DA's Letter Lists Accuser's Lies in Dominique Strauss-Kahn Case

As expected, Dominique Strauss-Kahn's bail was modified today to a personal recognizance bond as the DA's office told the Judge about the problems with the accuser's credibility. In a letter to Strauss-Kahn's lawyers, the DA's office didn't mince words. The accuser repeatedly lied to prosecutors and investigators -- about a prior gang rape that never happened, about details of the incident with DSK, and more -- lies she later acknowledged. [More...]

When she described the gang rape that never happened to prosecutors on two separate occasions, she did so in a "markedly distraught" manner, complete with tears. She has also admitted using a fraudulent visa to enter the U.S.

The accuser has even admitted lying to the grand jury about details of the hotel incident with Strauss-Kahn.

One law enforcement told the New York Post the accuser is a "con artist."

She’s a con artist," one law enforcement source said, adding that prosecutors have concluded "she cannot be put on the stand. She’d be a flawed witness." The alleged victim, a chambermaid at the Sofitel Hotel, "continuously lied to us," a law-enforcement source told The Post.

Is anyone asking if the accuser will be charged with perjury? Or lose her green card and be deported? The U.S. media is still not reporting her identity (It's available in virtually all foreign media reports.)

< Friday Morning Open Thread | Dominique Strauss-Kahn: The Other Shoe Drops >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Huh... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Addison on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 12:52:38 PM EST
    Well, according this this letter she seems to have admitted perjuring herself in her Grand Jury testimony. Is that even a question for the prosecutor's office at this point?

    Her lawyer, who had to know about this, still promised a media blitz. We'll she if that ends up happening and what her story is about why she didn't immediately report the event (if this letter is accurate, that is), and if anyone believes her.

    I find it difficult to believe that the charges against DSK will last much longer. It almost seems like the investigation is being kept open to collect more information for future charges against the maid.

    Yes, not to mention (none / 0) (#82)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jul 02, 2011 at 12:41:21 AM EST
    the gang rape accusation was part of her asylum application, one of the few things that almost guarantees acceptance in the U.S.  Plus the fact that she apparently WAS raped in Guinea, but "only" by one person, not a gang.

    As you point out, she's the one who brought forward the information that she'd lied on her asylum application-- which is, almost unquestionably, the reason she didn't report the assault immediately but needed to think it over before taking the risk.

    And just curiously, why would she confess to that particular lie?  It's not one there'd be any way of proving or disproving.


    Holy Sh*t (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 01:13:30 PM EST
    Let me be the first to say that I bought this story 100%.  I just knew the guy was guilty.  What a horrible outcome, both for DSK, who lost his job, but also for real victims of rape who might be second guessed a bit more because of this.

    This case is one reason that, in a perfect world, both the accused and accuser's identity would be kept secret to conviction.  That is impossible, but it does make me question whether the current system is fair.

    This man will be a rapist in the eyes of many forever despite being innocent.

    He may not be innocent either... (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Addison on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 01:30:51 PM EST
    ...don't try to learn from your earlier credulity simply by being overly credulous in the other direction! That said, I think it's safe to say he will likely not be found guilty on this charge, and I can't see much of a justification for the charges remaining much longer. But what exactly happened in that hotel room will remain a mystery to 6 billion people until either DSK or the woman (or both?) totally confesses.

    Yep and unfortunately this happens a lot. (none / 0) (#5)
    by Buckeye on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 01:30:07 PM EST
    This is very similar to the Duke Lacrosse case with one exception, the DA appears to be willing to drop this case when it became a turd.  Mike Nifong stupidly tried to carry out a hoax all the way to the finish.  It ended with him getting disbarred, Duke University and Durham getting sued, and Nifong going to jail.  The kids reps were destroyed, their families were put through hell, and NC legal system was the laughing stock of the world.

    This happens all across America and those without the resources to fight back pay a terrible price.  How many innocent people has the Innocence Project got released from prison?


    While she might well (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by andgarden on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 01:14:35 PM EST
    still have been telling the truth to a substantial degree about what happened with DSK, there's no way her testimony alone could amount to proof BARD.

    This case seems over.

    I certainly don't know what's true in this case (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Peter G on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 05:18:39 PM EST
    but from my decades of experience in criminal defense it has been my observation that many immigrants from repressive countries (all the same whether it's Eastern Europe, Africa, Southeast Asia, the Middle East, or Central America) are socialized not to trust anyone in authority (including police or their own attorneys who are trying to assist them). For this reason, it seems, it is simply not their natural inclination to tell the truth, or at least not the whole truth, to anyone representing the establishment, under circumstances when most Americans would at least know that telling the truth was expected (whether or not they would then actually tell the truth).  Doing so never worked for their parents back in the old country, and they were not taught as children -- whether there or here -- that this is the right thing to do ... in fact, often the opposite.  This often gets them into terrible trouble in our criminal justice system, whether as complainants, as witnesses, or as defendants.

    Knowing the limited amount I know (none / 0) (#37)
    by andgarden on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 05:55:30 PM EST
    about the asylum process, I'm not prepared to treat her as a bad person for lying. She shouldn't have, but that's about all I'm willing to say.

