European court rejects Le Pen's bid to suspend election ban
'In any event, the existence of an imminent risk of irreparable harm to a right protected by the Convention or its protocols has not been established,' the court wrote in its press release on Wednesday.
In March 2025, a French judge found the former leader of the biggest opposition party National Rally (RN) guilty of misusing public funds intended to pay for assistants to the RN members of the European Parliament. Le Pen has denied any wrongdoing and appealed the verdict, which she calls politically motivated.
Le Pen ran for president in 2017 and 2022, losing both times in a runoff to President Emmanuel Macron. The National Rally is currently the third-largest party in the National Assembly.
On Wednesday, police raided the RN headquarters in Paris as part of an investigation into alleged campaign finance violations and fraud. RN leader Jordan Bardella denounced the searches as an attempt to 'destabilize the party and drive it into financial ruin.'
US President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance have publicly voiced support for Le Pen, which the French authorities dismissed as meddling in domestic affairs.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
a day ago
- Russia Today
Biden's memoir deal falls millions short of Obama, Clinton
Former US President Joe Biden has sold the rights for his memoir focusing on his time in office for a roughly $10 million advance, the Wall Street Journal has reported. The sum is six times less than what the Obamas received for their memoirs in 2017 and is also $5 million less than what former President Bill Clinton got for his book in 2004. Fox News columnist David Marcus questioned the former president's ability to produce such a book in the first place, pointing to his rumored mental decline and claiming that the text may instead be 'ghostwritten' by his 'inner circle.' No one would allegedly be able to get 'a book's worth of sensible commentary' out of Biden, since he struggles to give a '10-minute interview,' Marcus claimed. The worldwide rights for Biden's book, which has neither a title nor a publication date, have been acquired by a New York-based subsidiary of French publishing giant Hachette, the WSJ said on Thursday. Neither Hachette, nor the Creative Artists Agency, which represented Biden in the deal, commented on the report. Biden himself dismissed all rumors about his mental state by insisting earlier this month that he was 'working like hell' on a '500-page book.' Biden was the oldest US president ever, ending his tenure at 82. He was dogged by rumors about his physical health and mental acuity during his time in office, but maintained he was fine despite on many occasions appearing to struggle to perform his public duties. His successor, Donald Trump, accused Biden's inner circle of 'treason at the highest level' in May, saying that they exploited the former president's cognitive decline to implement policies without his knowledge. Later the same month, Senator Ron Johnson announced an investigation into an alleged cover-up relating to Biden's health. The move was prompted by Biden's revelation that he had been diagnosed with an aggressive form of prostate cancer, sparking rumors that the diagnosis had long been known but that Democrats had deliberately kept the public in the dark.
Russia Today
a day ago
- Russia Today
France's retreat from Africa began here
As Algeria celebrates 63 years of independence from France on July 5, this year's anniversary feels more like a reckoning than a triumph. Far from reconciliation, relations between Algiers and Paris have sunk to one of their lowest points in decades – fuelled by France's refusal to fully confront its colonial crimes, and Algeria's renewed demands for justice. Amid calls for formal apologies and reparations, the shadow of empire still looms. So why revisit this history now? Because even six decades after the French flag was lowered over Algiers, the wounds of colonialism remain open, and the battle over memory rages on. To understand the depth of today's diplomatic rupture, we must go back to where the story began – France's invasion of Algeria starting on June 15, 1830, when French naval forces sailed from Toulon and seized Algiers in less than three weeks. The expedition's commander, General de Bourmont, boasted: 'Twenty days were enough to destroy a state whose existence had burdened Europe for three centuries.' He was referring to Ottoman Algeria, a semi-autonomous province with its own identity and institutions. France's quick victory fed a dangerous illusion: that conquest would be simple. What followed was anything but. The swift victory gave French leaders an illusion that Algeria's fall signaled smoother days ahead. Few anticipated serious resistance – an attitude that partly explains how quickly the territory was absorbed into the colonial empire. No one imagined that a national liberation movement, the FLN (Front de Libération Nationale), would one day reclaim Algeria, and force France to retreat. Algeria was a peaceful, semi-autonomous Ottoman province with a distinct identity shaped by local political systems, Islamic scholarship, Mediterranean trade, and tribal alliances. For France, however, it was more than a colony – it was a conquest driven by ambition and a bid to restore prestige after Napoleon's decline. What began as a punitive expedition soon became a 132-year project of domination, costing hundreds of thousands of Algerian lives – Algeria still claims at least 1.5 million people killed. The invasion was sparked by one of history's most trivial diplomatic incidents. In 1827, the Dey of Algiers – effectively head of state – met French consul Pierre Deval to discuss