just.
Before “pleading for acquittal”, Mr. Bosselut declared at the start of three hours of pleading which he had announced “long and boring”, he tackled what, beyond a possible conviction, is the The main issue for her client: ineligibility with provisional execution, which would apply immediately – which the prosecution requested, with a sentence of five years in prison, two of which can be adjusted, and a fine of 300,000 euros.
– “Irremediable” –
This request for immediate ineligibility suddenly made the possibility that Marine Le Pen would not be able to run in 2027 very real, and took everyone by surprise, provoking criticism in her political camp and beyond.
“These requisitions are a weapon of mass destruction of the democratic game,” thundered Me Bosselut. “It doesn’t just concern Marine Le Pen, it concerns at least 13 million voters or even the entire electorate, or even the sincerity of the vote, it’s not nothing,” he insisted.
Beyond “citizen emotion”, we need “legal emotion”. In this case, “provisional execution would have disproportionate legal consequences,” he said. “Irremediable, definitive”.
This “severity” of the prosecution is “unjustified, gratuitous”, a “demand for political elimination”. It “casts doubt on the very intentions of the judicial institution,” accused Mr. Bosselut.
The day after the requisitions, the “violence” and “excess” of which she denounced, Marine Le Pen summed up: “It is my political death that they are demanding”.
The prosecution had justified it by the risk of “repetition” of embezzlement of public funds, which had been “repeated” for 12 years (between 2004 and 2016) and had only been “interrupted” because of the reporting of the European Parliament, which estimated its financial damage at 4.5 million euros.
As for the defendants who denied outright the existence of a “system” put in place to pay “fictitious” parliamentary assistants with European money, they did not demonstrate any “questioning” during the hearing. “, had accused the prosecution. “We are not here in a political forum, but a judicial one, and the law, the law applies to everyone.”
– “Innocents” –
Me Rodolphe Bosselut began his argument by talking about his client. A good part of the 24 other defendants made the trip and sat behind the leader of the far right.
“She came almost every day with the desire to explain herself, to convince you of her total good faith.” Not “naive” about what she risked, but with the “strength” of “those who know they are innocent,” argued her lawyer.
“She answered all the questions seriously and sincerely, did not evade any of them, she remained on the stand for several hours… We can blame her for many things but not for having contempt for the court or the institution judicial as the prosecution said,” he argued. “Is there any arrogance in defending yourself?”
In this case filled with “passion”, “pressure” and “issues” – “God knows there are some” – Me Bosselut asks the court to “return to the law”. “Beyond biases, preconceived ideas,” he said.
“What I would like to convince the court of is that the parliamentary practice in the European Parliament from 2004 to 2016 accused of my client and the other defendants was not only banal, innocuous, because shared by all European parties, but exempt from any fraudulent intention because it is considered admitted.”
