NY Times: Dominique Strauss-Kahn Prosecution in Jeopardy

The New York Times reports the Dominique Strauss-Kahn prosecution may be falling apart due to problems with the accuser's credibility. Prosecutors are going to agree to a reduction in his bail conditions on Friday -- to a personal recognizance bond without monitoring conditions -- and charges may ultimately be dropped.

The Times reports the accuser has lied repeatedly to law enforcement since reporting the sexual assault allegation. The lies weren't about the incident with DSK, but about her asylum application and possible ties to drugs and money laundering. Keep reading, you won't believe it.

She's on tape the day after the incident talking on the phone to a jail inmate accused of possessing 400 pounds of marijuana about the benefits of pursuing charges against DSK. This same man is "one of several individuals" in several states who made multiple cash deposits into her bank account totaling $100,000. She denied knowing about the deposits, saying her fiance [who apparently is the jail inmate]and friends must have made them. She's paid hundreds of dollars a month in phone bills to five different phone companies, but told investigators she only had one phone. [More...]

And then there's this:

In addition, one of the officials said, she told investigators that her application for asylum included mention of a previous rape, but there was no such account in the application. She also told them that she had been subjected to genital mutilation, but her account to the investigators differed from what was contained in the asylum application.

I wonder what the rape exam showed about evidence of genital mutilation.

Prosecutors reportedly are now asking for a misdemeanor plea. Good luck with that. They'll be lucky if DSK doesn't file a huge civil rights lawsuit against them and the cops. That's probably what the meetings are really about -- getting a promise from DSK not to sue. [just a bit of snark, of course that's not allowed.]

It sounds like this case will be dismissed. Cyrus Vance will have much deserved egg all over his face. (I'm glad I supported his opponent.) The DA's sex crime unit was apparently in such a hurry to detain DSK they did no homework and took the accuser at her word. All they had to do was conduct a proper investigation, and if her account panned out, get a sealed indictment and arrest him the next time he came to NY. DSK would have been none the wiser. Instead they staged a perp walk, and DSK became the biggest pariah and media sensation since Bernie Madoff. The buck stops with Vance.

Others who should walk the hall of shame if the Times is right: the accuser's lawyers, who despite barely knowing her, grabbed every opportunity to mug for the cameras and vouch for her credibility and her character.

How does DSK get his reputation back? You may not think he deserves it, after all the post-arrest media stories about his womanizing. But he had one until his arrest, and those stories would never have been published but for the arrest. Not only did he lose his IMF job, but his chances of running for President of France were obliterated. All because of an accusation, that according to the New York Times, the prosecution is now willing to dismiss. The DA's office isn't Emily Littela, they shouldn't just get to say, "Never mind." There should be serious consequences for this kind of recklessness.

< DOJ's Ogden Memo on Medical Marijuana Goes Up in Smoke | Debt Limit Strategies >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Dunno. (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by lentinel on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 04:30:23 AM EST
    Something in this story seems off to me.

    Firstly, there is this:
    This account in the Times is "according to two well-placed law enforcement officials." They remain unnamed in the article.

    Is this article basically a leak from an unnamed source?

    Secondly, there is this:
    In the article, which offers negative allegations about the character of the accuser, it also confirms that,
    "...forensic tests found unambiguous evidence of a sexual encounter between Mr. Strauss-Kahn, a French politician, and the woman..." (What forensic tests? What are the conditions under which they are claiming that this unambiguous sexual encounter took place?)

    I felt that the initial treatment of Strauss-Kahn was terrible and a blot on American law enforcement and on the nature of American media.

    But something about this latest story doesn't quite add up for me.

    I agree (none / 0) (#34)
    by lilburro on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 10:02:34 AM EST
    she doesn't seem as sympathetic as she was before, but the sexual encounter apparently still happened...the suggestion is that she was hired to do this somehow?  It doesn't seem all that odd to me that someone would mull the benefits of pursuing a rape charge or not.

    I feel like I'm at the 45 minute mark in a Law and Order episode.


    My feeling is it's minute 59... (none / 0) (#46)
    by Addison on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 11:38:09 AM EST
    ...all that's left in this episode is some sarcastic, wise parting remark from Adam Schiff and then a lingering shot on Jack contemplating the place of morality in the justice system.