Algeria' s unpaid debts. Frustrated by Deval's attitude, the Dey struck him with a fly whisk. Deval reported the insult to Paris, triggering a chain of events that led to the invasion. France seized on the minor incident as a convenient pretext for war. Behind it lay a post-Napoleonic regime eager to distract from domestic unrest and reassert power abroad. Algeria, geographically close and politically weak, was an ideal target – symbolically vital as the gateway to North Africa. The invasion marked the beginning of one of the longest and harshest occupations in France's colonial history. While France had other holdings in West Africa and its territoires d'outre-mer, Algeria was far more significant – strategically, economically, and symbolically. Its proximity to Europe and greater wealth made it more than just a colony. France saw Algeria as part of its own territory, officially incorporating it and settling nearly a million Europeans – pieds-noirs – who posed as civilians but functioned as a reserve force upholding colonial rule. Most pieds-noirs settlerswere attracted by a set of policies offering incentives: cheap land taken from Algerians, tax breaks and subsidized farming backed by modern infrastructure and military protection. European settlers received full French citizenship, while native Algerians were denied equal rights unless they renounced Islam – a condition most rejected. These policies entrenched privilege and exclusion revealing policy of unequal. On December 9, 1848, the French National Assembly declared all of Algeria an integral part of France, dividing it into three départements – Algiers, Oran, and Constantine – mirroring the administrative structure of metropolitan France. In fact, Algeria became French territory over a decade before Nice was annexed from Italy. The phrase 'The Mediterranean runs through France just as the Seine runs through Paris' became a popular propaganda slogan, used well into the 1960s to justify France's continued hold on Algeria. Within two decades, French Algeria became a top global wine producer, aided by global demand, a favorable climate and a phylloxera outbreak in southern France. By the 1930s, Algeria produced over one billion litres annually, mostly exported to France, where producers blended it with local wine to improve color, taste, and strength. Ironically, a mostly Muslim country where alcohol is forbidden became a major wine producer under colonial rule. Local farmers, lost land to vineyards, were excluded from profits and denied the chance to cultivate crops aligned with Islamic values – making the industry a symbol of exploitation and cultural disregard. For decades, Algerian resistance to French rule was fragmented and brutally suppressed. On May 8, 1945, tens of thousands marched in Sétif, Guelma, and Kherrata to demand independence – on the day Europe celebrated the end of World War II. Peaceful protests were met with horrific violence. French troops, police, and settler militias killed an estimated 15,000 to 45,000 Algerians. Villages were bombed, civilians executed, and communities razed. International condemnation was minimal, overshadowed by postwar triumphalism. For many Algerians, the message was clear: France would never grant independence willingly. The trauma shattered hopes for reform and fueled a new nationalist generation, paving the way for the FLN less than a decade later. The FLN chose Algiers, the capital, to ignite full-scale resistance with dramatic violence. Three women – Djamila Bouhired, Zohra Drif, and Samia Lakhdari – disguised in European dress, slipped through French checkpoints into the European Quarter. Their targets: a busy Milk Bar and a crowded cafeteria. The bombings shocked the capital, marking a bloody new phase in urban resistance and showing the FLN's growing reach within colonial strongholds. Following the attacks, French authorities cracked down hard. Zohra Drif and Samia Lakhdari were captured, but it was Djamila Bouhired's arrest and trial that drew global attention. Tried by a military court and facing death, her case revealed colonial brutality, especially torture. Bouhired's defiance made her a symbol of the FLN and the independence struggle, galvanizing international sympathy and cementing her legacy as an Algerian War icon. The guerrilla campaign, called the Battle of Algiers (1956-1957), was a defining chapter in Algeria's independence war, highlighting the FLN's urban guerrilla tactics and the harsh French counterinsurgency. The events shocked France and the world, later immortalized in Gillo Pontecorvo's 1966 film, 'The Battle of Algiers', which portrayed the conflict in a raw, documentary style. Djamila Bouhired, a key figure, became a global resistance symbol. Her legacy extended beyond Algeria – she led an international women's delegation to Gaza in 2014, blocked by Egyptian authorities. Her story inspired a generation of African activists fighting colonialism and apartheid. The film influenced liberation movements across Africa, serving as a blueprint for urban guerrilla warfare, secret networks, and mass mobilization. In the 1970s, African National Congress (ANC) leaders in exile studied the film, and members of Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK), the ANC's armed wing, reportedly used it in their training. Its raw portrayal of resistance also shaped fighters in Angola, Guinea-Bissau, and Zimbabwe – making Algeria's struggle, and its cinematic depiction, a shared reference in Africa's fight against colonialism and apartheid. Algeria's colonial past continues to strain relations with France, marked by unresolved grievances and deep distrust. France has repeatedly refused a full apology for its 132-year occupation, while Algeria insists it's