• Jaberw0cky@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      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
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        3 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
          ·
          2 days ago

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