    So, let me see if I understand this... (5.00 / 6) (#33)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 10:00:50 AM EST
    She's not being accused of lying about the incident between her and DSK, only - so far - about other things - the details of the asylum application and possible ties to drugs and money laundering.

    DSK isn't being portrayed as being truthful about the incident between himself and his accuser, but is being judged by incidents that involved other women.

    Seems to me that having a credible accusation of rape should not require that the background and reputation of the alleged victim be pure as the driven snow, and the believability of an assertion of innocence by the accused rapist should not be dependent on him having his own sterling reputation.

    She could be a liar who's lying about this, too, and he could be telling the truth.

    Whatever is going on here, being played out via leaks and anonymous reporting, is no substitute for either of these participants having their day in court.  These developments could very well end in dismissal of charges, but it won't really do anything to answer the questions, or stop the belief that this is just one more example of the rich and powerful getting a different kind of justice than the average person.

    Frenzy. (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by lentinel on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 10:53:17 AM EST
    Whatever is going on here, being played out via leaks and anonymous reporting, is no substitute for either of these participants having their day in court.  These developments could very well end in dismissal of charges, but it won't really do anything to answer the questions, or stop the belief that this is just one more example of the rich and powerful getting a different kind of justice than the average person.

    Yes indeed.

    • The information about the accuser's character has come from leaks from unnamed "well-placed (?) law enforcement officials".

    • The fact that there is unambiguous evidence of a sexual encounter is uncontested.

    Everyone initially jumped to the conclusion that Strauss-Kahn was guilty. He was tried and convicted by the media. Maureen Dowd wrote one hell of a column calling him every name in the book that was synonymous with "degenerate".

    Now, it seems that with no more evidence than a leak from unnamed sources, everyone is jumping to conclusions about the character of the person making the allegations as to the nature of the encounter.

    It seems to me to be the same reflex.

    As you wrote, the is no substitute for either of these participants having their day in court, although perhaps what we are witnessing is a preamble to some kind of out-of-court settlement in which neither participant is either exonerated nor condemned.


    Worth mentioning... (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 11:10:21 AM EST
    it is the law & order side ("the good guys" to the hopelessly naive) doing all the accusing before getting their ducks in a row.

    They slimed DSK prematurely, and now they slime the accuser prematurely to cover their arse for sliming DSK prematurely.  What a justice system!


    It's crucial in these types (none / 0) (#50)
    by brodie on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 11:47:07 AM EST
    of she said vs he said cases that the accuser have good credibility coming in, since the burden is on the prosecution.  She doesn't need to have a spotless record on that score, but there also shouldn't be substantial evidence that she may have been fabricating or greatly exaggerating the story, perhaps for personal gain or to help others in some scheme.

    And not all cases deserve to be brought to trial, much as it sounds good to say both sides should have their day in court.  Any reasonably honest and competent prosecutor's office, with not unlimited resources and presumably plenty of other cases to investigate/prosecute, has to carefully assess the cred of the accuser before deciding to take the final step of going forward to court.  

    No one outside of the two participants knows the real truth here, but if prosecutors decide there's easily some reasonable doubt to her story -- which appears to be the case now -- the right thing to do is drop the charges.


    Wow... (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by Addison on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 10:13:08 AM EST
    ...so regardless of what happened now there won't be justice. If he's innocent (to whatever degree) he's still lost his job and generally been dragged through the mud. If he's guilty he may get away just because the alleged victim has a checkered past and did a poor job trying to cover that up. Yikes. I'd almost prefer a trial, just from the standpoint of sussing out what on Earth happened here.

    If the charges are dropped in time, he (none / 0) (#44)
    by tigercourse on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 11:29:05 AM EST
    could end up as the next President of France.

    I think that's a ridiculous assertion... (none / 0) (#45)
    by Addison on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 11:36:39 AM EST
    ...he's toast on that count. He hasn't been vindicated in total, he's been released from house arrest. The alleged victim is not backing down in her assertions and has some cause to now go public in a mass media blitz now that the legal push has suffered this setback.

    Moreover, he hasn't won over any new friends in France, he's merely regained some old allies and defenders. That won't be enough, politically speaking, especially not in the timeframe of the next elections.

    I think the narrative of his return and ascendancy to the top of the French presidential polls is largely media hyperbole to wring the last drops of sensationalism out of the case. "Wouldn't that make a good plot for my first book, err, I mean news story", all the failed novelists in the mainstream media are thinking.