essential for genuine reconciliation. In 2021, French President Emmanuel Macron offered a limited apology for the 1961 Paris massacre, when the police killed at least 100 protesters, some of whom were thrown into the River Seine, but stopped short of acknowledging broader colonial crimes. For many Algerians, such gestures fall short, keeping demands for full recognition and reparations central to the post-colonial debate. In every French presidential election, colonial memory – especially Algeria's – shapes debates and voter behavior. A recurring issue is the fate of the Harkis, Algerians who fought with France against their country. After independence, many fled to France, where they and their descendants – now millions strong – form a significant electoral bloc. While not openly hostile to Algiers, many harbor deep resentment over perceived neglect by both France and Algeria. Algeria continues to demand a full apology and reparations for colonial crimes. In March 2025, the Algerian parliament revived stalled legislation from 2006 to criminalize French colonialism, calling for a formal apology, recognition of crimes against humanity, and compensation for France's 132-year occupation. On May 8, Interior Minister Brahim Merad said France would 'inevitably have to recognize its colonial crimes.' However, France has repeatedly avoided the issue – most recently worsening ties by recognizing Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara, opposing Algeria's support for Sahrawi independence. Algeria withdrew its ambassador from Paris, bringing relations to a low point. Despite strong domestic backing, the draft law remains under review amid fragile diplomacy and unresolved history. The violent French expulsion from Algeria in 1962 left a lasting impact across West Africa, still felt today. A new generation of Sahelian leaders – shaped by poverty and postcolonial frustration – views France not just as a former colonizer but as a failing patron. Between 2021 and 2023, Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger expelled French troops, citing worsening security and sovereignty violations. Niger cut ties with Paris in 2023, following Mali and Burkina Faso. Even longtime allies like Chad and Senegal have voiced discontent. France's occupation of Algeria formally ended in 1962, but its legacy still shapes identities, policies, and geopolitics across North and West Africa. The scars of colonization remain living tensions – contested memories and unresolved demands for justice. From Algiers to the Sahel, the struggle against French dominance continues, as new generations reclaim their histories and reshape sovereignty in a post-imperial era. As French influence in Africa wanes, a new generation of leaders draws strength from the continent's history of resistance, inspired by struggles like Algeria's independence fight. The legacy of colonialism, marked by exploitation and violence, must be fully acknowledged and addressed. Only by settling these historical grievances, however delayed, can former colonies and their colonial powers build a foundation of genuine partnership, mutual respect, and a more hopeful future.
Russia Today
2 days ago
- Russia Today
‘Russiagate', revenge, and the rotten core of US power
Be real: It is not hard to see that America – as it really exists, not the 'dream' version – is neither a democracy nor a country with genuine rule of law. That's because democracy worth the label is impossible, for starters, with elections awash in private money and a bizarre Electoral College making sure that Americans do not, actually, have votes of even numerically equal weight when electing their single most powerful official, the president. The rule of law can only exist where citizens are equal before laws that apply to everyone in the same, just manner. This is a challenge everywhere, but the US is an almost comically egregious case of legal bias, obscurantism (masquerading as limitlessly re-interpretable case law), and inequality by status, wealth, ethnicity, and skin color. Just ask that crackhead, porn addict, and shady 'businessman' from an infamous clan, who is currently not in prison but giving expletive-laden interviews instead. The US, simply put, does not operate the way it claims to operate. It takes an extraordinary amount of naivete – on the scale of believing in Santa Claus or an honest Vladimir Zelensky – not to notice that much. What is more difficult to figure out is how politics and power actually do work in America and, most of all, who is really in charge. We have, for example, recently witnessed a presidency in which a severely senescent Joe Biden claimed to be but clearly could not be in command. So, who was? And who is in general? That, ultimately, is perhaps the single most disturbing question raised by recent developments around the rotting corpse of 'Russiagate' (aka Russia Rage). In its heyday – between 2016 and about 2020 – 'Russiagate' was the shorthand for a conspiracy theory that dominated US politics and mainstream media, causing mass hysteria. Its details were exceedingly complicated but its core was extremely simple: the claims that Russia had manipulated the American presidential elections of 2016, that it had done so to facilitate the first victory of Donald Trump, and finally that Donald Trump's team had colluded with Russia. The power of this preponderantly factually false and entirely misleading narrative was such that it overshadowed much of Donald Trump's first presidency and contributed greatly to a catastrophic and very dangerous decline in the always challenging relationship with Russia. Indeed, there even is a plausible connection to be made between the mass madness of 'Russiagate' and the reckless policy of provoking and waging a proxy war against Russia in Ukraine. 