Former French president Sarkozy convicted of corruption, handed a sentence of 3 years

by Tommy Monk Mon Mar 01, 2021 2:08 pm

PARIS (Reuters) - Judges found former president Nicolas Sarkozy guilty of trying to bribe a judge and of influence-peddling on Monday and sentenced him to three years in jail, with two years suspended.

Sarkozy, who led France from 2007 to 2012, had denied any wrongdoing, saying he was the victim of a witch-hunt by financial prosecutors who used excessive means to snoop on his affairs.

Retired from politics but still influential among conservatives, Sarkozy has 10 days to appeal the ruling.

He is the second former president in modern France, after the late Jacques Chirac, to be convicted of corruption.

Prosecutors persuaded the judges that Sarkozy had offered to secure a plum job in Monaco for judge Gilbert Azibert in return for confidential information about an inquiry into allegations that he had accepted illegal payments from L’Oreal heiress Liliane Bettencourt for his 2007 presidential campaign.

This came to light, they said, while they were wiretapping conversations between Sarkozy and his lawyer Thierry Herzog after Sarkozy left office, in relation to another investigation into alleged Libyan financing of the same campaign.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-politics-sarkozy-ruling/former-french-president-sarkozy-convicted-of-corruption-handed-jail-sentence-idUSKCN2AT2GE

Bit of a sham really, as 2 years are suspended and the other year he is allowed to serve at home if he wears a tag... So not really a sentence at all...!

by Andy Mon Mar 01, 2021 2:46 pm

He is just onother in along line of self serving, corrupt, far right conservatives. You lot are all the same.

by Maddog Mon Mar 01, 2021 4:24 pm

Andy wrote:He is just onother in along line of self serving, corrupt, far right conservatives. You lot are all the same.

Former French president Sarkozy convicted of corruption, handed a sentence of 3 years Oottyh10

by Original Quill Mon Mar 01, 2021 4:41 pm

Reuters wrote:Sarkozy, who led France from 2007 to 2012, had denied any wrongdoing, saying he was the victim of a witch-hunt by financial prosecutors who used excessive means to snoop on his affairs.

Criminal behavior seems to be catching among RW politicians. I don't know whether it is their philosophy inherently, or that they feel they feel they must do criminal acts in order to overcome their losing popularity with the electorate. On the one hand they are an elitist element in society, on the other hand they are situationally in a panic, wondering why more people don't follow their conservative path.

The truth is, the RW is always teetering on the edge of lawlessness, because they just don't believe in government, which makes laws, which they break and it gets them into trouble. The lesson is that libertarian politics flirts with criminality all the time, particularly when it comes to trying to execute libertarian notions. One has only to recall the antics of Cliven Bundy, and his opposition to federal ownership of land in 2014. https://www.vox.com/2014/8/14/18080508/nevada-rancher-cliven-bundy-explained There is very little difference between being anti-government and disregarding the product of government ... lawful organization.

When we look closely at this issue as applied to the US, we see the same connection between lawlessness and libertarianism. Under the leadership of Mitch McConnell, the Senate has become an obstructionist, do-nothing body, which is to say they are shutting down governance. Shutting down government is another way of opposing lawful organization: you can’t break laws if you don’t make laws. They can be obstructionist, because they are anti-government to begin with. They applaud the lack of production of laws. They are content to sit on their hands and not do anything, thus fulfilling libertarianism.

Sorkozy was found guilty of influence-peddling and trying to bribe a judge. This is the way it would work, legitimately, in a libertarian world. In a world without laws, you would use all means in your grasp to get your own way. If you have money, of course you bribe judges. So, you see, in the minds of men like Sorkozy and Donald Trump, seditious intervention with lawful government is simply giving vent to their libertarian tendencies. To them, it is indeed a witch hunt.

by Maddog Mon Mar 01, 2021 4:55 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Reuters wrote:Sarkozy, who led France from 2007 to 2012, had denied any wrongdoing, saying he was the victim of a witch-hunt by financial prosecutors who used excessive means to snoop on his affairs.

Criminal behavior seems to be catching among RW politicians. I don't know whether it is their philosophy inherently, or that they feel they feel they must do criminal acts in order to overcome their losing popularity with the electorate. On the one hand they are an elitist element in society, on the other hand they are situationally in a panic, wondering why more people don't follow their conservative path.