    But we'll see.


    His party seems (none / 0) (#51)
    by Nemi on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 11:52:48 AM EST
    ready to welcome him back though. I posted a link about this from the Guardian earlier, but it has been removed (for reasons unknown to me).

    True... (none / 0) (#53)
    by Addison on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 12:03:49 PM EST
    One faction of his party (his allies) are welcoming him back and pushing the idea of his political resurrection between now and when the Socialist nominee is chosen. These are his cronies, for lack of a better word. His Axelrods and Roves.

    The other factions of his party (and Socialist voters) are "welcoming him back" because he had been a black eye on the party and now the situation can be neutralized to some degree. But those other factions still have no interest in helping DSK get the nomination (if Perry was arrested and then released from prison, Romney might welcome his release, but Romney supporters would still be for Romney and still seek to undermine Perry in the GOP nomination battle). And he may be guilty -- the charges stand and the credibility crisis for the alleged victim appears to be unrelated directly to the alleged sexual assault.

    DSK just doesn't have the political strength to win the election next year. That he is getting some support in the media from his party is not indicative of his actual strength as a politician at the moment, it's just what public relations mandates for French Socialists.

    That's my opinion, anyway.


    And at this point (none / 0) (#58)
    by Nemi on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 01:07:03 PM EST
    your opinion is certainly as good as anyone's. ;)

    But I don't think you should - or can - compare the situation to anything going on in US politics. And I wouldn't rule out the French voters - depending of course on what happens next in N.Y. - would be willing to give him a chance. He was actually quite popular before this broke. Besides, the French seem sick and tired of Sarkozy, so ...

    Only time will tell.


    You never know -- (none / 0) (#52)
    by brodie on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 12:02:13 PM EST
    today's events in the case are pretty stunning -- why assume further such huge stories are "ridiculous" to contemplate?  All remaining charges could be dropped soon enough for him to return to France and still engage in a campaign, with a mostly positive reception back home not just from his own party.  

    Sarko is very unpopular (the most unpopular, currently, in the history of presidents of la Cinquième République, iirc) and the recently announced French SP candidate -- Martine Aubry -- is apparently not known for being a great campaigner but is also friendly with DSK, so a decision could easily be made for her to gladly step aside for the person previously expected to be the SP' nominee.  There is already talk among top party people, in public, of perhaps delaying the SP nominating convention this summer in order to accommodate the DSK legal situation and the possibility of his return.

    Hardly ridiculous to contemplate.  


    We'll see... (none / 0) (#55)
    by Addison on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 12:08:20 PM EST
    ...I think it's ridiculous for the reasons I stated in the above comment and a later one on the same thread. Maybe it's not. It's just my opinion. We will see what happens in the next few months.

    That's with current facts in place, of course... (none / 0) (#56)
    by Addison on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 12:23:04 PM EST
    Let me add, though, that if the alleged victim does not begin the media blitz her lawyer has promised (she speaks French, so such a blitz would be in the French language as well, so it would play expansively in France), or if  ifshe withdraws her charges entirely, or her credibility on the event itself is totally cratered*, DSK will have a much better chance as a short-term political resurrection because he can play the martyrdom card more easily and more effectively.

    *Some French reports are currently saying that the victim lied/failed to fully inform investigators about the timeline of the alleged attack. Specifically, that she cleaned another room before reporting the alleged attack to the hotel management/police. I don't know about the veracity of that.


    WOW! (none / 0) (#1)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 11:44:23 PM EST
    Just WoW.

    Lots of leaked, anonymously provided (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 11:45:44 PM EST
    information.  Why?

    I've never heard of a prosecutor's office offering to drop some but not all charges in exchange for a promise not to sue.  

    nor should they (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 11:54:18 PM EST
    But I wouldn't be surprised if it was implied and understood that DSK wouldn't sue if they dropped all charges and agreed to a pr bond.

    As for the leaks, since they are coming from law enforcement and the defense refused to comment, I assume the DA and cops are trying to get ahead  of the story to control it and save as much face as they can. This is such a surprise and a shocker, they want it revealed in their words.

    Also, the Times says they are willing to drop all the current charges if he'll plead to added misdemeanor (in other words, they aren't asking him to plead to anything he's currently charged with. At least that's the way I read it.)


    Sounds to me like the sex crime unit (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 12:04:32 AM EST
    investigators are trying to save themselves at the expense of the DA's office.