    Exactly so (none / 0) (#84)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jul 02, 2011 at 12:46:00 AM EST
    Very well said.

    As for cleaning another room before reporting it, seems to me entirely possible she really needed to think over what she should do, especially given that she knew at that point she might end up losing her asylum status.

    Folks need to remember this isn't some college grad from Westchester.


    Having read the D.A.'s letter (none / 0) (#7)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 01:34:12 PM EST
    I find it hard to believe she was telling the truth about the incident. She admitted she lied about what she did right after the incident, indicating that she actually went to another room to clean.

    Who knows? (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by andgarden on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 02:06:18 PM EST
    Given the anecdotes that have emerged about DSK's behavior towards women in the past, it's entirely possible that he behaved inappropriately this time.

    In any case, her testimony seems like it would be wholly insufficient to secure a conviction.


    There's also physical evidence (none / 0) (#83)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jul 02, 2011 at 12:43:08 AM EST
    On her body and in the room.

    There's often a fair amount of room between (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Peter G on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 03:51:02 PM EST
    telling the truth and telling the whole truth.  What the DA is now saying, as I understand it, is that she didn't tell the whole truth about the incident, and didn't tell the truth about some other things.  They are not saying by any means that she fabricated the incident or even that what occurred between her and DSK wasn't a crime on his part.

    I don't disagree (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 04:17:36 PM EST
    with what you say at all and the important distinction you are making.  This is just my take, but it's just difficult for me to believe the alleged victim's accusations when, shortly after the incident, she told the police that following the sexual assault, she waited for accused to leave hotel & then went to report the incident, but later admitted that instead she cleaned another room after the incident. In addition, the mysterious and large amounts of money deposited in her bank account, etc. If I were sitting on a jury, I would truly listen to all evidence before making up my mind, and I understand the prosecutor's office is not saying the sexual assault did not occur, but on the basis of the information provided by the D.A.'s letter to defendant's counsel, it would be difficult to conclude that the accused is guilty 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'  

    We aren't in any disagreement, I think (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by andgarden on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 04:20:30 PM EST
    Beyond the problems her dishonesty has (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by scribe on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 01:57:59 PM EST
    caused both parties in this case - which will result in it being impossible to try - the ting is the prosecution has (we're told) definitive DNA evidence showing sex took place.  As it stands now, though, the issue of consent will be unresolvable.  Even if she says she did not consent, she has been shown to be a liar and, therefore, reasonable doubt will exist.

    I take a couple things from this.

    1.  If the defendant was Vinnie from Queens, rather than DSK, I question whether the DA would have been so assiduous in checking out the accuser's backstory.  Vinnie would not have had the assets nor the lawyerly wherewithal to dig out the crap in her history, the DA would have known that, and they likely would have proceeded.
    2.  As nasty as it sounds, the fact is the NY DA does sometimes play fast and loose with Brady.  They would be inclined to do that with Vinnie from Queens, but DSK's wealth, status and lawyerly horsepower would act as a check on any inclination to bury Brady information.  NY is not necessarily as bad as a lot of other jurisdictions on this point, but they still do play games.
    3.  If it was Vinnie from Queens, it would likely have taken the better part of a year for them to get around to giving up the Brady material, assuming they gave it up at all.  Again, the rich and powerful get speedier service.

    Finally, for the non-lawyers, the way a lawyer concludes a letter is very important.  Asking for a call "if you have any questions" is a blatant invitation for the recipient to have questions and call, and also a sign of a weak position on the writer's part.  

    One point #1 (none / 0) (#9)
    by Addison on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 02:02:57 PM EST
    In late May DSK hired a consulting firm that works on what is basically opposition research by another name. I will be interested to see how much the prosecutor's uncovered about the woman, and how much the private firm dug up itself and sent them.

    I was wondering about that, too (none / 0) (#13)
    by Zorba on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 02:12:12 PM EST
    And how usual is it that the DA would accept the findings of a private security firm?  It does seem that the DA's office was tracking her, but I don't know how much of what they find out was from their office, and how much was from DSK's consulting firm.  I would imagine that the DA's office must have come up with some confirming evidence on their own, because I can't see them taking what that firm came up with by itself.

    Most of what's in the D.A>'s (none / 0) (#26)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 04:20:44 PM EST
    letter, other than the deposits of large sums of money into the accuser's bank account, relates to legal proceedings, records of which should be directly accessible by the D.A.

    Two systems of justice (none / 0) (#11)
    by Zorba on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 02:07:18 PM EST
    This has been the case, probably for as long as human history.  We'll probably never know the entire truth here.

    Vinnie would no doubt be (none / 0) (#15)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 02:34:43 PM EST
    disadvantaged in comparison to DKS. But DKS was not given a "day at the park".  Initially denied bail,  he spent time at Rikers Island, finally got bail, over prosecutor's objection, with expensive conditions ($l million plus $5 million bond, 24 hour armed guards at his expense, and surrender of this passport).  All with the unlikely concern for flying the coop on the wings  of Roman Polanski. The high profile of the alleged crime and accused would suggest the need for thorough and careful law enforcement and judicious discernment in prosecution.   After all, if things went wrong in a case like DKS, the blunders would become high profile.  And, what would the confidence be in the criminal justice system for poor slobs like Vinnie.

