Why use a LLM when you got Wikipedia [1]. Which references an article in The Guardian [2]:
> A French court convicted the head of the International Monetary Fund and former government minister, who had faced a €15,000 (£12,600) fine and up to a year in prison. But it decided she should not be punished and that the conviction would not constitute a criminal record. On Monday evening the IMF gave her its full support.
> The verdict came as a surprise as even the public prosecutor had admitted the evidence against Lagarde was “weak” during a five-day trial last week. Jean-Claude Marin told the court Lagarde’s actions fell into the category of politics and not criminality and called for her to be acquitted.
If the public prosecutor admits the evidence is weak, then I take that at face value. I'm open to evidence of the contrary, but without such, I just have to assume the case was weak.
It does strike me as odd that she was convicted. I suppose the evidence wasn't negligible.
Hat tip. I did not think to check Wiki for this issue. Thanks.
I agree: The comment from the public prosecutor is excellent. To me that is a very strong sign of a well-balanced, highly functioning democracy (and its legal system).
Why use a LLM when you got Wikipedia [1]. Which references an article in The Guardian [2]:
> A French court convicted the head of the International Monetary Fund and former government minister, who had faced a €15,000 (£12,600) fine and up to a year in prison. But it decided she should not be punished and that the conviction would not constitute a criminal record. On Monday evening the IMF gave her its full support.
> The verdict came as a surprise as even the public prosecutor had admitted the evidence against Lagarde was “weak” during a five-day trial last week. Jean-Claude Marin told the court Lagarde’s actions fell into the category of politics and not criminality and called for her to be acquitted.
If the public prosecutor admits the evidence is weak, then I take that at face value. I'm open to evidence of the contrary, but without such, I just have to assume the case was weak.
It does strike me as odd that she was convicted. I suppose the evidence wasn't negligible.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Lagarde#Conviction_o...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/19/christine-laga...
Hat tip. I did not think to check Wiki for this issue. Thanks.
I agree: The comment from the public prosecutor is excellent. To me that is a very strong sign of a well-balanced, highly functioning democracy (and its legal system).