    Christine Lagarde is the new head of the IMF (none / 0) (#5)
    by Dan the Man on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 12:26:03 AM EST
    The NYPD sex crimes unit has done its jobs, and its services are no longer needed.

    Why do French believe in Strauss arrest Conspiracy (none / 0) (#6)
    by Dan the Man on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 12:40:34 AM EST

    Daily Beast Link

    "As Strauss-Kahn languishes on Rikers Island, his brilliant career allegedly upended by his appendage, the French are calling conspiracy on the whole affair. A new poll shows a full 57 percent smell a plot (only 32 percent don't) as the disgraced head of the IMF and erstwhile Socialist Party frontrunner for France's 2012 presidential election is due before a grand jury on Friday. The poll doesn't ask a plot by whom?"

    Those stupid French.  Why do they believe in such absurd conspiracy theories right?

    His reputation? (none / 0) (#7)
    by ThersW on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 12:45:48 AM EST
    How does DSK get his reputation back? You may not think he deserves it, after all the post-arrest media stories about his womanizing. But he had one until his arrest, and those stories would never have been published but for the arrest.

    Those stories were about worse than "womanizing." They were about predation. Probably he should not have been arrested in this situation, but that hardly means that, well, there's no reason to give a fig about the remnants of his "reputation."

    He had sex with an immigrant hotel maid half his age. Was it a case of innocent mutual love? Legally, who knows, but -- he wanted to be president of France? The hell?

    That the prosecution screwed up royally hardly absolves the guy from anyone drawing harsh conclusions about his fitness for, well, humanity.

    Any threat of him suing is hollow. Like he wants his past resurrected.  

    what a smug (5.00 / 0) (#8)
    by observed on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 01:09:26 AM EST
    Comment.  I am reminded of when  Adam Bonin brought up Juanita Broaddrick, back when  he was promoting candidate Obama on Dk.  I pointed out that she had recanted her charge in court, to which he said that so had Paula Jones. Some people just have no  respect for the law, and too much for gossip. I  wonder about the humanity of those who  care so much about the private lives  of  others.

    thanks observed (none / 0) (#11)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 01:22:26 AM EST
    I agree with you. It's really bizarre to me to read those kind of comments.

    you are judging his (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 01:21:22 AM EST
    extra-marital affairs by the moralistic, puritanical standards so prevalent in the U.S. His reputation wasn't sullied in France. He was absolved of wrongdoing on the one affair that was investigated, and after the investigation, he was still viewed as a leading contender for President with a vast support network.

    The other women came out of the woodwork after his arrest in this case. And wouldn't have, but for his arrest. No "predation" has been proved.

    It's not just that the prosecution screwed up, it's that if the accuser is not credible, you can't trust her story that any encounter between them was not consensual -- he may have offered her money which she accepted -- or it may have been a setup by his political opponents.

    He did not have a world-wide reputation as an out of control predator/freak before this arrest. Now he does.

    I don't think people should impose their views of fidelity and marriage on others -- especially those from other cultures. His wife stayed with him after the investigation into the one affair. It's really between them and not our business, nor do I think anyone's sex life has much bearing on whether he or she can lead a nation. (What does have bearing is if they lie about it to the public afterwards.) America seems to be the only country obsessed with their politician's sex life.


    look at (none / 0) (#14)
    by observed on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 01:30:11 AM EST
    Spitzer.  Is the public  better off without him in office?  Same goes for Weiner, who was doing great work on C. Thomas's serious  ethics  problems.

    Better off without Spitzer... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 08:52:28 AM EST
    too much different rules different fools to bear with that cat...ya just can't have an Attorney General or Governor who works to put sex workers in jail while patronizing sex workers.

    As a citizen, (none / 0) (#19)
    by lentinel on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 07:12:53 AM EST
    I do think that we are better off without either of them in office.

    They can't operate in a vacuum.

    If they know that certain behavior, if discovered, can result in a total evaporation of their credibility and their ability to function effectively in government, they should control their behavior until they are out of office. Not to do so jeopardizes the welfare of the people that they have been elected to serve.

    Weiner put his bizarre psyche ahead of whatever work he was doing on Clarence Thomas. He had to know that he would be discovered. If he didn't, he is too stupid to be in office anyway.

