• Jaberw0cky@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    Sure, but it needs to be because she actually committed a crime, not as a convenient way just to block someone you think might win from running. I am going to assume in this case she is guilty and was found guilty fairly.

    • BrowseMan@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      I don’t know how politicaly motivated the harshness of the judgment was (and not in a “the politics in power wanted her gone”, more in a “the judiciary system realised shit is hitting the fan between US crazyness and Russian influence and decided to take a step and make an example”) but the evidence were damming.

      Proof is: the defense didn’t even try to fight the evidence, rather the interpretation of it and the harshness of the sentence.

      Another point to keep in mind: an ex president is being judged for corruption and the sentence requested by the DA is enormous. Apparently the judiciary system publicly told they wanted to put an end to a perceived leniency on the politics and regain public trust.

      I’m just afraid this will result in an opposite effect.

      • tikifire@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        It’s 5 years and statutory evidently. This isn’t as bad as you’re making it out to be.