The truth is, the RW is always teetering on the edge of lawlessness, because they just don't believe in government, which makes laws, which they break and it gets them into trouble. The lesson is that libertarian politics flirts with criminality all the time, particularly when it comes to trying to execute libertarian notions. One has only to recall the antics of Cliven Bundy, and his opposition to federal ownership of land in 2014. https://www.vox.com/2014/8/14/18080508/nevada-rancher-cliven-bundy-explained There is very little difference between being anti-government and disregarding the product of government ... lawful organization.

When we look closely at this issue as applied to the US, we see the same connection between lawlessness and libertarianism. Under the leadership of Mitch McConnell, the Senate has become an obstructionist, do-nothing body, which is to say they are shutting down governance. Shutting down government is another way of opposing lawful organization: you can’t break laws if you don’t make laws. They can be obstructionist, because they are anti-government to begin with. They applaud the lack of production of laws. They are content to sit on their hands and not do anything, thus fulfilling libertarianism.

Sorkozy was found guilty of influence-peddling and trying to bribe a judge. This is the way it would work, legitimately, in a libertarian world. In a world without laws, you would use all means in your grasp to get your own way. If you have money, of course you bribe judges. So, you see, in the minds of men like Sorkozy and Donald Trump, seditious intervention with lawful government is simply giving vent to their libertarian tendencies. To them, it is indeed a witch hunt.

Libertarians believe in laws you ignorant old goat.

by Original Quill Mon Mar 01, 2021 6:05 pm

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Criminal behavior seems to be catching among RW politicians. I don't know whether it is their philosophy inherently, or that they feel they feel they must do criminal acts in order to overcome their losing popularity with the electorate. On the one hand they are an elitist element in society, on the other hand they are situationally in a panic, wondering why more people don't follow their conservative path.

The truth is, the RW is always teetering on the edge of lawlessness, because they just don't believe in government, which makes laws, which they break and it gets them into trouble. The lesson is that libertarian politics flirts with criminality all the time, particularly when it comes to trying to execute libertarian notions. One has only to recall the antics of Cliven Bundy, and his opposition to federal ownership of land in 2014. https://www.vox.com/2014/8/14/18080508/nevada-rancher-cliven-bundy-explained There is very little difference between being anti-government and disregarding the product of government ... lawful organization.

When we look closely at this issue as applied to the US, we see the same connection between lawlessness and libertarianism. Under the leadership of Mitch McConnell, the Senate has become an obstructionist, do-nothing body, which is to say they are shutting down governance. Shutting down government is another way of opposing lawful organization: you can’t break laws if you don’t make laws. They can be obstructionist, because they are anti-government to begin with. They applaud the lack of production of laws. They are content to sit on their hands and not do anything, thus fulfilling libertarianism.

Sorkozy was found guilty of influence-peddling and trying to bribe a judge. This is the way it would work, legitimately, in a libertarian world. In a world without laws, you would use all means in your grasp to get your own way. If you have money, of course you bribe judges. So, you see, in the minds of men like Sorkozy and Donald Trump, seditious intervention with lawful government is simply giving vent to their libertarian tendencies. To them, it is indeed a witch hunt.

Libertarians believe in laws you ignorant old goat.

Now, now...don't be abusive. People might think you were talking to your ex-wife.

As my sig says, Libertarians believe in laws that help them promote their sins. Any laws that protect the righteous and poor, they want to sack...or, as they call it, deregulate.

by Maddog Mon Mar 01, 2021 7:37 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Libertarians believe in laws you ignorant old goat.

Now, now...don't be abusive. People might think you were talking to your ex-wife.

As my sig says, Libertarians believe in laws that help them promote their sins. Any laws that protect the righteous and poor, they want to sack...or, as they call it, deregulate.

Oh. Your sig says something?

Well then it's settled.

by JulesV Thu Mar 04, 2021 2:22 pm

From presidential palace to prison jeeezus there can be no bigger fall from grace. What a Face

And French heads of state live in REAL palaces too (they'd otherwise be empty as their monarchs are long gone). The Elysee & Versailles make the residences of most other presidents look like pokey lil holes.

Jiscard D'estaing had serious some dirt on him too - not enough for a jailterm but it contributed to him losing his coveted role as president.

by Original Quill Thu Mar 04, 2021 3:39 pm

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Now, now...don't be abusive. People might think you were talking to your ex-wife.

As my sig says, Libertarians believe in laws that help them promote their sins. Any laws that protect the righteous and poor, they want to sack...or, as they call it, deregulate.

Oh. Your sig says something?

Well then it's settled.