    Clinton put his whatever ahead of the interests of all Americans.
    He knew he would be discovered. He said as much. He said that he knew that Monica would have to tell somebody.

    Parenthetically, although I didn't feel it at the time, I deeply resent Clinton for not quitting when the shitte began to hit the fan. If he had, W. would have faced an incumbent President Gore instead of the complete wreck of a candidate who chose Lieberman as his running mate.

    These people can do what they like as private citizens. They are entitled to the same civil rights, whatever remains of them, as the rest of us.

    Elected public officials who cannot realize that their environment prohibits certain behavior if they hope to be effective should resign from that environment - public life. If they feel that they have an absolute need to practice their personal quirks, they should stay private citizens and work to change the system from without.


    too bad MLK didnt (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by observed on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 08:31:33 AM EST
    Have the decency to quit public life, eh? In the case of Spitzer I think there is no question
     we are worse off without him.

    Apples and oranges (none / 0) (#36)
    by lentinel on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 10:33:30 AM EST
    Martin Luther King was working from without.
    He was a natural leader.
    He was not elected to anything.
    Whatever Hoover and his crowd may have dug up about his personal life had no impact on his ability to lead.

    If you read what I wrote, I am not judging the morality of the behavior of these politicians, although I will admit that Weiner's behavior is inexplicable gross and unwarranted in my opinion.

    I am saying that if an official is elected by the people, he or she has an obligation to live up to a standard of personal conduct that will not jeopardize their ability to do the job to which they have been elected. That is the world in which we live.

    In the present political environment, hitting on subordinates, sending lewd photos, taking trips to visit hookers (among other things) are known to be behavioral traits which, if discovered, make all the energy spent by people waiting in line to vote, all the campaign contributions and whatever time the politician might have spent doing the public's business go down the drain.


    Re MLK's extracurricular (none / 0) (#41)
    by brodie on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 11:03:06 AM EST
    activities, while I don't doubt he was no saint, it's also entirely possible -- even quite likely -- that his enemies at the FBI, starting with the man at the top, arranged to add to and spice up the degree of the skirt chasing with manipulation of audio tapes obtained through their bugging.  And, afaik, those tapes* have never been independently authenticated.  We know however that Hoover and his top aides were out to get King and destroy him as a viable CR leader, and so anything they released should always be considered in that context and deemed only, at best, raw unconfirmed reports and at worst outright fabrications coming from a dangerously biased police organization.

    This of course has parallels with the DSK case, who may as it turns out have been set up by higher ups overseas, perhaps his political enemies, with the accuser fabricating a case of assault for money or to ruin him politically.

    (* it still bothers me that a Pulitzer-winning US historian took some of the transcripts of those FBI tapes as near-gospel and printed them in several well-received books -- at times to underscore Dr King's moral shortcomings -- with only the one brief footnoted observation that he was unable to verify their authenticity)


    To me, (none / 0) (#61)
    by lentinel on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 05:08:22 PM EST
    there is zero comparison between Martin Luther King and Strauss-Kahn.

    King had guts.
    He faced down intrenched power.
    Whatever extramarital flings he may or may not have had, were not based on his having great wealth or a position of power.

    Strauss-Kahn on the other hand, has a history of hitting on just about any female who is still breathing. He is said to have hit on some of the women at the check-in desk of the hotel. He is incredibly wealthy. He had enormous power. He had sex with the woman who came into his hotel room to clean it.

    King's life improved life for millions of people.
    Strauss-Kahn --- what has he done for anybody?

    All that having been said - the sex between the hotel worker and Strauss-Kahn happened. Nobody contests that. He did it an hour or so before he was to have lunch with his daughter. The only point in dispute is whether it was consensual or rape.

    Only a full hearing will determine the facts - although it looks to me as if we will not be getting a full hearing.

    What Hoover (under Johnson and Kennedy) was trying to do to King is still being practiced by our government imo as a means of discrediting anyone threatening entrenched power.

    The Wikileaks guy for example.
    Scott Ritter for another.

    In King's time, Malcolm X got branded as a hater. People still believe that today.

    Anybody challenging the powers that be can expect to be slimed. That's way it goes.


    Your response is an (none / 0) (#64)
    by brodie on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 08:01:03 PM EST
    overreaction and fundamental misreading of what I wrote above.  No one was saying DSK=King overall, but in the narrow area of possibly being set up or being the victim of false or exaggerated accusations.  Saying there are some possible parallels in one area of their lives doesn't make for anything quite like a total equivalency between the two public figures.

