The Lessons of the DSK Affair as Seen by Bernard Henri Levy
The latest revelations about the Strauss-Kahn affair have not only turned all of France on edge, but have raised many lessons for all of us.
First, let us look at the feminists. Katha Pollitt, the much noted columnist for The Nation, led the pack with the judgment of his complete guilt. Writing at the end of May, when his arrest took place, she wrote an open letter to the French people, announcing why she no longer appreciated the country she once loved. Pollitt wrote that “the DSK affair has given the small and internally conflicted French feminist movement new visibility and a great organizing issue.” She continued:
But, France, I don’t like you anymore. Because what is the point of having all those smart, cultivated, social-democratically inclined secular people if it turns out they are such self-satisfied creeps? You should listen to yourself sometime: smug, paunchy, powerful middle-aged men parading across the media going on about how Dominique Strauss-Kahn was just engaging in some typically Gallic flirtation in that Sofitel suite in Manhattan. “It was just a quickie with the maid,” said the famous journalist Jean-Francois Kahn, using an antiquated idiom (troussage de domestique) that suggests trussing up a chicken. Former culture minister Jack Lang was outraged that DSK was not immediately released on bail since after all, “no man died.” (He probably didn’t mean to, but he did say “no man” — Il n’y a pas mort d’homme — not “no one”). And let’s not forget Bernard-Henri Levy, whose pretentious drivel has to be the worst thing you’ve exported to us since pizza-flavored La Vache Qui Rit. Levy can’t get over the way the New York justice system is treating his friend: “I hold it against the American judge who, by delivering him to the crowd of photo hounds, pretended to take him for a subject of justice like any other.” Treating a master of the universe the same as anyone else — even the African immigrant who cleaned his hotel room, quoi — isn’t that what justice is? Didn’t they teach you that in high school philosophy, M. Levy?
Don’t get me wrong. I have no love for the often pretentious BHL — as Levy calls himself — who wants to be appreciated as much for his open shirt and hairy chest as for his claim to intellectual greatness. But, unfortunately for her, BHL had the last laugh.
Levy wrote a column on Saturday for The Daily Beast. He was trounced when he first defended his friend DSK; all those sexist men standing together in asserting their right to oppress poor single mothers from foreign lands, especially one said to be an illegal immigrant working in a fancy hotel frequented by the ruling class. Today, as the Manhattan DA is about to throw out the indictment altogether, Levy writes: “If it’s truly to be over, Dominique Strauss-Kahn must be granted not only his freedom, but — even more importantly — restoration of his honor.”
Of course, Levy turns out to merely be lucky. He too did not know all the facts when he first defended his friend’s honor; he ignored all the testimony of other women in France who testified to DSK’s record of tawdry womanizing. But now he rubs it in, writing that “[t]he ‘shame on you’s’ that greeted Dominique Strauss-Kahn as he arrived for the hearing on June 6th, shouted by battalions of hotel chambermaids who knew nothing of the actual case and whose protest had been orchestrated and scripted, were obscene. And so, too, though in another manner, was the famous ‘perp walk’ which, I’m aware, is the lot of all those charged with a crime, but which, given the identity of the accused in question, could only degenerate into globally observed torture — high punishment for a crime, which no one, at that point, knew whether or not he had committed.”
Yes, many people were happy to see DSK dragged down to the gutter, including many of those who write for this site, since we were happy to see the rich self-proclaimed French socialist who lived in $5000 a night hotel rooms and a $50,000 a month Tribeca apartment so ridiculed. Of course, BHL goes too far when he writes of how his friend’s “silent dignity couldn’t be touched.” Yet he has a point when he argues that to many in our country, he had become “the symbol of arrogant France.” And yes, to the American Left — ignoring that DSK was a leader of the Socialist Party — he was viewed as “the emblem of the world of the privileged, odiously sure of their own impunity. He was the mirror of this world of white global bankers that constitutes Wall Street.”
And Levy is correct when he writes that the supposed victim “was the allegory of all women who are not only battered and humiliated but poor and immigrant — their words, silenced too long, finally expressed through hers.”
As we now know from the prosecution’s findings, the woman in question is more than likely to turn out to be a criminal involved with a ring exploiting other immigrants, perhaps a drug smuggler as well and a prostitute to boot. It is clear that since forensic evidence shows a sexual encounter did take place between the maid and DSK, the maid obviously wanted to cry rape in order to extort money from her culprit, whom she knew was very, very wealthy.
Indeed, the New York Times reported that “among the discoveries, one of the [D.A.’s] officials said, are issues involving the asylum application of the 32-year-old housekeeper, who is Guinean, and possible links to people involved in criminal activities, including drug dealing and money laundering.” Moreover, another Times story added that “ the woman had a phone conversation with an incarcerated man within a day of her encounter with Mr. Strauss-Kahn in which she discussed the possible benefits of pursuing the charges against him. The conversation was recorded. That man, the investigators learned, had been arrested on charges of possessing 400 pounds of marijuana. He is among a number of individuals who made multiple cash deposits, totaling about $100,000, into the woman’s bank account over the last two years. The deposits were made in Arizona, Georgia, New York and Pennsylvania.”
Very well done piece, Professor Radosh. You are fair-minded, especially when it comes to the truly obnoxious BHL. And I agree that Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr. showed courage and decency in doing the right thing, even though I confess I preferred seeing DSK in an orange jump-suit at Rikers to seeing him walk free and smiling (albeit sans his passport) into a glorious July day in New York.
This story is a must read, and it is also an expose’ of all that is wrong in the USA, if not the world today, Class Hatred and Envy and the Power of The Lie and the Corruption and Subversiveness of Unions. And, Barack Obama is the Chief Instigator of Class Hatred and Envy in the USA today as well as for his support of the Corruption and Subversiveness of Unions who do Obama’s Bidding in their Strikes, Riots and other Disruptive and Scurilous Activities. As for DSK, I may not like his politics, but I defend his right not to be unfairly arrested, tried and destroyed based on the Lies of an Illegal Alien Shakedown Artist and Criminal Drug Dealer, Prostitute and Money Launderer such as this Hotel Maid. I wonder if the ICE officials have her under arrest and indictment yet for Money Laundering, Making False Claims, and for Perpertrating Scams for Money such as this.
Is that the same DA that sensationalized this case and alerted the media to the DSK perp walk ? If that is who you mean, you do not know the meaning of the word “decency.”
Disgrace is the word you are looking for.
n’importe quoi !
your Vance is rotten !
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/nyregion/collapsing-strauss-kahn-case-adds-to-doubts-on-manhattan-prosecutor.html?_r=3&hp
Ùvec mon plus profond respect,
le “n’importe quoi” s’applique surtout à vos commentaires, chère madame:
- vous n’avez aucune idée de la fiabilité de l’article du NYT, notamment en ce qui concerne les conclusions à tirer des autres éléments de la preuve (notamment la preuve matérielle constituée par l’ADN par exemple, ou la fiabilité générale du témoin principal); et
- le pronom possessif que vous utilisez (“your”) indique une généralisation à tous les Américains qui est exagérée et dépourvue de fondement: M. Vance est procureur d’un des 4 cantons de NY seulement; il a été élu régulièrement par les citoyens de NY, il exerce sa charge de manière indépendante et il sera réélu ou non par ces mêmes citoyens en fonction du jugement que ceux-ci – et non le NYT – porteront sur sa performance générale (par contraste, les juges français ne sont que des fonctionnaires dépendants administrativement du ministre de la Justice et qui ne rendent aucun compte aux citoyens).
D’expérience, je peux dire que la common law est bien supérieure au droit français en matière pénale, en raison de sa rigueur (p. ex. la norme de l’absence de doute raisonnable par rapport à l’intime convction des jurés) et de sa transparence (il n’y a pas de commune mesure entre la rigueur et l’instantanéité de la sanction pour faute professionnelle du procureur dans les deux systèmes: comparer l’affaire de l’Université Duke à l’affaire d’Outreau).
Moralités: avant de juger les autres, veuillez réfléchir et vous informer sérieusement. Pour ma part, j’appliquerai mes obligations déontologiques et je m’abstiendrai de tout jugement dans cette affaire avant d’avoir pris connaissance de la totalité des faits de l’espèce (on appelle cela aussi “la présomption d’innocence”).
Respectueusement,
un avocat au barreau de NY.
…that was, and remains, an emotional and premature judgement. Step away from your flag and read in today’s Wall Street Journal a more mature assessment written by the Journal’s Dorothy Rabinowitz.
Here’s the headline for your ready reference:….take a deep breath….
“DSK and the District Attorney
New York’s prosecutor could have chosen to exploit race and status in the high-profile case.”