The sig is not a causation statement. It's a statement of conclusion. If you want causation, here it is: libertarianism >> fewer laws >> lawlessness >> lack of protections >> predation.

by Maddog Thu Mar 04, 2021 3:43 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Oh. Your sig says something?

Well then it's settled.

The sig is not a causation statement. It's a statement of conclusion. If you want causation, here it is: libertarianism >> fewer laws >> lawlessness >> lack of protections >> predation.

Fewer laws doesn't lead to lawlessness. It's not lawlessness if you're breaking a law that doesn't exist.

Is smoking pot in Colorado an example of lawlessness?

by Original Quill Thu Mar 04, 2021 4:39 pm

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

The sig is not a causation statement. It's a statement of conclusion. If you want causation, here it is: libertarianism >> fewer laws >> lawlessness >> lack of protections >> predation.

Fewer laws doesn't lead to lawlessness. It's not lawlessness if you're breaking a law that doesn't exist.

Is smoking pot in Colorado an example of lawlessness?

Um...'scuse me? Does 'less' not mean fewer? Lawlessness means fewer laws.

You are confusing decriminalization with antigovernment anarchy. Pot should never have been criminalized in the first place. But that has nothing to do with libertarianism.

Libertarianism seeks to reduce government altogether, not merely to correct past restrictions in the wrong direction. The main polarity in government is between public protections vs. freedom to do anything, even harm others. Laws enforce public protections, and as the Supreme Court has said, if the government can come up with a valid purpose, and a reasonable means to fulfill it, it is lawful. As long as government maintains an alliance with public protection, it is fulfilling its purpose.

by Maddog Thu Mar 04, 2021 8:23 pm

by Original Quill Thu Mar 04, 2021 10:38 pm

Merrium-Webster wrote:law·less adj.

Definition of lawless
1: not regulated by or based on law
2a: not restrained or controlled by law : UNRULY
b: ILLEGAL

Don't you feel silly, when there are two interrelated definitions. One, and primarily, the absence of laws; two, circumstances that result from the absence of laws.

It's kinda like death: one, the absence of viable life in a body; two, "this party is dead, let’s go down to the Whiskey-A-Go-Go and dance.”

by Maddog Thu Mar 04, 2021 11:47 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Merrium-Webster wrote:law·less adj.

Definition of lawless
1: not regulated by or based on law
2a: not restrained or controlled by law : UNRULY
b: ILLEGAL

Don't you feel silly, when there are two interrelated definitions. One, and primarily, the absence of laws; two, circumstances that result from the absence of laws.

It's kinda like death: one, the absence of viable life in a body; two, "this party is dead, let’s go down to the Whiskey-A-Go-Go and dance.”

Lawless and lawlessness are two different words professor, cyclops

by Original Quill Fri Mar 05, 2021 12:01 am

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Don't you feel silly, when there are two interrelated definitions. One, and primarily, the absence of laws; two, circumstances that result from the absence of laws.

It's kinda like death: one, the absence of viable life in a body; two, "this party is dead, let’s go down to the Whiskey-A-Go-Go and dance.”

Lawless and lawlessness are two different words professor,

Prove it. One is an adjective, the other is a noun...that's the only difference.

One describes anarchy, produced by the lack of law according to libertarianism. Two sides of the same coin. Your first clue was that they are both derived from the same root word.

by Maddog Fri Mar 05, 2021 12:31 am

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Lawless and lawlessness are two different words professor,

Prove it. One is an adjective, the other is a noun...that's the only difference.

One describes anarchy, produced by the lack of law according to libertarianism. Two sides of the same coin. Your first clue was that they are both derived from the same root word.

They are two different words.

Now kindly go fuck yourself. Cool

by Original Quill Fri Mar 05, 2021 1:40 am

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Prove it. One is an adjective, the other is a noun...that's the only difference.

One describes anarchy, produced by the lack of law according to libertarianism. Two sides of the same coin. Your first clue was that they are both derived from the same root word.

They are two different words.

Now kindly go fuck yourself.

Your retort reflects the quality of your thinking, cracker. It's very much like a southerner, who has lost all reason and resorts to cursing and a violent frame of mind. Which reminds me, how's your ex these days?

They are not two different words, as they have the same root. That means they are related. As I said, one is an adjective and one is a noun, that's all. But the point is, whether you have lawlessness as a result of chaotic behavior, or lawlessness because of lack of laws, it's the same result. It's the result that libertarians want to achieve. Whether we have two southerners shooting it out in a gunfight, or an oil platform killing it's inhabitants because of deregulation, you've got bad things happening.