    See the difference?

    As for Dr King's dalliances, you're being naive or ridiculous to say he didn't attract women because of a position of power.  The most important leader in the CR movement, a worldwide celebrity and hero to the AA community -- that gave him a fair deal of unofficial power outside the electoral office type.  Don't doubt for a minute he wasn't attracting plenty of women because of his status and position -- and the insider accounts I've read easily confirm this.

    Let's not make him into either a saint or such a hero that even his extramarital affairs had to have some higher and purer basis.  He was a real human being, not a mythical figure in marble always doing heroic deeds.  I much prefer interesting and complex reality to fictitious 2-D myth making.


    They are all mere mortals. (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 09:03:29 AM EST
    In this country we used to think that that was a good thing.

    It was sort of a founding principle that our elected officials would not come with divine rights or expectations that they be gods among men.

    Anyway, by your standard, a long list of great American politicians and other leaders would have had to have refrained from making their important contributions to our country.  Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson would be some of the first who would have had to go.


    I (none / 0) (#37)
    by lentinel on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 10:37:07 AM EST
    am not questioning their status as people with human failures.

    I am saying that if they are elected to public office, they must and should adhere to a standard of conduct that will not result in their having to resign.

    Let them have their mortality and human failures and quirks on their own time.


    What do you define as their own time? (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 10:47:46 AM EST
    Because as Ambassador to France, Ben Franklin enjoyed a lot of women and wine.  We are quite sure that he did that before and after as well.  It seems that that was his nature.  When he wasn't spending his time birthing a democracy, he was often playing with the ladies.

    I am (none / 0) (#62)
    by lentinel on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 05:23:30 PM EST
    talking about contemporary standards for elected officials - not standards for appointed officials of the 18th century.

    Weiner knew what he was doing could result in his having to resign.
    That's why he lied about it.

    But he did it anyway.

    So much for his concern for his constituents.

    And Clinton, as I mentioned above, did it to the whole country.
    Ultimately, although I accept that these people have human weaknesses, I cannot help but say to hell with them because they put their weiners before the interests of their constituents.


    Spitzer was a terrible Governor. He was a (none / 0) (#24)
    by tigercourse on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 08:42:41 AM EST
    failure from more or less day one. Nothing got done in the State, he went around impotently screaming at lawmakers and misused police for his own little political vendettas with our other crook politicos.

    Amen (none / 0) (#54)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 12:05:36 PM EST
    - thanks Jeralyn

    having sex... (none / 0) (#10)
    by markw on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 01:21:26 AM EST
    So he had sex with a woman half his age.  Big deal.  If every world leader who has had sex with a younger woman was disqualified from office, you'd pretty much have to shut down the world.  The French don't take extra-marital sex as seriously as the Americans, and thank god for that.

    Yes, it seems like he's behaved like a predator in the past, but I believe a lot of French will gladly overlook that to stick up (and vote) for one of their most accomplished and admired leaders who has been taken off a plane, paraded in a perp walk, locked up under house arrest, and booted out of his job as head of the IMF, all because of what appear to be false accusations.

    misplaced response (none / 0) (#12)
    by markw on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 01:22:42 AM EST
    This above was actually a response to #7 above.  Sorry about that.

    no problem, I got that (none / 0) (#13)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 01:29:47 AM EST
    I think you, me and Observed were all responding to that comment (#7).

    Mr. K's lawyers, (none / 0) (#15)
    by cpinva on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 02:31:50 AM EST
    if they're beyond half-wits, have no intention of suing the DA, the police, or anyone else, because he has no case. note, none of the above mentioned issues has anything to do with the actual allegation, and his "reputation", from everything i've read and heard, couldn't really get much more trashed. were he to be foolish enough to sue, all that would come out in court, and whatever shred remained would be torched.

    he was already aboard a plane leaving for france, the DA had every legitimate reason to want to keep him from leaving the country, given the allegations against him, and the very real possibility that future attempts to get him back for a trial (should that have ended up being the case) may well have resulted in an international "problem", given his potentially running for president of france.

    you and i may think the grandstanding of the DA's office and police were low class (and they were) but none of their actions constituted a violation of his civil rights. you and i also know that recent court cases have pretty much given prosecutors carte blanche to commit any egregious acts, and be completely immune from any type of punishment.