I would like to point out that even prostitutes can be raped, sir. This woman has obviously made mistakes, but to jump to the immediate conclusion that she is an extortionist is every bit as disgusting jumping to the immediate conclusion that DSK is a rapist. Innocent until proven guilty applies to both parties.
DSK is offering to drop all charges against his accuser; that may be magnanimous,or it may be the action of a criminal trying to keep his crimes as quiet as possible. If I were in his position, I would seek justice rather than letting this die down. I don’t know what his motivations are. I withhold judgement for now.
But you’re free to take the reactionary position, and rush to judgment of this woman. Just don’t pretend that’s any different from rushing to judge DSK.
Ruhan, you make an excellent point that even prostitutes can be raped—and even wives can be raped by their husbands, for that matter. Without consent (which is not implied by the fact that a woman makes her living selling sex or the fact that a woman has consented to marriage) a sexual assault is a sexual assault. The difference between the trial of an accused rapist and that of an accused thief or murderer is that the rape victim is almost always on the witness stand. Once she (or he) is there, his or her credibility is open to impeachment by the defense. That is where the prosecutor’s problem arises. In criminal trials, the standard of proof is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” If the defense attorney can instill a shadow of doubt in only a single juror concerning the maid’s credibility based on her lying on immigration documents and her lies to the housing authority of New York (according to the not-always-reliable New York Times, she said she had two children when she only has one) her credibility in testifying to DSK’s actions is compromised. There is still the physical evidence that a sexual act took place, and there is still evidence that the victim was injured, although whether by DSK one doesn’t know for sure. I agree that DSK’s dropping charges against his accuser can only be construed as redounding to his benefit by keeping him out of a second round of courtroom appearances in which even as the plaintiff, all the original charges against him would be re-aired. It is hardly an act of magnanimity.
Of course a prostitute can be raped.
But the issue here is not just the fact that the accuser is a prostitute. She is also a professional criminal who told many proven lies to the prosecutors.
….so the judge asked the woman who made the charge of rape, “why did you wait so long to come forward” … she replied ..”your honor I didn’t know I had been raped until the cheque bounced”
I will wait for more evidence to come out, but it may have been a shakedown.
General P. Malaise – I agree with you, but it may possibly have been more than that. I have come up with three possibilities. The first is that the maid may have seen the possibility of black-mailing him and so agreed to oral sex (which is hardly rape since she had a vital organ of his that she could have done a business on); 2: Somebody wanted him out of the IMF and knowing about the maid’s past, put her up to it; finally, 3) Somebody didn’t want him to run for president of France and knowing about the maid’s past, put her up to it. If the latter two, I would advise the maid to come clean and asked to be put in the witness protection program or she may not be long for this earth.
..the only thing we know right now is the prosecution is thinking their case is weak. much of the story is being put out by the defense.
we may never know …
We will never know the truth. All we truly know is that an experienced team of DA’s do not believe that they have the evidence to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
We also witnessed how the left (AND THE RIGHT) jumped to conclusions about the case. We have trials for a reason. I take my hat off to the DA for having the gumption to act on the information known as it appeared that a criminal was fleeing the country and then having the courage to reverse course when more facts came it.
I would like to point out that even prostitutes can be raped, sir.
Yes,but if one believes in the presumption of innocence it is a whole whole whole lot harder for them to get justice for it.
If she accused Strauss-Kahn of rape and Strauss-Kahn replies the sex was consensual what do you do?
Do you automatically assume that Strauss-Kahn is guilty because “women never lie about rape?”
If Strauss-Kahn claims in his defense that the woman threatened extortion and it is found that the woman is a part-time prostitute, is involved in other criminal activity and is caught in lies are you saying ignore it because “women never lie about rape?”
Here’s another question: if evidence is found that the woman fabricated the claim as part of an extortion attempt, why isn’t she being prosecuted?
I would hope that the chairman of the IMF would be better than a john and a possibly a rapist. We also know that he is guilty of lying to the police claiming that it was just consensual sex–prostitutes do not give it away. He is giving men a bad name–most of us have not resorted to the services of a prostitute for it is reckless and hurtful to our wives. And now the socallist want him to run for priesident of France. Amazing how the open minded are so blind.
Perhaps because the the “victim”, DSK, is not a reliable witness. He is about to be charged with rape in France, he has a reputation for sexual agression, and he does not deny that he had sex with this woman.
I don’t really understand why people are acting as if DSK has been vindicated. At best, he is a wealthy savage who engaged a whore and refused to pay her. At best. It is grotesque to see his wife grinning like an idiot while her husband proudly proclaims his habit of inserting himself into any woman who will hold still long enough. “Rutting chimpanzee” seems an apt description. If this is how respectable Frenchmen behave then there are no respectable Frenchmen.
See the editorial in today’s (July2-3) WALL STREET JOURNAL, which, like Ron’s piece, has it just about right. It both condemns the rush to judgment and points out that DSK’s personal history lent credibility to the accusations against him.
I wonder if DSK will return to France as a conquering hero. This event has illuminated a rather sorid and risky personal history. Am I wrong in thinking that many French may just decide he is a national embarrassment?
I wonder also what people will think it says about our immigration policies.
As of now, these are the hard revelations about DSK’s accuser:
1.Immigration fraud — falsely claimed gang rape in homeland in order to enhance asylum application
2.Communicated with drug trafficker associate regarding the case (“Don’t worry, this guy has a lot of money. I know what I’m doing.”)
3.Lying about number of dependents for tax purposes
4.Lying about income to secure subsidized housing
5.Lying about her actions immediately following the incident
Softer revelations: Anonymous sources in the NY Post say she was participating in prostitution and pyramid schemes.
On the other hand:
6.Black, check.
Female, check.
Poor, check.
AIDS sufferer, check.
Rape victim, check.
Single mother, check.
Union member, check.
Immigrant, check.
What’s a NY prosecutor to do?
She and her fellow scamsters apparently know how to game American goodwill. This is a land where we give an equal voice to rich and poor in our justice system, a land where we provide aid to the less fortunate, a land where we open our gates to the oppressed. Plus we have money!!! Hell, who needs to rob banks in a society like ours? Just fill out a bunch of papers and you can score BIG.
Unfortunately for her though, she picked the wrong rich white guy to set up. He’s not some evil conservative like one of the Koch brothers. He’s a French socialist at the head of a bloated NGO.
Now would be a good time to start investigating her visa appliation and the crime rings she touched. Drugs, check. Immigration fraud, check. Possible prostitution and financial fraud, check. Uh-oh, see #6.
“Now would be a good time to start investigating her visa appliation and the crime rings she touched. Drugs, check. Immigration fraud, check. Possible prostitution and financial fraud, check.”
And the chance of EVER being sent “back to where she came from”: NONE! Check.
Investigate Visa App.? – she at least applied – how about our 10-50 million illegals? – no punishment?
False statements on taxes – 1) she filed – illegals? 2) let’s co-try her w/ Mr. Geithner – he can explain how his was an honest mistake because he financially unsophisticated
Public housing – Charlie Rangel has 4 rent controlled apts. in NY City – probably no lies told there
Cannot legally contract to have sex in New York State – so “no” or “stop” or similar term at any time = rape
How did our president, as U.S. citizen, get financial aid as “foreign” student – perhaps a falsehood? perhaps he was a filthy conservative then
Brilliantly written.
Having rushed to judgement on one side, we have now to rush to judgement on the other?
Neil MacDonald of CBC’s and the Reuters stories are not so exciting as the Times of course.
The “officials” who are responsible for fostering the rumors have betrayed their offices and should lose them. I know it happens all the time, there’re a lot of things done wrong all the time. When the wrongdoers can be identified they should suffer appropriate penalties.
That newspapers/reporters are to anxious to sell stories and seem abreast of whatever new noise is being made, is to be expected because they make their living by that. Truth has little weight against entertainment value, even at the Times.
This matter must be settled in court, not by rumors in the press.
So, if I understand all this, the maids at the Sofitel are, indeed, perqs for the extraordinarily high-end guests? And the union (the same union that staged a protest) is aware of this, and participatory?
This makes the story even uglier.
I was initially pretty horrified at the notion that someone just doing her job could be assaulted. Now I’m disgusted even further.
Levy and many other French defenders of DSK seemed (and still seem) to regard all this as normal, and not a problem.
The feminist left’s behavior was only to be expected. Sad, but true.
I keep looking for a victim in this case and so far, can’t seem to find one.
The “evidence” that I have read against this woman certainly goes to her credibility. In fact, it destroys it.
It does not, however, tell one thing about what happened in that room. This powerful married man, with a serial encounter reputation… either had a contractual sexual encounter or a forced one…or both.
He put himself in a position to be compromised, apparently quite willingly. If the terms of the contractual arrangement went south during the episode, before, or after…are still open questions.
