Posted on 12/19/2016 7:09:10 AM PST by navysealdad
Christine Lagarde, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, was found guilty on Monday of criminal charges linked to the misuse of public funds during her time as France’s finance minister, a verdict that could force her out of her post.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
You can tell she misused public money. Just look at her.
We don’t have a dog in this fight. The French are just trying to take her down. Misuse of funds did not go to her. They are just saying that she could have done better. Just think about our Fed or Goldman being prosecuted for not predicting the market correctly. This is just a hit job. We don’t like either side.
I love the way that first sentence is written. The managing director of the IMF is guilty of criminal misuse of funds. Yet it is characterized as “negligence” and the penalty will be that she loses her job. Maybe I’m just ignorant, but if most people were guilty of criminal misuse of funds, wouldn’t they spend a little time in jail in addition to losing their job? I mean, losing your job would be a given, and then the question would be are you going to jail or will you just be on some type of probation? I guess there really are separate rules for the elites.
No, this is a ridiculous charge. The French government illegally confiscated a millionaire’s money. He sued for his money back and won. Then there was arbitration to decide what he was owed. The Arbitration board that Christine Lagarde was not on, decided an amount. Christine did not fight the boards decision. She was not under any obligation to do so. But people are mad at her. And don’t like giving a millionaire back his money. So they said she should have sued in the name of the French government.
The courts don’t like that Arbitration was used. The socialists don’t like that she gave a millionaire back his own money. The nationalists hate her because she is a globalists. She has lots of enemies here. I don’t like her much myself. But this is not a legal charge. Its telling an office holder that any decision they make can be called a crime in the future.
She maybe a Obamabot. I don’t like her myself because she is a globalist. But this is a crappy conviction that means any public figure can be criminally liable for any decision they make in office.
Thanks for this info. I don’t know if you accurately summarized the case but I suspect it’s all a bit murky. Still, if this leads to a further undermining of elites then I welcome it.
Wasn’t she an Obama fan?...pulling for Hillary?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.