    Not sure I'm seeing a cause of action, (none / 0) (#17)
    by andgarden on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 05:47:27 AM EST
    but it does sound like DSK may have gotten a raw deal.

    Certainly not a good call for (none / 0) (#18)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 06:55:59 AM EST
    Law enforcement to stand by while suspect leaves for France. Think Polanski. And no time to check how many cell phones the hotel housekeeper had and/or her bank accounts and/or her asylum petition.

    Better than a rush job... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 08:56:33 AM EST
    wrongful arrest.  

    Our system is designed to for the guilty to go free on the regular...to protect the innocent.  It might sting sometimes, but its obviously for the greater good.


    Until (none / 0) (#21)
    by lentinel on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 07:24:46 AM EST
    I hear it from the prosecutors directly, I am taking this with a healthy grain of salt.

    The new revelations as printed by the NYTimes are from, "well-placed law enforcement officials." Could they be any more vague?

    Also - uncontested - is the fact that, "... forensic tests found unambiguous evidence of a sexual encounter between Mr. Strauss-Kahn ... and the woman...". How or why that "encounter" took place is as yet unknown.

    At the moment I am no more confident in the assertions about the character of Strauss-Kahn's accuser than I was in the assertions about the actions of Strauss-Kahn.


    A proper investigation??? (none / 0) (#20)
    by Chuck0 on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 07:18:33 AM EST
    HAHAHAHAHAHA! In this country? You gotta be kidding, right? A proper investigation in a country whose police routinely kill citizens and/or their pets due in part to wrong information or no information or "hell we just don't give damn, let's go kick some doors in." C'mon you don't expect US law enforcement to really investigate anything do you?

    Just a slight quibble; when you write... (none / 0) (#23)
    by rhbrandon on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 08:40:16 AM EST
    "The DA's sex crime unit was apparently in such a hurry to detain DSK they did no homework and took the accuser at her word."

    My experience in Missouri is that there is invariably no hurry involved.

    As a criminal defense attorney, that is... (none / 0) (#30)
    by rhbrandon on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 09:22:49 AM EST
    Not enough coffee this morning.

    Krugman and Atrios on Strauss (none / 0) (#27)
    by Dan the Man on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 08:58:15 AM EST
    Krugman: "But it turns out that theres a kind of class loyalty that trumps even politics: the powerful must be protected. Only the little people get charged with rape."

    Atrios: "The internet tells me Strauss-Kahn got bail and home detention. I hope that includes passport confiscation."

    Typical NYC D.A. behavior (none / 0) (#29)
    by mjames on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 09:22:19 AM EST
    I remember Linda Fairstein and the Central Park jogger case (and those wilding kids were at least as easy targets as S-K). Now it's Cyrus Vance, a company man if ever there was one. I've gone against both of them and color me unimpressed.

    The powers that be wanted S-K out of the IMF and out of French politics. They got what they wanted. They could care less about the truth or what happens next. Mission accomplished.

    As for me, I'd still like to know the truth, the real truth.

    I think that the most striking (none / 0) (#31)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 09:38:00 AM EST
    part of this story for me is that when the police arrested him with such fanfare, my assumption was that they felt that they had an extremely good case against him.  

    Not that the police always have great judgment about what is a good case, but this guy is - or rather was - incredibly powerful etc. which would normally tend to make the police and the prosecutor's office a bit more careful about being pretty sure about their allegations.  He's not just some fuller brush salesman whose arrest and case would probably go largely unnoticed.

    Now here we are after whatever amount of time of fanfare, media attention and global ramifications some of which many of us probably do not understand and the prosecution is likely to drop all of the charges?  That's a huge shift in position.  Really huge.

    I think.. (none / 0) (#32)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 09:58:16 AM EST
    the protection great wealth or celebrity or power once enjoyed isn't what it used to be...as the police/prosecution/incarceraton state continues to grow at this alarming rate, the breaks are contracting.  You gotta be more connected than DSK these days...the grinder is running out of prole meat, and the grinder must be fed.

    The plot thickens... (none / 0) (#43)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 11:16:13 AM EST
    The victim's attorney was on MSNBC accusing the prosecutorial team of harassing her and throwing her out of their office.

    Sounds like they are panicking.


    Why panic? (none / 0) (#49)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 11:46:09 AM EST
    The worst that will happen to the law is embarassment...its not like they're ever held properly accountable for their f*ck-ups.

