Today's standards are indeed different: if rich or famous enough, you can commit dozens of felonies, receive no prison time or other actual punishment, and be sworn in as president!
Let’s face it, the human you are referring to spoke words.
New York State claims the words were felonious.
Let’s not compare theft of a National treasure with spoken words.
That’s disingenuous at best.
Lying under oath was also what got Bill Clinton impeached, and that too is "just words".
That said, the claim that this unduly influenced the previous election is, IMO, probably incorrect: that Trump is a philanderer was known in 2016, and his conviction for these offences was known by the 2024 election, and yet he still won.
The way I heard it, the government used a specific language for "have sexual relations with" (hereinafter HSRW):
A HSRW B if the mouth, hands, or genitals of A touch the genitals of B.
Any hackernews regular would notice that HSRW is not associative - as in it is entirely possible for A HSRW B to be true, but B HSRW A to be false; in fact this was the case for if A's mouth touches B's genitals; A HSRW B but !(B HSRW A).
You can whine and plead and ask the question 4,000 times, but at the end of the day, if one don't understand logic, you might be a Republican Senator in the 1990's.
The trial court disagreed that these statements truthfully responded to the deposition, and fined him for his misleading answer.
For instance in Russia, their Supreme Court actually threw out the first conviction of Navalny on embezzlement charges. The local case itself was a shit show, but what else would you call a conviction in a case based largely on the words of a serial liar of undoubtedly near zero character, who also had a financial and vindictive motivation to lie? And I'm not talking about Navalny's case there, but imagine I was. Your opinion should not change if you're being logically consistent.
This is the reason that these trials sent Trump's popularity surging, and very possibly being the reason he won the popular vote. It seems that not only were they shit shows, but because they are seen as being motivated by the person being charged, rather than by the acts alleged.
FWIW, this does not mean he's innocent. It just means that if he wasn't who he is, none of these cases, all launched just in time to try to interfere with the election, would have happened.
The rulers of yesteryear are surely grateful that, in time, even the worst sins get washed away.
"Politicians used to be honorable" must be as commonly said across generations as "kids these days are just so disrespectful".
He wrote a poem about the experience of being jailed:
https://allpoetry.com/poem/14329550---La-Sant--by-Guillaume-...
I think “La Santé” was the name of the prison. The English translation of the title loses this double meaning.
La Fontaine, I think, was the title of Marcel Duchamp's urinal installation; I suspect it might be a common euphemism?
After learning of this, I now value Pablo Picasso (the person) somewhat differently. He was ~26 in 1907. Not a kid.
This probably explains why e.g. I had never heard of this before: https://jacobin.com/2023/06/pablo-picasso-brooklyn-museum-ga...
Of course, mere copying is vastly different from copying plus theft and attempted burying/hiding of the original [inspiration].
Planning to do something bad and not following through is not the same thing as doing the bad thing.
(What mixture of it was conscience, and what mixture was fear of getting caught?)
In the end, we'll never know why they didn't dump the suitcase in the river.
> > (What mixture of it was conscience, and what mixture was fear of getting caught?)
Sometimes I forget I'm not on a European website
Or did you mean “one of the small ruling elite” communists?
I would have expected that behavior to make them seem guilty enough to warrant holding them until their stories are thoroughly examined.