'Russiagate,' in other words, did not only harm the US; it harmed the whole world. In that respect, think of it as the political equivalent of the 2008 US banking crisis: the mess was American, the fallout global. Now, Trump is back for a second term and bent on revenge against his detractors not only but especially over 'Russiagate.' In his usual refreshingly candid style, he has announced that 'it is time to go after people,' fingered former president Barrack Obama for 'treason,' and gleefully shared an AI-generated video showing Obama being arrested in the White House. Just before that typical Trump outburst, his Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, released a freshly declassified report – produced in early 2017 by the intelligence committee of the House of Representatives – that addresses what really happened in 2016 when 'Russiagate' was initially invented. This release was clearly meant to be a sensation: Gabbard accompanied it with press statements and a detailed thread of X posts bringing out its most explosive aspects. Among them, the key finding is that Russia did not work to make Trump president. Boom: the basis of 'Russiagate' gone, just like that. And who was to blame? Gabbard made clear that 'Russiagate' was not a cluster-fiasco born of mere incompetence but a monster intentionally produced and carefully nurtured. She accused 'top national security officials,' including FBI Director James Comey, CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper as well as Obama himself of deliberately creating and spreading the impression of Russian election meddling in favor of Trump by manipulating the actual, contradictory findings of the intelligence agencies. Gabbard used strong language: a 'coup' against Trump, the 'weaponization of intelligence,' a 'treasonous conspiracy,' and a 'betrayal concerning every American.' Those mainstream media, such as the New York Times, that are among the worst offenders in spreading the 'Russiagate' hoax have already pounced on this language to, in essence, pooh-pooing Gabbard's charges as hyperbolical. Don't fall for that deflection. Gabbard's way of presenting her case does have a political edge. Of course it does. Duh. And if they wish, the old 'Russiagaters' can nitpick over her terms to their heart's content. But that makes no difference to the fact that what has happened is an enormous blight on US politics, implicating the intelligence services as well as other state agencies, the media, and, indeed, former President Obama. Gabbard may be laying it on a little thick (or not, actually), but even without any embellishment, the fabrication of 'Russiagate' was the real, humungous scandal. And it must be dealt with at long last. Dealing with it is where several measures already taken point: A Justice Department 'strike force' has been set up; the current CIA director John Ratcliffe has, in essence, denounced his predecessor John Brennan to the FBI; and the current FBI director Kash Patel has opened an investigation into his predecessor James Comey. The knives are out. Or so it seems. It is always satisfying to see a big fat lie punctured and deflated. But there is, unfortunately, little reason to celebrate. For one thing, it is unlikely that many of those who concocted and spread 'Russiagate' will actually face real consequences. That is just not how the US works: its 'elites' have a record of impunity only rivaled by those of Israel. Obama, in particular, is certain to be safe: Ironically, he is now protected by the same extraordinary legal privilege that the Supreme Court has conjured up for Trump. And where one team of manipulators has lost its grip, another one is already showing its mettle. Because in one respect even the New York Times has a point: one reason for at least the timing of escalation in Trump's revenge campaign is that it is meant to distract us from that other horrific scandal, associated with the name of convicted pedophile, suspected intelligence agent and blackmailer, and very, very dubious suicide victim Jeffrey Epstein. The same Trump officials now in high dudgeon over 'Russiagate,' have shown no independence of mind, professionalism, or commitment to truth and the public welfare, when helping Trump evade full transparency for the Epstein files, in which his name also appears. Finally, even while revealing that 'Russiagate' was a hoax, Gabbard – and the House intelligence report she had declassified – still tried to blame Moscow. It's a tricky operation: Now, we are supposed to stop accusing Russia and its President Vladimir Putin of helping Trump – and Trump of profiting from such help – but we are still asked to believe that they had nothing better to do than 'undermine faith in the US democratic process.' Where to even begin? There is no democratic process in the plutocratic US. Even a Princeton University study has long acknowledged that America is not a democracy. In reality, there only is an obstinate and, frankly, brazen pretense of such a process; and maybe some people still believe in it. But it really does not take Russia or any other outside forces to make sure that many do not. That loss of faith in a thing that isn't there is entirely made in America. Maybe one day, America's establishment – of all flavors – will learn to stop childishly blaming others, be it their predecessors (who usually deserve it) or foreigners (who often don't deserve it) and face its very own responsibility. But I would not bet on it. Cowardice, careerism, and hypocrisy run too deep. Most likely, there will never be true justice. Only tit-for-tat retaliation. On the other hand, if that's the only thing on offer, bring it on: I, for one, will take it.