    NYC elects their DAs (none / 0) (#60)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 04:47:57 PM EST
    That's why.  Then there's the international incident angle in an international hub.  Oh and also the diplomatic issues.  I dunno, maybe because of all of the reasons that I set forth in my original comment?

    If you go after big kahunas you've got to be damn sure of what you're doing - think Patrick Fitzgerald - think my dad too actually.  It isn't that you can't, but you need to be pretty sure and careful when you do.


    The leaking of information by (none / 0) (#38)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 10:45:19 AM EST
    the prosecution side is curious, appearing, as Jeralyn suggests,  to be a roll-out of the news and damage control over the holiday weekend.  With the NYT account in wide distribution, it would be fair, at a minimum, for the prosecution to refute or disclaim the substance of the story if inaccurate.  While the lies reported are not about the incident, they are at odds with the initial sympathetic portrayal of the accuser. About the only clue at the time was an apparent irregularity in her housing.  On the other hand, DSK did not seem to be a great flight risk--He had a ticket to Paris; IMF headquarters was in DC and he had a home there. If he wanted to be president of France, he could not be on the lam.

    The reported effort of the prosecutor's trying to secure a misdemeanor plea is confusing, but seems to relate somehow to that forensic evidence.  If these prosecutorial comments are true (and we have not yet heard anything of the defenses investigation), the charges need to be dropped right away.   By so doing, enough of his reputation might be reclaimed to enable a run for President of France with, maybe, even an enhanced  chance of winning.

    DSK was freed without bail (none / 0) (#47)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 11:42:40 AM EST
    or home confinement by NY State Supreme Court Justice Michael Obus.  The judge based his action on the prosecution's "reassessment" of the case.  DSK's passport was not returned.

    OK now? (none / 0) (#48)
    by markw on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 11:44:55 AM EST
    All of the above speculation that these are false leaks or something can be put to rest.  DSK has been released without bail and the NY Times has published the incredibly self-damning letter from the DA's office indicating how much the accuser has lied, not only about her past but about events at the time of the supposed rape.  Given this new information, I'm not sure why they don't just drop the case right now.  The DA's office has has little credibility as the accuser at this point.

    Whatever (none / 0) (#63)
    by lentinel on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 05:38:13 PM EST
    she may have said in order to get herself admitted to the USA is of no bearing to me.

    She portrayed herself as a person needing asylum in this country.
    If she lied about her circumstances in order to be admitted to this country, it is entirely understandable to me. And I hardly think this is unprecedented from people who are desperate.

    But about the facts involving the accusation of rape by Strauss-Kahn - the only thing changed is the fact that she cleaned some rooms before reporting the incident instead of immediately reporting the incident as previously claimed.

    The forensic evidence of a sexual encounter is not being contested.

    It just seems to me that the prosecution is concerned that the defense may have enough to discredit her veracity based on her claims during the time that she was seeking asylum.

    As I said, whatever falsehoods she may have said at that time have no relevance to me when I try to determine whether the sexual encounter she had with Strauss-Kahn was rape or consensual.


    This makes me all the more curious (none / 0) (#57)
    by lilburro on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 12:31:33 PM EST
    there is evidence of a sexual encounter ("unambigious evidence" according to the Times).  She did lie about events surrounding the encounter (which to me is the lie of greatest concern, along with the fiance stuff).  From the NY Times

    The housekeeper admitted to prosecutors that she lied about what happened after the episode on the 28th floor of the hotel. She had initially said that after being attacked, she had waited in a hallway until Mr. Strauss-Kahn left the room; she now admits that after the episode, she cleaned a nearby room, then returned to Mr. Strauss-Kahn's suite to clean there. Only after that did she report to her supervisor that she had been attacked.

    Still...is the idea that she made up a rape accusation, just coincidentally, against a major French politician?  That she set him up at someone else's behest?  The fiance just wanted her to run a scam on someone?  If she is making it up I hope DSK files charges against her.

    Or I guess it may be that she was raped but they can't make the case due to her misrepresentations of herself, etc.  Which is nauseating..

    The charge was attempted rape (none / 0) (#59)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 01:38:02 PM EST
    and sexual assault (forced or coerced fellatio).

    Site Violator! (none / 0) (#66)
    by Zorba on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 07:47:38 AM EST