If the motivation for the disclosure of the encounter were for money, avenging an unknown act or for some other purpose, all still open matters.
But, let’s just think for a moment, what a powerful Socialist might be able to do to fight back. Certainly he could investigate and uncover this woman’s past. And he could obtain some help with his media friends. Given her past, who would believe her when that past was uncovered?
Neither of these two is a victim….except of their own making. And the truth may never make its way out of the cesspool of their tryst.
Good analysis – the possibility remains that this woman was raped by Kahn. You have to wonder what might be the fate of a lesser man caught in similar circumstances. We like to crow about how good justice is in our country but something like this only serves to show us what a joke that is. If you have money and influence all you need to do is attack the accuser. If there is any cloud on their character power and influence will trump it every time.
And walk.
And I’m not saying Kahn was innocent or guilty – just that we shall never know.
They are both perpetrators and both victims, of each other’s nefarious aims.
However, the question for the jury is: Who is telling the truth?
Standing up for the poor and the working person is a separate issue from judicial judgment. Both are important. Leviticus 19:13 says, “You shall not exploit your neighbor, and you shall not rob. An employee’s wages shall not stay through the night with you until morning.” Leviticus 19:15 says, “You shall not do an injustice in judgment. You shall not be partial to a weak person, and you shall not favor a big person. You shall judge with justice.”
He may not be guilty as charged but he is an avowed socialist, always suspicious characters.
Did you deliberately single out socialists just because you could or did some of that adobe mud get lodged in your brain pan?
We all know that the laws do not apply to socialists because socialists are pure and true and of good heart, not like the “fat cats” on Wall Street who are just in it for the money. At least, that’s what the left wants us to believe.
Socialists, at best, are hypocrits and, at worst, thieves and liars. Strauss-Kahn may have been hoisted on his own petard by patronizing an immigrant hooker who then tried to extort money from him. Hey, DSK, nothing beats marriage and an iron-clad pre-nup BEFORE dipping the wick.
poor pr*ck that has to f*ck maids for the daily restoration of his baronesque ego!
All the rest remains to be seen; n’est-ce pas Monsieur Radosh?
Somehow, my mind keeps coming back to the expression: “guilty as sin; free as a bird.”
Indeed. In my experience, bad guys pick their victims well……..
Instead of a metaphor about the oppression of women, the DSK affair becomes a revelation about the fusion of criminals and unions. Ah, America.
What a pathetic display of hypocritical virtue from the American left, where were they when Bill Clinton was accused of sexual harassment? “But, France, I don’t like you anymore.” – a snapshot of the psyche of The Nation readers.
Dianna noticed that, according to NY Post 2 July and posted at Drudge:
“When you’re a chambermaid at Local 6, when you first get to the US, you start at the motels at JFK [Airport]. You don’t start at the Sofitel,” the source said. “There’s a whole squad of people who saw her as an earner.”
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/maid_cleaning_up_as_hooker_0mMd759PLuYGYYJyA0RNbI#ixzz1R2Q1Rvwd
It sounds as if the union was, in fact, intentionally, prostituting this women for its own financial benefit. This is an amazing revelation. Can it be that the union pretentiously and publicly promoting itself as defender of the poor, weak and vulnerable is, itself, an exploiter of immigrants?
See Unionized New York Room Attendants Rally and list of stories – http://www.nyhtc.org/secured.php?page=strausskahnarraignment The phrase “rush to judgement” has not been used by NYTimes, has it?
and panic alarms to be issued to NY Hotel maids because of DSK http://www.gpb.org/news/2011/06/01/report-after-attacks-new-york-hotels-to-equip-maids-with-panic-button
“Equal Justice for All”, this law applies to rich and poor, popular and unpopular, alike, does it not?
I would like to add “Equal Justice for All, this law applies to rich and poor, Socialists and Capitalists, the popular and unpopular alike, does it not?
All we men can do nowadays is just repeatedly apologize for being men.
According to the Leftist media, politicians, intellectual elite, college professors, and well everybody, women can do everything better than men.
Women are better doctors, lawyers, teachers, drivers, writers, thinkers, bosses, managers, pilots, soldiers, and well do just about everything better than men.
Feminists have become the feminazis and feminism has become the New Fascism to the point that no matter what a woman says, it must be the divinely ordained truth, and whatever a man says must be a pack of preposterous lies.
Just ask yourself how many men end up in divorce court, packed in favor of the wife to begin with and have to somehow fend off false charges of cruelty or abuse, and facing situations where they may never see their children ever again. But they will have to pay child support and alimony for the next decades anyway.
Strauss Kahn is very lucky to be as wealthy as he is and to afford the best lawyers his money can buy.
Most of us men have to do the best we can, while all a woman has to do is make up some lie or false accusation to get us thrown in jail.
You are completely right. And I’m speaking as a happily married woman who observes the injustices in a legal system that has gone completely out of control – not only in the US, but also in many other western nations.
In the US, it started with the feminist movement (actually started by hard-left extremists), and LBJ’s “Great Society”, in which women and girls were bribed to have children out of wedlock in his misguided welfare state.
The result was the breakdown of society as a whole. Fatherhood is not optional!
“Yes, many people were happy to see DSK dragged down to the gutter, including many of those who write for this site, since we were happy to see the rich self-proclaimed French socialist who lived in $5000 a night hotel rooms and a $50,000 a month Tribeca apartment so ridiculed.”
You bet ch’ya! Every day is a good day to see a lying, self-righteous, hypocritical socialist who spends $5,000 a night in a hotel and $50,000 a month on an apartment WITH THE PEOPLE’S MONEY get treated like an ordinary criminal, which he is. Sorry folks, I can’t well up too much sympathy for this animal. And these are the people who have no problems in telling us how to live. So the good new is he was guilty of buying a prostitute but not of rape. Swell, that should make the French people really feel proud of this guy. So the fact that he’s spending thousands and thousands of dollars of their money on a lavish lifestyle is not a problem, but at least is didn’t rape a whore. Yes, the French have much to be “proud” of in this man.
Thanks, LS46. Among all the comments above, yours finally gets the right of it.
It’s not about her. Nor about French mores. It’s about HIM.
This fat, egregious, flabby, age-spotted, out-of-control old freak ran the IMF!
That’s what it’s about. If he wants to get BJs from a hotel whore, he ought to at least have the social IQ of a horny teenager to have picked a commercially practible one that wouldn’t bring down the world’s financial institutions.
His replacement, for all her gender advantage, must surely come from the same broken generational mold.
The lessons here, Ron Radosh, have nothing to do with morals, customs, politics, etc., but EVERYTHING to do with the kind of presumptuous scum and rabble America has allowed to fill command slots since WWII.
The new head of the IMF is a woman – and from Chicago – makes you wonder if Kahn didn’t simply get set up so someone (hmm – can’t think who that might be…) could get their own person in and Kahn out.
Libertyship it’s not just the French peoples money. it’s mostly the American tax payers money. there is no hotell or motell worth 5000 dollars a night and no apartment worth $50.000 a month. but thats the way those SLIMEBALLS keep ripping off the tax paying public. they should all ROT IN PRISON making little rocks from big ones 12 hours a day,
It’s not a question of sympathy (I too was somewhat disappointed to see this case fall apart), it’s a question of the integrity of the prosecutors office. Better to admit when you’re licked like Vance did that to keep your fingernails dug in like Nifong (remember him?).
OTOH, I have a suspicion that Hillary Clinton made a few phone calls, and had this guy been merely rich but not politically and diplomatically connected, he’d still be wearing the ankle bracelet.
I really think you are a little hard on BHL. I have a poor memory but I think for sure he has come to Israel’s defense from time to time. In other words I do not believe you can categorize him as the usual left wing flunkie.
Also as you noted there were several people on this site that also wrote accusingly of him so all the posters must not get too smug.
When the story broke, one of my Facebook friends quickly trotted out the names of other “Jewish” sexual miscreants. I am surprised that no one has mentioned the antisemitic angle to this story. DS-K is obviously unsavory, but he is also a symbol of “finance capital” assaulting the rest of the world, and getting away with it. I wrote about that here: http://clarespark.com/2009/09/18/bad-sex-in-the-new-york-times/. Read especially the quotes from J. A. Hobson, a major influence on Lenin and frequently quoted in The Nation magazine. You might want to follow up with the distinction between “Jewish” chicanery and “Christian Humanism” that can be found here: http://clarespark.com/2009/09/19/populism-progressivism-and-corporatist-liberalism-in-the-nation-1919/.
The reason no-one has mentioned anti-semitism is because it has absolutely no relevance.