That's all you need to know, simpleton.

by Maddog Fri Mar 05, 2021 3:34 am

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

They are two different words.

Now kindly go fuck yourself.

Your retort reflects the quality of your thinking, cracker. It's very much like a southerner, who has lost all reason and resorts to cursing and a violent frame of mind. Which reminds me, how's your ex these days?

They are not two different words, as they have the same root. That means they are related. As I said, one is an adjective and one is a noun, that's all. But the point is, whether you have lawlessness as a result of chaotic behavior, or lawlessness because of lack of laws, it's the same result. It's the result that libertarians want to achieve. Whether we have two southerners shooting it out in a gunfight, or an oil platform killing it's inhabitants because of deregulation, you've got bad things happening.

That's all you need to know, simpleton.

They are two different words. I'm not going to waste my time debating you. I'll simply continue to tell you to go fuck yourself if you continue with this fucking stupidity.

by Tommy Monk Fri Mar 05, 2021 12:18 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

They are two different words.

Now kindly go fuck yourself.

Your retort reflects the quality of your thinking, cracker. It's very much like a southerner, who has lost all reason and resorts to cursing and a violent frame of mind. Which reminds me, how's your ex these days?

They are not two different words, as they have the same root. That means they are related. As I said, one is an adjective and one is a noun, that's all. But the point is, whether you have lawlessness as a result of chaotic behavior, or lawlessness because of lack of laws, it's the same result. It's the result that libertarians want to achieve. Whether we have two southerners shooting it out in a gunfight, or an oil platform killing it's inhabitants because of deregulation, you've got bad things happening.

That's all you need to know, simpleton.

Isn't racial abuse a banning offence here?

by Maddog Fri Mar 05, 2021 2:31 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Your retort reflects the quality of your thinking, cracker. It's very much like a southerner, who has lost all reason and resorts to cursing and a violent frame of mind. Which reminds me, how's your ex these days?

They are not two different words, as they have the same root. That means they are related. As I said, one is an adjective and one is a noun, that's all. But the point is, whether you have lawlessness as a result of chaotic behavior, or lawlessness because of lack of laws, it's the same result. It's the result that libertarians want to achieve. Whether we have two southerners shooting it out in a gunfight, or an oil platform killing it's inhabitants because of deregulation, you've got bad things happening.

That's all you need to know, simpleton.

Isn't racial abuse a banning offence here?

I didnt even see that.

I don't read much of what he posts anymore anyway.

Its southerner this.......

Redneck that......,

How's your ex wife........

He's infantile, boring and full of shit.

by Original Quill Fri Mar 05, 2021 3:52 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Your retort reflects the quality of your thinking, cracker. It's very much like a southerner, who has lost all reason and resorts to cursing and a violent frame of mind. Which reminds me, how's your ex these days?

They are not two different words, as they have the same root. That means they are related. As I said, one is an adjective and one is a noun, that's all. But the point is, whether you have lawlessness as a result of chaotic behavior, or lawlessness because of lack of laws, it's the same result. It's the result that libertarians want to achieve. Whether we have two southerners shooting it out in a gunfight, or an oil platform killing it's inhabitants because of deregulation, you've got bad things happening.

That's all you need to know, simpleton.

Isn't racial abuse a banning offence here?

It's not racial abuse, as it doesn't relate to anything genetic. Cracker is a reference to the fact that people of the south used to carry pouches of cracked corn, and rely on that for sustenance. Corn was a prevalent crop in the south.

As usual tommy, you've missed the point. Or, you're straining to find a RW look-alike argument to throw into the fray.

by Maddog Fri Mar 05, 2021 4:06 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

Isn't racial abuse a banning offence here?

It's not racial abuse, as it doesn't relate to anything genetic. Cracker is a reference to the fact that people of the south used to carry pouches of cracked corn, and rely on that for sustenance. Corn was a prevalent crop in the south.

As usual tommy, you've missed the point. Or, you're straining to find a RW look-alike argument to throw into the fray.

"Cracker, sometimes white cracker or cracka, is a racial epithet directed towards white people, used especially against poor rural whites in the Southern United States."

Your name calling doesn't bother me. Your lying bullshit does.

by Original Quill Fri Mar 05, 2021 4:34 pm

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Your retort reflects the quality of your thinking, cracker. It's very much like a southerner, who has lost all reason and resorts to cursing and a violent frame of mind. Which reminds me, how's your ex these days?