Are you seriously suggesting that DSK ‘had sex’ with the woman because he is a Jew? Or are you suggesting that she accused him of rape because he is a Jew? Or that his claims that he, a fat old man was ‘attractive’ to her (ie, it was consensual) .. were because he is a Jew? Or that …
Or is it rather the fact that his religion has absolutely nothing to do with the situation. At all.
Looks to me that she’s saying that his being jewish was as much a ‘he’s guilty’ thinking point for the left as his being wealthy and white. I.e., she’s saying the american left is anti-semitic- she’s making commentary about one aspect of the people quick to judge, not injecting her own opinion as to how relevant his ethno-religious history is.
First of all, kudos to Cyrus Vance, Jr. for doing the right thing. As far as his future political ambitions are concerned, I certainly hope that voters will see his integrity and reward him accordingly.
Second, this whole thing raises another question that nobody is asking. Why were DSK’s accuser and her fellow criminals in the money-laundering ring, allowed into the US to begin with?
Considering the nature of Islamic doctrine, which requires permanent enmity between Muslims and non-Muslims, it’s completely insane for the US to allow Muslim immigrants into the US at all.
Given the unfortunate fact that we are allowing Muslim immigrants into the US, why were there no background checks on this group of criminals? Did someone take their word for it that they were “refugees” or “asylum-seekers” without doing some thorough investigation?
How many other criminal Muslim immigrants like these are on the loose in the US and other western nations?
I think this horse has been well and truly tenderized by other writers.
I’d like to inject a side note here:
The reason we allow Muslim immigrants into the US is that our leadership, both political and media, doesn’t really think that religion means anything. It’s just words, with no connection to reality. So: it can be ignored.
Granted, this is true of more people than not. They belong to a church, a synagogue, a temple, a coven or a mosque, but just go for the coffee and sweet rolls.
But active religion affects behavior. James 1:27 says it is “…to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.” Some others feel it involves Semtex or fully-fueled airliners.
Hillbilly Geek – They may think it’s a religion, but it’s not. It is a totalitarian political ideology using the pretense of religiion as a cover.
Point taken, Jack, but the lines between politics, ideology and religion are blurry. People do things for a smear of reasons, and most times there’s someone in the hierarchy cheerfully manipulating the true believers for cynical reasons.
Whatever the motivation, “religion” provides the impetus, and so should not be dismissed out of hand as irrelevant.
1389AD – spot-on.
So the union pimps its members and sets up the hotel guests for blackmail.
It isn’t women travelers who need to take safety precautions these days. A male traveler had better be sure he is not alone with a maid behind closed doors. He’s asking for trouble.
Knock knock — “housekeeping.”
“Come back later when I am gone.”
To Libertyship46
If we were to publicize all the philandering that occurs each day involving our own politicians, our courts and media would look like a 3 ringed circus on steroids. Conservative or Liberal it matters not. So before you point the finger at the French for possibly welcoming home DSK…. take a good look in the mirror, Uncle Sam. Finally, how do you know how this man earns his money that affords him whatever he wishes to pay for a hotel room? You imply that it came from others pockets and that because he has the big bucks it couldn’t possibly have been earned legitimately. Perhaps you’re correect, I however, am not privy to DSK’s Tax return as you seem to be. One needs to be articulate when living in a glass house.
So, now the ‘rush-to-judgment’ flips to the other side.
Stage 1 was the instant conclusion that Strauss-Khan was guilty. This was supported by evidence of the woman’s traumatic reaction, forensic evidence, oh..and emerging accusations from other women.
However, a few pundits warned that his Defense Team, although acknowledging that sex has taken place, would never, ever, let it come to trial. There’d be an out-of-court settlement. In order to get this, they’d have to discredit the accuser, the hotel maid.
Stage 2 is the discreditation of the maid. And notice – how instantly we public have, without any shred of evidence, flung our belief to ‘She’s the evil one and Strauss-Khan was set up’. What’s the evidence? As #2 Ruhan and O’Toole point out – there isn’t any. There are just the ‘leaked comments’ from the Defense Team. Unreliable gossip. No grounds, not a speck, to accept them as true.
The important point is that the Defense Team says that THEY will not accuse HER. Heh. Why not? Because they don’t want a trial. After all, if their gossip has no validity, she could go to court to challenge those whispers. Defense doesn’t want this; it doesn’t want the case proven, it doesn’t even want the case unproven. The agenda is to whitewash DSK. To do that, it wants her, instead, to both accept their settlement offer, which is probably huge, AND accept their gossip.
As noted above, in both situations – the public is ‘rushing to judgment’. First, against DSK and now, against the hotel maid. And totally ignoring the behind-the-scenes tactics of the Defense Team.
Nail. Head.
ETAB,
They have plenty of evidence. The DA without any help from the defence team came upon the phone conversations the maid had with her boyfriend. Just hours after the alleged assault, the maid was discussing how they could shake DSK down. The maid obviously was turning tricks. The “poor immigrant” had access to quite a bit of money via her boyfriend’s money laundering operation. None of this evidence came from the defence team.
Yes but the questions about the maid’s integrity appear to be carrying weight with the prosecutor.
In the legal sense, yes. But Radosh admonishes us not to condemn the man’s morality as the result, which is a non sequitor.
(And why was my previous comment to this effect — answering Simon’s claim — censored?)
That’s because it was the prosecution team, not the defence, which uncovered the accusers criminal background. It was also the prosecution team who she lied to, repeatedly.
Defence are doing their bit, but the prosecutors are the ones who discovered all the holes in her story.
Sure, the media have flipped to the other side – they just like a sensational story. Certainly DSK’s lawyers could be expected to make the maid look bad. However, the prosecutor dropped the case. Someone (Vance) with every incentive to take the side against DSK examined what is coming to light and found it compelling in DSK’s favor. That counts for a lot.
I was one of the few who defended DSK. And I remember being pounced by both conservatives (who detest wealthy Euro Socialists), and liberals (who joined the feminists in thier gleefull witch hunt). The scenario made absolutely no sense. An overwieght man in his 60s overpowering an immigrant maid half his age. He story didn’t add up. The only thing the DA was evidence that they had sex (they never said whether the forensic evidene pointed to a non-consensual hook-up). It was Bonfire of Vanities all over again. The DA got his Great White Defendent. Suddenly Women from Grenoble to New York claimed they were abused by him. And the MSM had a field day. It was such fun to see the Powerful fall so quickly and absolutely.
But, a curious reader noted some significant problems. DSK lunched with his daughter not an hour after the alleged “incident”; there was not one witness to the attack. The victim’s story alleged that DSK chased her around the suite and hallways before he could subdue her. Again, a fat 60something Frenchman chasing a maid down a hallway (nude no less) and successfully subduing her without any witnesses made no sense. You’d think one reporter who at least take 5 minutes out of his/her shadenfruede and ask a few questions. But, then again Vance got his Great White Defendent.
The maid was a prostitute/con artist on the make. She had access to quite a decent cashflow via a money laundering-drug operation. The MSM made her into a saint -a poor Muslim immigrant struggling against all odds to raise her daughter. But all a reporter had to do was apply a little elbow grease and he/she would have uncovered the lie. With a little investigative gumption, a reporter would have at least raised some questions concerning the vicitm. But, we don’t do that here. The Feminists would never allow it. At least Vance recognized the disaster early on. He saw what happened in the Duke rape case, and he obviously wanted no part in the humiliation.
I’m so ashamed. I thought Strauss-Kahn had raped a poor hard-working maid. Now I learn that all he is accused of is paying a whore who has connections with criminals (don’t they all) to have basic sex with him, and possibly forcing her to do more than the basics. I feel such a fool to have doubted this fine gentleman.
I feel the same way.
ar, I hope, and I suppose you may too, that this distinguished personage, S-K, who is frequently required to travel because of his lofty position on the world stage, often resorts to mixing pen·i·cil·lin with his cornflakes when on the road. You know, STDs and such.
According to article below we the tax payer of the USA funds 17% of the IMF. Should we be rethinking this?
DSK living in a $50,000. Where did he make all his money?
http://dailybail.com/home/chart-who-funds-the-imf.html
From what I have read here the prostitution may have been enabled by the Hotel Workers Union. If that is the case, it is a scandal in itself.
The Lessons of the DSK Affair. Contrary to the thrust this article by Ron Radosh, the lesson learned has little to do with the Lame Scream Media (LSM) circus that arose. Rush to judgment, pro or con is the LSM set position. What we have seen is the proper operation of the prosecution. The Police and Prosecutor acted properly when it appeared DSK was fleeing the country, after all we see how celebrity rapist are held in high esteem in France. A man as wealthy as DSK could easily jump bail and skip the country, with or without a passport, so incarceration was advised. Then the prosecutor just shut up, and continued to investigate, and continues to do so. Has a crime been committed? I think so. The question as yet does not have a clear answer as to who did what.
This stands in stark contrast to the Duke Lacrosse PERsecution.
Thorns for the LSM! Roses for the Police and Prosecutor!!! For DSK president of France?
A few further points.
I’ll bet that DSK’s Defense Team has warned the hotel maid that they’ll release a gossip-a-day until she agrees to their settlement offer, no trial and her silence. No book contract either.
Of course the hotel union would support the hotel maid; that’s their job. But speculation that the union is engaged in offering its employees as prostitutes is far-fetched; this would have leaked long, long ago by other employees. And, by hotel customers, not all of whom would have appreciated being approached by the maid offering her ‘services’.
So far, the only actual evidence is the truth: a sexual act took place.
Then, there’s her report, supported by observation, of being traumatized. And DSK’s statement, after first denial, that ‘it was consensual’. That’s it.
Now come a few statements that are puzzling. IF she was, as the Defense is leaking, a prostitute, then, why didn’t DSK say that this was the case? But he said – nothing, not a word about this. He made no mention of her making an offer, of any payment. Nothing. Not a word for ..how long..months?
If she threatened extortion – why didn’t DSK say a word about this? All he ever said was ‘consensual’. That’s it.
As for the other data about her – again, why would it take so long to come out, and furthermore – what does any of it, true or not true, have to do with this case? Nothing. IF she lied on her immigration forms, this does NOT mean that DSK did NOT attack and rape her.
IF she was a prostitute, then, the rest of the gossip doesn’t even need to be made public. But if she is not, then, until she agrees to the settlement and to silence – it will be one-new-item-a-day.
No, I disagree with Mr. Radosh’s ‘rush-to-judgment’. He hasn’t provided a single fact, a shred of evidence. And above all, he hasn’t critiqued the bits of gossip leaked from only one source: the Defense Team. Nor has he examined the agenda of that Team: no trial.
First of all, the facts about the accuser are not “gossip”.
Secondly, it was the prosecution team that found the accuser’s criminal background and history of telling lies about being raped.
Thirdly, the accuser lied to the prosecution on several occasions.
Three strikes.
Please provide proof that the Defense Team are doing nothing but waiting for the trial and did not provide any leads to the Prosecution about these allegations.
Please provide proof about the ‘criminal background’ of the maid. And the ‘false accusations’ of rape.
And proof that these allegations are ‘facts’ rather than gossip. So far, there’s no evidence of any of them; such ‘talk’.
And how about focusing on my critique of the case:
- If it’s prostitution, then why didn’t DSK say so?
- If it’s extortion, then why didn’t DSK say so?
- If the above are ‘facts’, then why isn’t the DA charging the maid, the union and the hotel?
Thanks in advance for your attention to the facts.
I would say her admission to lying about being raped before is very relevant to the case. Even if she was raped by him at this point the case is dead due to her credibility. Reading many if the comments here it’s plainly obvious many wanted to see this guy god down for nothing more than being wealthy and French. Sounds mostly like plain jealousy to me. He’s never being convicted of a crime despite whatever rumors are flying around about him. A french womanizing politician is nothing new, grow up some of you. The accuser on the other hand is a proven liar and tax evader by her own admission with questionable links to crime. I would say she is the one who needs to be investigated and sent to prison of convicted.
Are you serious? The maid is a ‘proven liar’ and ‘tax evader’? Provide proof. Oh – and so are a great number of Obama’s staff and the Democratic party.
That has zilch to do with the facts of the case. Equally, the ‘fact’ that he’s French and a womanizer are not relevant.
Yes, their were assumptions about DSK but there were also assumptions about the woman. My liberal friends, especially those with ties to Africa, automatically assumed that the maid had to be an innocent victim. A poor African immigrant, working in a dirty job as a hotel maid, trying hard to survive in a poverty surely was attacked by an evil white man from a former imperialist colonizing country.
Assumptions about both people turned out to be incorrect.
You don’t know about the ‘assumptions’ about the hotel maid – either her poverty status or what the Defense Team are now leaking. You can’t say whether they are correct or incorrect.
Just stick with the facts:
1) A sexual act took place.
2) Maid appears traumatized. Claims rape. Man claims consensual.
Period.
3) Now, come the facts about the Defense Team. Under no circumstances do they want a trial. It would rest on her word/his word.
4) Now come the ‘leaks’ – which the Defense Team can claim are not from them or were ‘misinterpreted’. Since there will be no trial, there is no need to prove these as factual. What’s the agenda? To persuade the hotel maid NOT to testify.
If she refuses to testify, the prosecution has no case.
5)The puzzling gossip..remains puzzling.
- They claim it was an act of prostitution. Then why didn’t DSK bring this up immediately?
- They claim there is a ring of such extortion practiced in the hotel. Then, why haven’t such rumors appeared before? Including the outrage from guests who refused the services?
- They claim that she ‘cleaned two rooms after the event’. Doesn’t make sense; if you want to present a believable rape scenario – then, you don’t do that.
It would be instantly on the record that this was done. Again – if this were true – why did it take so long to emerge?
- They claim that the union is involved in the ‘ring’. Really? If this is true, the hotel would have to instantly break its contract with them, and the government would have to take the union to court. Bet this won’t happen.
-money deposited in her bank? Heh – any hacker could to that easily.
No- I think the ‘facts’ are that the Defense Team wants to make sure that there is no trial and that the maid remains silent. With a settlement. That settlement will also be silent.
Those are not facts. Here are the facts:
First of all, the facts about the accuser are not “gossip”.
Secondly, it was the prosecution team that found the accuser’s criminal background and history of telling lies about being raped.
Thirdly, the accuser lied to the prosecution on several occasions.
Three strikes.
I think we should all be celebrating the fact that one of the wealthiest and most powerful old married white men chose to share his precious body with a poor diseased black prostitute. Few minorities get to experience such altruism. God bless the man.
Sorta puts the “It’s not the facts that matter, but the seriousness of the charge” on another foot, dunnit?
Another comment – why isn’t the Defense Team, with all its declared allegations about the hotel maid, instead insisting on a trial, and, keeping silent about these allegations? After all, IF this is a massive extortion scheme, DSK could be shown as a victim of Evil Greed..and so on. He’d be a hero! He’d not only be back in the IMF; he’d go on to greater glory!
Why doesn’t it declare that ‘at the trial’ – the claim made by the maid will be shown as false (rape is her only claim); and that instead, her act was part of a massive extortion scam carried out by the maid, her coherts, the union and so on? After all, the defense is claiming they have ‘all the facts’! So, it ought to be a real easy trial! Why not go for a trial?
Or is it the case that the Defense doesn’t want a trial. Any trial. Is it possible that this is the real reason for these leaks? Is it possible that none of these allegations could be proven in court?
And the real agenda, now, is to prevent a trial by persuading the maid not to testify?
Again – IF it was a prostitution act, then why didn’t DSK say so immediately? If he was being extorted, then, why didn’t he say so immediately? If the union is involved, then – why doesn’t the hotel break their contract this very day? Why doesn’t the state take the union to court?
Or – is the real agenda: no trial. That would leave everyone intact. The maid, the union, the hotel..and DSK.
You’re flailing around rather desperately, with all these unfounded speculations about the defence team.
It’s the prosecution team which discovered, and publicised, the criminal background, previous lies, and current lies of the accuser. Conveniently you ignore the facts of the case, and persist in throwing unproven claims at the defence.
“Many of us immediately assumed that Dominque Strauss-Kahn was guilty; he had to be since he is rich, he headed the IMF, and he is a French Socialist.”
And since he had a history of aggressive womanizing.
DSK was knocking off a piece in NY before a nice family visit with his daughter and son-in-law; a little sexual calisthenics of the sort JFK relished whenever Jacquie wasn’t present. We don’t know yet whether DSK forced, paid, or what. But he and his extravagantly rich wife are smiling; what’s wrong with this picture? And what’s wrong with BHL talking about “restoring his honor”? What honor would that be?
This is the real and long lasting problem that Feminazism has inflicted on men.
Even thought DSK is going to be released, the charges dropped, and the money returned to him, there are even some men so broken and castrated by the Feminazis that they will continue to argue that he is really guilty, the prosecutors just couldn’t prove it.
In 2011 it no longer matters if women lie about what man did, even if it proven to be a lie.
The Feminazis will still claim that the man is guilty and deserves punishment because no man is really ever innocent, all men are just sex crazed rapists and women killers.
First – what if the assertions of rape are true and not due to ‘feminazis’?
Second – what about the Islamist claims that a woman not wearing the burka and veil so incite men that SHE is the cause of being raped?
What about the Islamist claim that ‘scantily dressed women’ are the cause of earthquakes?