They are not two different words, as they have the same root. That means they are related. As I said, one is an adjective and one is a noun, that's all. But the point is, whether you have lawlessness as a result of chaotic behavior, or lawlessness because of lack of laws, it's the same result. It's the result that libertarians want to achieve. Whether we have two southerners shooting it out in a gunfight, or an oil platform killing it's inhabitants because of deregulation, you've got bad things happening.

That's all you need to know, simpleton.

I'm not going to waste my time debating you.

Of course not, you would lose. You have no sense of logic, and your posts are usually classic RW diversions. First, you're making a semantic argument, arguing the meaning of "law" or "lawlessness"; a term may mean whatever you define it as...I used the term, and I get to define it.

Second, what you are really trying to do, by such nonsensical diversion, is avoid the primary point of libertarianism. Libertarianism is a philosophy that espouses minimal government, and the edicts that come from concentrations of political power—laws and regulations. Libertarianism espouses the opposite, absolute freedom and the absence of restraint.

Essentially, we tried that in our western expansion during the 19th-century, and all we got were snake-oil salesmen, businessmen who aspired to monopolies and price gouging, and all manner of liars and cheats who gave markets a bad name. These are the same instincts we find still alive in the modern archetype, Donald Trump, who was resoundingly rejected a mere three months ago. You're trying to keep alive a defunct and exposed philosophy, and your main argument is to change the subject…to argue semantics??? Not a good tactic on a debating website.

by Original Quill Fri Mar 05, 2021 4:37 pm

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

It's not racial abuse, as it doesn't relate to anything genetic. Cracker is a reference to the fact that people of the south used to carry pouches of cracked corn, and rely on that for sustenance. Corn was a prevalent crop in the south.

As usual tommy, you've missed the point. Or, you're straining to find a RW look-alike argument to throw into the fray.

"Cracker, sometimes white cracker or cracka, is a racial epithet directed towards white people, used especially against poor rural whites in the Southern United States."

Your name calling doesn't bother me. Your lying bullshit does.

Again with the semantics! Rolling Eyes

It's my term, and it may mean what I want it to. I used it to mean southerner, not a racial slur.

by Maddog Fri Mar 05, 2021 7:11 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

"Cracker, sometimes white cracker or cracka, is a racial epithet directed towards white people, used especially against poor rural whites in the Southern United States."

Your name calling doesn't bother me. Your lying bullshit does.

Again with the semantics! It's my term, and it may mean what I want it to. I used it to mean southerner, not a racial slur.

And I use the word Quill to mean dickhead.

by Original Quill Fri Mar 05, 2021 7:13 pm

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Again with the semantics! It's my term, and it may mean what I want it to. I used it to mean southerner, not a racial slur.

And I use the word Quill to mean dickhead.

Yes. You do a lot of that. Feeling inferior, are we? Wink

by Maddog Fri Mar 05, 2021 8:59 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

And I use the word Quill to mean dickhead.

Yes. You do a lot of that. Feeling inferior, are we?

To a dickhead?

by Original Quill Fri Mar 05, 2021 10:47 pm

Sounds like you're engaging in competitive/compensatory behavior. This exhibits itself in anger, defensiveness, resentment and envy...and possibly guilt about those feelings.

Take a look at an article that appeared in Psychology Today a few years ago: Melanie Greenburg, PhD, "How to Keep Your Cool with Competitive People". Concentrate on the section "Why are some people so competitive?"

It could be of some benefit.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-mindful-self-express/201109/how-keep-your-cool-competitive-people

by Maddog Fri Mar 05, 2021 10:56 pm

Original Quill wrote:Sounds like you're engaging in competitive/compensatory behavior. This exhibits itself in anger, defensiveness, resentment and envy...and possibly guilt about those feelings.

Take a look at an article that appeared in Psychology Today a few years ago: Melanie Greenburg, PhD, "How to Keep Your Cool with Competitive People". Concentrate on the section "Why are some people so competitive?"

It could be of some benefit.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-mindful-self-express/201109/how-keep-your-cool-competitive-people

Why don't you take a look at my ass, right before you place your lips on it while giving it a nice, juicy kiss? Cool

by Syl Fri Mar 05, 2021 11:53 pm

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:Sounds like you're engaging in competitive/compensatory behavior. This exhibits itself in anger, defensiveness, resentment and envy...and possibly guilt about those feelings.

Take a look at an article that appeared in Psychology Today a few years ago: Melanie Greenburg, PhD, "How to Keep Your Cool with Competitive People". Concentrate on the section "Why are some people so competitive?"