My point is that your claim that accusations of rape are, by definition, false, because of the existence of ‘feminazis’ is as illogical as the Islamist claims.
Now you’re getting incoherent.
ETAB proves my point by his rabid accusations.
It used to be in America that a man was innocent until he was proven guilty, but in Feminazi Fascist America, a man is guilty even after he has been proven innocent!
But he hasn’t been proven innocent.
Again, your rabid claim that America is all about ‘feminazism’ is as irrational a claim as the Islamist claims that scantily clad women cause earthquakes. Get real.
The latest “narrative” being established by the indispensable NYPost is that this international hero of socialism tried to exploit an entrepreneurial “sex worker” by not paying her for services rendered — in other words, he committed the sort of offense that should get him brought up on charges before the labor police who enforce workplace arrangements, at the very least. And besides, in NY johns are as guilty as janes, aren’t they? So whether he forced or paid or “stiffed” her, in the Post’s headlinese, it’s all illegal. Yet he and his wife are still smiling.
Another reason why we might have thought he was guilty — he left a lot of stuff behind (including his cellphone) — in his haste to exit the Sofitel and get on that Air France flight (where he immediately started mashing a flight attendant, if anyone remembers that).
Please excuse and forgive me for earlier harshly condemning this man.
DSK’s shady, unwholesome character is very troubling. The fact that DSK attempted to sexually assault the young French woman in France some years ago certainly made DSK appear guilty. This attempted assault is common knowledge in France. What did really happen with the maid in the New York hotel room?
“So let us take pause and be grateful that DA Vance, Jr. has shown the courage to do what is right”
It was Vance’s office which issued this quote at the time of the arrest:
“The defendant restrained a hotel employee inside of the room,” Mr. McConnell said. “He sexually assaulted her and attempted to forcibly rape her,” and when that failed, Mr. McConnell said, he forced her to perform oral sex. McConnell is an assistant DA under Vance.
A good article , Ron, but I’m having trouble seeing the “courage.”
“Yes, many people were happy to see DSK dragged down to the gutter, including many of those who write for this site, since we were happy to see the rich self-proclaimed French socialist who lived in $5000 a night hotel rooms and a $50,000 a month Tribeca apartment so ridiculed. ”
It was Hannah Arendt, in writing about Robespierre, the great pitier of the French multitudes, that nails this moral distortion. Initially motivated by compassion, Robespierre’s exclusive pity for the underdog lost a capacity for maintaining considerations of the foundations of impartial justice and its underlying principle of law, “the application of the same rules to those who sleep in palaces and those who sleep under the bridges of Paris”. Rawls’ “veil of ignorance” tries to provide a patch for that radical inclination. Too bad media ethicists are not likely to try to follow the principles of pristine justice.
Yes, absolutely.
However I feel there is another narrative being established here. And that is that the left are always for the poor and exploited and the right are on the part of the oppressors and the rich, to the extent, and thus endorsing this narrative, that the facts come only second to those agendas.
Whereas the truth is more in line with that which we also see manifested here, and that is that the collectivist left is actually the grouping of the fat cats and oppressors.
There’s such a big deal being made about this woman being a prostitute, an immigration scammer & some kind of extortionist. It’s almost as if they uncovered something really “incriminating” like she’s a…Conservative Republican.
It’s a oomplex situation that may never be fully revealed to the public.
I assumed DSK was guilty, not because the maid was portrayed as a poor immigrant, but because the police acted so swiftly, and seemingly, authoritatively. Perhaps, given the circumstances, they were correct to do what they did, but whether or not they were correct, their actions were what persuaded me. Of course, I also loved the fact that a powerful socialist was involved since I consider them all hypocrits of the highest order.
At the moment, it appears to be an extortion scheme, but there could be several twists yet to be revealed. It also appears that DSK was guilty of rape, or he would be demanding HIS day in court. There appear to be no angels in this one.
It seems to me that the only lesson is that the world is full of bad people. But rational people learned that lesson years ago. View this as a refresher course.
IF the situation now, is that the maid is part of a union prostitution ring, is the DA’s office going to prosecute her? And the union? After all – these are criminal acts! Isn’t the DA going to prosecute the maid(s), the union and even the hotel???
Or, as I suggest, are these gossip-leaks from the Defense Team, which they will not, by the way, make any official comment about (heh – can they not prove them??)…geared to one agenda only: to persuade the maid not to testify.
Again, none of the allegations against the maid have been shown as factual; they are hearsay gossip and it is important that the Defense Team refuses to comment on them. If they were facts – there is no reason to remain silent, even before a trial. After all – IF they were factual, the case could be dropped instantly, and the DA could charge the maid and the union.
Bet this won’t happen. Neither the maid nor the union will be charged. But, the maid will refuse to testify and that will be the ONLY reason the case doesn’t go to trial.
More and more ridiculous. It isn’t DSK’s lawyers who decide whether the false accuser will be charged. That’s the job of the DA.
You’ve slipped into a world of fantasy in your desperation to defend the indefensible.
Speaking of fantasy, please provide factual evidence that the maid is a ‘false accuser’.
As I said, all we can go on are the facts:
- a sexual act took place
- she said ‘rape
- he said ‘consensual’.
Period. There is no further evidence. And that includes tales of a unionized extortion ring, tales of a prostitution ring..and so on. Please note: IF these were factually based, then, the Defense could show this data to the DA and ask that the charges be dropped – and the maid and union be charged.
The point is, if the victim refuses to testify, then, there is NO case. That’s because the accusation of ‘rape’ rests, in large part, on the subject’s testimony. And if DSK’s lawyers can persuade her not to testify, then, the DA has no case.
How can they persuade her not to testify? By leaking gossip, which they themselves refuse to comment on (why not..if these are facts rather than gossip?). The gossip distorts a jury, turns high-minded citizens such as yourself instantly into attackers, and renders a case that rests, not on material facts but only, only, on believable words…impossible.
Now, why don’t you instead ask yourself:
- If it is prostitution, then, why didn’t DSK say so? Such a simple statement would have cleared it up instantly;
- If is is prostitution, then, why doesn’t the DA charge the maid and the union and even the hotel? After all, allowing their guests to be subjected to such a nefarious scheme – prostitution, accusations of rape, extortion – that’s criminal. So, where are the charges?
“If it is prostitution, then, why didn’t DSK say so?”
which is why I think it is a case of a scorpion and a wasp stinging each other.
If the accusations against the maid are false or irrelevant, then the people in the best position to know and act are the NYC authorities. They have already shown a willingness to act in the face of likely resistance, so there is some evidence that they will pursue the case if they believe thay can show DSK committed the only crime. If they drop it, it will likely be because they think the woman’s credibility is too dismal to convince a jury.
I see your point about the scorpion and wasp. My questions are:
1) If it was prostitution, then, DSK’s immediate defense ought to have been just that. Not ‘consensual’.
2) If it was prostitution – then, it’s not merely the maid at risk but the union and the hotel. Neither the union nor the hotel can afford to have such an action associated with them.
So- if it IS prostitution – does the hotel fire the maid?
Does the union defend her?
If the union is involved (and I doubt this; too risky)..does the hotel cancel their contract?
And – does the DA’s office file charges against the maid. And the union?
As you can see from the above – I think that a unionized prostitution ring running in the hotel is far-fetched. Too risky for ‘ad hoc’ exposure by a disgruntled guest and disastrous for both the union and the hotel’s legitimacy.
3) As for the maid’s ‘criminal past’ – with alleged lies on her refugee forms and so on – that’s irrelevant to the case. As are all the alleged complaints by French and other women about DSK’s ‘womanizing’.
4) It comes down to a ‘he said/she said’ scenario. And if she’s not a good witness on the stand, easily flustered and intimidated – then, the DA will wonder if they can get a jury to see past the irrelevancies by cross-examination about her ‘past’..and focus strictly on the situation.
5) But again, IF it’s prostitution, if the union is involved – then, the DA has to file charges against both her and the union. And the hotel has to cancel its contract with the union..immediately.
6) I still say that the evidence points to a behind-the-scenes settlement, an acceptance by the maid not of prostitution or of any allegation… but of silence about all the allegations.
That leaves DSK cloaked in the new ‘story’…without proof of either the old nor the new…and off he goes. Same with the maid. Same with the union. Same with the hotel. ‘The rest is silence’.
I don’t think it was prostitution, I think she intended to blackmail him all along by accepting money to drop the case. And I think he raped her, in the best tradition of Bill Clinton. Force probably gives him an extra boost.
All in all, a 360 degree slimefest. This time, they are both getting what they deserve.
Ahh, so you are saying that it WAS, effectively, rape. And that her response was not a court case but a settlement.
I’m not sure of your meaning ‘they are both getting what they deserve’. He gets bad publicity..for a while..and she gets a massive out-of-court settlement?
After all, if it WAS rape and she first wanted a settlement, she could have done the blackmail: ‘If you don’t give me money I’ll scream ‘rape’. Did that take place, and did he refuse? He could have then said to the DA: ‘she’s really a prostitute and she wouldn’t accept the sum I offered her; she wanted much more’.
Instead the puzzling thing is his statement: ‘It was consensual’. So, in that case, at that time – what did she get out of it? I can hardly think she was sexually attracted to him! If he paid her…and she said it wasn’t enough – he could have already told the DA this. That would have rapidly deflated the whole scenario. But he’s said absolutely nothing about this.
That’s why I go back to the original scene; he did attack her; she did accuse him of rape. Period. That’s all we know.
Then, his defense, not wanting a trial, which would be filled with smears about, not merely her, but him, have offered a settlement. As long as she accepts, without defense, some of the allegations. This will partly whitewash his reputation..and she gets the money.
Etab
“That’s all we know.”
but that’s so little and anything that the accusation manipulators wanted you to know
since the beginning DSK denied the fact, and only accept the supposed “consesuel intercourse”, as suggested by his lawers to get out of Rikers island.
Who in reality make Americans to forget the innocence presumption? The Ny police and prosecutor with their desinforming leaks.Strange position of the police and Sofitel administration.Imagine that the hotel`s maid who is known by her prostitution salaries have reported the duty manager that she have been raped by the IMF chief and he have repeated this not to his chief but to some police officer,who merrily hand-cuffs the French socialists` leader on prostitute`s denunciation. Do you believe in this stuff? You are right.
Why do we in theory hold to the idea of ‘presumed innocence’, because it is easy to accuse and difficult to prove that something didn’t happen. Don’t think so? Have somebody assert to you that there is an elephant on the roof of the building you are in and try proving it isn’t true, with the problem being since they didn’t have to prove themselves in the first place, for every proof you offer, not, they will simply assert another elusive and unproven, for.
When a criminal accusation is made the accuser must prove it, thank God, beyond a reasonable doubt. It is the state that brings the charges with their overwhelming numbers of experts, investigators and lawyers. The individual, in general, has his presumption, not being forced to testify, and whatever slender lawyerly resources he may scrape together to defend.
And by the way you are not at the end of a trial “innocent”, you are guilty or not guilty. Everyone knows you might indeed have performed the crime but the state has failed to prove so beyond a reasonable doubt. And that’s good for the freedom of the rest of us that the police and the state must follow strict procedure.
The ‘perp walk’, now how in any way does this do anything but decay the rights of the accused, the presumption of innocence? How does this further the rule of law in this country?
As to the importance of the woman’s veracity in the case, try renting an old movie “Witness for the Prosecution”. There is a cross examination that you will find instructive.
Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States goes into detail on the definition of “treason” and the proof thereof requiring two witnesses to prove same. Why do you suppose this crime and extraordinary proof was chosen for such focus?
As far as DSK staying for a trial of his accuser, why would he want to put his life on hold over this episode any longer than necessary?
Lastly, read George Orwell’s “Politics and the English Language”. It’s about political communications but his admonitions would serve very well in this case.
So … I welcome this as a little lesson in humility for everyone involved. Everyone, including those we disagree with, is innocent until proven guilty. DSK should feel some humility too. He may not have raped but he transgressed by philandering, foolishly and vainly walking into a trap, partly of his own making. Fortunately for him, the U.S. system affords him a better chance to defend himself and clear his name and in a much more transparent and expeditious manner than the French handled an “affair” involving a certain Monsieur Dreyfuss.
I would like to point out that the charges have NOT yet been dropped. SOMETHING happened in that room and BOTH have been caught in lies and he has the political ties and money and she has a bad reputation — who do you think is going to win here???
I would like to point something out, that I think is important to this discussion. The two people had sex. There is no argument about that, even DSK has admitted it. His argument is that it was consentual. So I’m supposed to believe that a woman in her middle years who goes to church and is supposedly pretty subdued, is confronted by this naked fat bald guy in a hotel room, and he tells her what he wants, and she gets on her knees and performs the way servants are expected to, apparently, in France. Have I got that right? The trick here is that her credibility has been called into question because she lied on a visa application and elsewhere, working the system to benefit herself. She’s an immigrant, for Pete’s sake, they all do it! Does that mean that it’s open season on them, feel free to rape or rob them, because no one will ever believe anything they said?
There’s an interesting parallel here. If DSK is not guilty because she has lied in the past, then OJ was innocent too, because Mark Fuhrman lied about saying the n-word some years ago. Now that it’s obvious to most everyone that OJ killed his wife and the boyfriend, Fuhrman denying having used the n-word seems rather trivial, doesn’t it? And the explanations of what his lie would have meant are much more transparently false. He killed his wife, and DSK raped this woman. Unfortunately, in America, if you have enough money or power, the rules are different. The prosecutors and the defense go over the life of the accuser with a fine-toothed comb, looking for any discrepancy which can be brought up at trial to make said accuser look like they’d made the allegation up. The idea that this woman would have sex with the French babe magnet is just silly, and as we know now from the Press, he has a habit of doing this with women he gets alone, in France, pretty much all the time. In America, when he was younger and less powerful, he’d have been weeded out and wound up working for a sleazy law firm or something; in France, everyone took this to be the way of the world, and the guy was allowed to rise into a position where he gets to do this as much as he wants. Color Bill Clinton envious. Meanwhile, we’re in the process of letting a rapist go, because the alternative would be to act like adults and treat everyone equal, and this guy’s rich, so that’s right out.
So, I take it the reported oral copulation was consensual not forced, that prostitutes never get raped, and even if you’re not on the jury, as a member of the public one is always obliged to give the reported miscreant the benefit of the doubt? I don’t think so. As I media consumer, or as media producer of reported misinformation and gossip, I can assume whatever I want.
It’s her word against his. So it comes down to a matter of credibility. It’s the defense’s job to make her look at bad as possible in this respect. It’s the prosecutions’s job to make her look as good as possible. In light of the info both the prosecution and the defense claim to possess, it seems going forward with the case is itself a case of diminishing returns.
Who knows what really happened in that room? One thing is for sure, people who state a sure case on one side or the other at this point are only revealing their own biases and nothing about reality.
Being stalked by a French skunk looks good in a cartoon but in real life having someone introduce themselves as your lover is problematic.
everyone was jumping on DSK. now they are jumping on the woman.
there isn’t enough information in the public domain to make any judgement.
seems like I woke up in the twighlight zone.
I agree with everybody.
Interesting. This episode of legal and journalist shenanigans illustrates the dangers in having all public information just another scene in entertainment for the masses. With no doubt the “hopes” of those on the stage to get their chance at stardom. On the one side the agents of Law, on the other the stars of the intelligentsia and the compassionates. Both speaking for those who annot speak for themselves. Neither side having experience of, except as servants of lowly caste,those they putatively champion.
Being superior they do not imagine some of lowly caste are quite able to speak for themselves, and having taken the measure of their champions know exactly which buttons to push. These champions who belong to the “Left” have spent their entire lives praising themselves for their compassion. Manipulating populations to further their aims of “elites” control over the lives of others, for their own good. Using the trusted gambit of pitting citizen against citizen. They had such success world-wide with their fairy tales during the Vietnam War they extended the ploy to race and sex-gender
Together race, sex, and proletariate versus class, it’s BULLS-EYE,for all:legal,journalism/showbiz,intelligentsia,and the example of those who cannot speak for themselves.
And how the high caste buy that product without looking into the package. Assumming that the seller is as honourable as are members of the compassionate left,who are on public record as the “most honourable of men” (women?) where’s the surprise. But ? whose? honour, what? honour. That is the intellectual conundrum, dilemma, n’est-ce-pas?
Yet (BHL) has a point when he argues that to many in our country, (DSK) had become “the symbol of arrogant France.”
Yes.
At the time of the incident, however, the French press, & seemingly the society at large, did display a rather disgusting outrage at DSK’s arrest.
You got the impression that in situations of great v. small, it incumbent upon the small to be intimidated into silence.
You likely won’t see any French appreciation of the fact that the prosecution here ferreted out the facts & compromised its own case.
He should have listened to Sarkosy when he left for the States. “Keep your hands in your pockets” he was advised.
Even if innocent of rape, he is guilty of lack of judgement.
I thought it was a hit-job from the beginning. Are we supposed to believe that this man, who could most likely get any woman he wanted, was so desperate for sex, that he attacked a black Moslem in a hijab??
Well, DSK has a reputation.
And there were stories that he’d already tried to entice some lobby staff/women up to his room at the Sofitel to share some champagne. And been refused.