It could be of some benefit.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-mindful-self-express/201109/how-keep-your-cool-competitive-people

Why don't you take a look at my ass, right before you place your lips on it while giving it a nice, juicy kiss?

This is Newsfix not Grindr.....behave yourselves. Razz

by Maddog Sat Mar 06, 2021 12:02 am

Syl wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Why don't you take a look at my ass, right before you place your lips on it while giving it a nice, juicy kiss?
This is Newsfix not Grindr.....behave yourselves.

I'm pretty sure his kissing skills are less than par anyway.

Cool

by Syl Sat Mar 06, 2021 12:06 am

Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
This is Newsfix not Grindr.....behave yourselves.

I'm pretty sure his kissing skills are less than par anyway.

Whatever.....I gave myself a 'like' anyway because I amused myself. Cool

by Original Quill Sat Mar 06, 2021 4:04 pm

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:Sounds like you're engaging in competitive/compensatory behavior. This exhibits itself in anger, defensiveness, resentment and envy...and possibly guilt about those feelings.

Take a look at an article that appeared in Psychology Today a few years ago: Melanie Greenburg, PhD, "How to Keep Your Cool with Competitive People". Concentrate on the section "Why are some people so competitive?"

It could be of some benefit.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-mindful-self-express/201109/how-keep-your-cool-competitive-people

Why don't you take a look at my ass, right before you place your lips on it while giving it a nice, juicy kiss?

Yup...looks just like your face. Twisted Evil

I'll pass.

by Sponsored content

Former French president Sarkozy convicted of corruption, handed a sentence of 3 years

Former French president Sarkozy convicted of corruption, handed a sentence of 3 years

Re: Former French president Sarkozy convicted of corruption, handed a sentence of 3 years

Re: Former French president Sarkozy convicted of corruption, handed a sentence of 3 years

Re: Former French president Sarkozy convicted of corruption, handed a sentence of 3 years

Re: Former French president Sarkozy convicted of corruption, handed a sentence of 3 years

Re: Former French president Sarkozy convicted of corruption, handed a sentence of 3 years

Re: Former French president Sarkozy convicted of corruption, handed a sentence of 3 years

Re: Former French president Sarkozy convicted of corruption, handed a sentence of 3 years

Re: Former French president Sarkozy convicted of corruption, handed a sentence of 3 years

Re: Former French president Sarkozy convicted of corruption, handed a sentence of 3 years

Re: Former French president Sarkozy convicted of corruption, handed a sentence of 3 years

Re: Former French president Sarkozy convicted of corruption, handed a sentence of 3 years

Re: Former French president Sarkozy convicted of corruption, handed a sentence of 3 years

Re: Former French president Sarkozy convicted of corruption, handed a sentence of 3 years

Re: Former French president Sarkozy convicted of corruption, handed a sentence of 3 years

Re: Former French president Sarkozy convicted of corruption, handed a sentence of 3 years

Re: Former French president Sarkozy convicted of corruption, handed a sentence of 3 years

Re: Former French president Sarkozy convicted of corruption, handed a sentence of 3 years

Re: Former French president Sarkozy convicted of corruption, handed a sentence of 3 years

Re: Former French president Sarkozy convicted of corruption, handed a sentence of 3 years

Re: Former French president Sarkozy convicted of corruption, handed a sentence of 3 years

Re: Former French president Sarkozy convicted of corruption, handed a sentence of 3 years

Re: Former French president Sarkozy convicted of corruption, handed a sentence of 3 years

Re: Former French president Sarkozy convicted of corruption, handed a sentence of 3 years

Re: Former French president Sarkozy convicted of corruption, handed a sentence of 3 years

Re: Former French president Sarkozy convicted of corruption, handed a sentence of 3 years

Re: Former French president Sarkozy convicted of corruption, handed a sentence of 3 years

Re: Former French president Sarkozy convicted of corruption, handed a sentence of 3 years

Re: Former French president Sarkozy convicted of corruption, handed a sentence of 3 years

Re: Former French president Sarkozy convicted of corruption, handed a sentence of 3 years

Re: Former French president Sarkozy convicted of corruption, handed a sentence of 3 years

Re: Former French president Sarkozy convicted of corruption, handed a sentence of 3 years

Re: Former French president Sarkozy convicted of corruption, handed a sentence of 3 years

Re: Former French president Sarkozy convicted of corruption, handed a sentence of 3 years