Which may turn out to be false but, nevertheless…powerful guy sees target of opportunity isn’t too hard to believe, like Al Gore and the masseuse who, I believe, really was just there to give a massage and got attacked by a crazed sex poodle.
DSK seems like a nasty piece of work. not implying guilt. still this incident opened a few other stories …non nice.
I think we will never know the truth on this. there have also been stories about the DSK team spreading money around, so what ever the truth was it seems to be different now.
are the talking heads now doing to the maid what they did to DSK?
…money does things to people. I really doubt there will be truth or justice on this one.
While all the tabloids were screeching about moneybags Le Perv and the broadsheets were carrying on about how French sexual mores had led to this sorry episode here’s one guy who smelt a rat from the get go and started asking questions – yes once again a blogger does the legwork that journalists are too busy frothing at the mouth to do.
http://hat4uk.wordpress.com/the-strauss-kahn-waltz/
Well…Give me a while to get over my innate cynicism. Have we ever seen a little person villified and had a reputation shredded when making a charge against the rich and powerful? I really take the “official” statements with a grain of salt. The accusations against this woman might ALL be a pack of lies.
As a foreigner I respect the Americans` trust of your police,but the strange role of NY police in this case appeared non-commented.
I think you left out the most important revelation, that this woman’s whole legend of her experience in Guinea and her account of her arrival here and what was a story delivered to her by “a man” on a casette tape that “she had listened to repeatedly.”
That’s probably why DSK first initially contacted a security firm of some kind whose employees were previously employed with the CIA. I bet the “criminal network” thing is just disinformation, and that this affair had a much more sophisticated origin. Consider that on the morning of his arrest, and agreement had been made between Merkel/Germany, the IMF, Greece and ECB about a bailout package for Greece – the ongoing economic dislocations emanating from Europe could have been solved months earlier – had a calming affect on the market months earlier – if his trip to Germany had not been interrupted by this arrest. The antagonists presumably couldn’t have cared less about his popularity in France – whichever politician wins is not necessary material to foreign nations’ interests. I could be very wrong, of course, but this event seems to me to have had a much more proximate, immediate motivation.
“The Left always jumps to defend the supposed oppressed, whom they continue to defend even after the truth comes out.”
Y’never know, Ron. From today’s AOL News:
NOVELIST TO ACCUSE DSK OF ASSAULT
But don’t let anything stop you from taking a swipe at the left.
Next up: RR on Roger Kimball’s defense of the convicted fraudster Conrad Black.
Doesn’t say much for what human nature has evolved into here in America. It says even more of the media type folks who have no regards for the constitution and its processes while touting the greatness of it and repudiating so many others for having no regard of it.
One thing for certain, is that all to many folks can’t independently think and reason for themselves giving the media types one heck of a large audience to manipulate in almost any given issues. They haven’t a clue nor the desire to disclose how many times they make themselves the fools in the end. They just quickly forget and move on to another issues of self serving choice. Heck, most folks today, can’t even discern the difference between allegations and facts as witnessed continuously on the big four mediums of TV, radio, print and the hybrid internet. All combined with their followings, they are representative of human nature depicted and manipulated on the old Jerry Springer show.
I don’t have a clue what any ‘facts’ may be in this case but its up to the constitutional processes to be the trier of facts….not media folks and their herds of followers circumventing the processes to manipulate and direct guilt or right and wrong. Media folks (‘journalists’) today rarely represent anything more than speculative opinions and fantasy.
I never had a problem with people who thought DSK might have been wrongly accused. From the beginning, though, the media was full of Frenchmen who thought he damned well HAD done it, and had a right to do it because he was an important Eurocrat. Plenty of DSK’s most passionate defenders were as surprised by the maid’s inveracity as the American press was. If DSK turns out to be innocent, the most amazing outcome will be the instant amnesia of all his partisans, who had been so comfortable and blase up to that point about his guilt.
The American courts were ready to prosecute a man they believed to be a criminal, and the French intelligentsia were prepared to canonize a man THEY believed to be a criminal. That’s your takeaway here.
All we need here is brown leather binding for this roaring, soaring, crashing, musical score …maybe Wagner’s Ring music….or, an atonal Berlioz crescendo as entry music for the big fire-breathing dragon…… shrieking harridans off to one side, and one large lumbering mustachioed evil looking lecher…..his girth draped with the flag of France.
….and a claque stage-left feverishly taking short-hand notes onto quivering notepads with their pages being ripping off during sequential hot trumpet blasts, and made into flying litter…. until….. settling quietly along street gutters, waiting for the sweepers.
Are you joking? Of course I was not jumping to conclusions, and I’m quite confident in the good work of the judges in America, BUT… were a right-wing personality been accused, how do you think the media (and consequently, the people, the mob) would have been behaved?
So, I just think we should practice some character assassination too, specially when someone deserves it (like a leftist), do you really think being a leftist is just a civil disagreement, a civilized difference of opinion? People who would crush your country, pulverize the economy and kill given the opportunity (as they have already done) ? really?
Let me see if I understand this correctly? Cyrus Vance has “improved” the DA’s office in Manhattan by providing Smart Phones to his attorneys. And, then he spared no expense on this case checking out the maid?
HELLO. This is not an immigration issue. It’s going to be terrifying to think that “if you go to the cops to report a crime,” the first thing they’ll do is check with the IRS? And, then they’ll go over your tax return?
Oh. And, the DA will complain that the Sofitel, a 5-star corporately run Manhattan hotel is really a hot bed of prostitution? Sure, their rates seem high to me. But if it comes with a prostitute in your bed, whose to say that $5,000 a night isn’t full of unexpected services?
While, now, ahead, I expect Dominique to be extradited to france. As soon as the American judge hands him back his passport.
Sacre blu, (and, no I don’t speak french) … the french laws will beat our American Justice System? I can’t wait for the extradition ceremony.
Just because she is a LIAR, does not mean he DID NOT RAPE her. He may go free because of it, but based his past history of RAPE, I seriously doubt he is innocent… rather he is LUCKY to have raped someone that would not be believed because of her past history of lying.
Maid or IMF head, innocent until proven guilty.
Left and right BOTH ignore this precept …on a daily basis.
Politically, historically, it’s a short trip from here to lining people up against a wall and shooting them out of hand…
I also couldn’t help but notice yet another example – DSK vs the maid – where the right bought the MSM narrative, hook, line and sinker…and spread the MSM’s propaganda for them. Anyone who disagreed with you was, apriori, nuts. Now, as usual, you’re furiously backpedalling on each and every count…and arguing over which among was the most wrong or the most corect in your assertions, despite the initial dearth of facts.
The hotel maid should have stuck to prostitution,money laundering, and drug dealing. But she went over her pay grade when she tried to shake down one of the worlds most powerful men.
DSK attacking a woman at his age? This story stunk on ice from the very beginning.
Dirty old men generally require the cooperation of a woman too young to give consent for an attack to occur. . “Rich and Powerful Men” is a propaganda term kidding people who are out maneuvered by experience and cunning and stroking the egos of those who are on the decline that they still have it but the truth is that after the age of 50 everyone begins declining and by 70 there is very few men that can assault anyone.
DSK is an obnoxious jerk but most 32 year old women could take him in a fight despite his political acumen.
Don’t bet your life on it. As counterexample, google Epic Beard Man on Youtube.
calling Kobe Bryant!!!
Nice piece, Ron.
Reax in general to the case(s) There have been many in the sphere who have questioned the practice of trusting the word of the accuser in a sexual assult case, incidental to the DSK case, that alternately held their silence, else brandished the tar and feathers, back in the day of the Justice Thomas show trial…. errr… confirmation.
I think the question needs be asked, would someone who wasn’t a socialist, have gotten so many on the left to question the way sexual assault cases have been handled for so long? You KNOW it wouldn’t go down that way. DSK gets support from the left over his sexual accuser, and gets to question the validity of the accusations in a way that, say, Justice Thomas never got to do Anita Hill, simply because he’s a leftst. We both know the left, and particularly the feminist left, would never allow such credibility questions to surface under any other condition.I should say, too, that Crystal Mangum and the Duke Lacrosse Team put the first leak in that dike. (And yes, I know, bad pun.)
There’s this also: The question of where he goes to “get his reputation back”…. Sigh…. Let’s imagine that this was a set-up…. a position with some validity, given the record of the accuser.
What then do we have? We have a player who played DSK because she knew how he’d react. How’d she know this? The reputation of the man. She did what she did because she knew he’d play his own part. I’m sorry, gang, but I don’t see as there’s much of DSK’s rep to salvage.
I had no doubt from the start that the woman was lying. But apparently there was no question about the fact of sexual relations. Hence my position: he deserves what he gets just on the basis of an appalling lack of taste.