    Vinnie would stil be in Rikers (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by scribe on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 02:37:05 PM EST
    and his cellmate would be selling him out with a made-up story.

    Sounds like Vinnie (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 02:50:45 PM EST
    is down on his luck, or, as it is also called, another day for the poor in the criminal justice system.  However, with the alleged crime scene a $3000/day (rack rate) suite and a high profile, rich and important man, we get to see the mistakes of over-zealous or injudicious prosecution. It should make us wonder a bit more about poor Vinnie.  

    interesting. (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by cpinva on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 03:35:05 PM EST
    i read the letter a couple of times, to be sure i missed nothing. correct me if i'm wrong, but nowhere in it did it state that the accuser admitted the whole allegation was false. in fact, with the exception of her previously stated location, after the alleged incident, none of the potentially "exculpatory" evidence has anything whatever to do with the specific allegations.

    i have no clue what actually occurred between the parties, but to read this letter as, somehow, an exoneration of DSK means you need a new prescription, for your reading glasses. perhaps, the invitation to call, should there be any questions, is the DA's veiled way of saying he believes DSK is innocent, or not.

    really, the only thing i got out of this letter was that the accuser's history makes her a prime candidate for having her credibility destroyed on cross, reducing the likelyhood of a successful prosecution to near zero.

    maybe, at some future point, we'll find out the true facts of the case.

    I'm sorry but (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by jen on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 08:52:45 PM EST
    I can't help but think DSK had to go so this woman could get his job. Or perhaps it's all just coincidence that 2 days after she's appointed this info comes out.

    First female IMF chief receives praise from former hometown of Chicago

    CHICAGO, June 28 (Xinhua) -- French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde made history Tuesday by becoming the first female managing director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and her appointment received wide praise in Chicago, where she once served as chairman of one of the world's largest law firms. . . .

    Links to xinhuanet.com

    Oh, please (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jul 02, 2011 at 01:05:00 AM EST
    He was expected to resign to run for pres. of France shortly anyway.  This is really just silly.

    There is (none / 0) (#66)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 09:10:14 PM EST
    A fascinating subplot here related ti the Greek defaults and the austerity measures just passed. I have a hard time believing them but the conspiracy theorists are about to have a field day.

    I bet the illuminati will be trending on twitter shortly.


    Yes. (none / 0) (#75)
    by jen on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 09:57:34 PM EST
    The conspiracy theorists are weighing in.

    The Strauss-Kahn Entrapment

    Links to Moon of Alabama


    Nice ending to the D.A.'s letter: (none / 0) (#4)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 01:26:04 PM EST
    "Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions."   Do you think that the defense might have a question or two?  

    As an addendum (none / 0) (#12)
    by scribe on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 02:12:10 PM EST
    and a little OT, the other day the Suddeutsche Zeitung had an article (in German) about what ae in Germany called "Zimmermaedchen", the women who clean hotel rooms.  In this case, they interviewed three or four who worked in a couple of high-end Berlin hotels.

    The women talked about having to deal with (near)naked hotel guests walking around (the approved method for dealing with that - leave and come back later), the leave-behinds from Russian businessmen partying (don't ask), the best guests (businessmen - they're out early, gone all day, and in the hotel bar at night) and their favorite nationalities of guests (Americans, not the least b/c as a group we tend to leave tips).

    The most stingently enforced rule?  No Talking With/To The Guests.  Why?  Because it (helps) eliminate(s) the possibility of the kind of thing arising which has arisen with DSK.  

    i hope that's true (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 02:20:39 PM EST
    The most stingently enforced rule? No Talking With/To The Guests. Why? Because it (helps) eliminate(s) the possibility of the kind of thing arising which has arisen with DSK.

    though of course, as usual, it puts the onus on these women instead of on male guests & their criminal behavior* - & of course a woman can be overpowered & attached without anyone's speaking a word

    *this is not to impute criminal behavior to DSK, since the facts about the incident in NY are unlikely now ever to be known


    These are Germans who were being interviewed. (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by scribe on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 02:35:49 PM EST
    And you surely know the stereotype of how Germans can be about Rules.  (there's a good bit of truth to that stereotype)

    yes, i know (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 02:44:36 PM EST
    i'm just pointing to something that is common to many places, including the good old US of A: the tendency to make women somehow responsible for men's criminal sexual behavior

    Duke rape hoax (none / 0) (#20)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 02:54:48 PM EST

    This is almost a rerun of Duke rape hoax.  So many people wanted to believe the false accuser.

    We give a lot of deference to rape (none / 0) (#30)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 05:08:34 PM EST
    victims and in most cases that's not a bad thing given the nature of and trauma resulting from the crime.  But I remember Twana Brawley and of course the Duke case and it is always scary also to think that passions can be so ginned up by prosecutors and in the media that we leave notions of justice and fact finding by the wayside.

    I am betting that this is not the final chapter in this story.  I'm basically neutral on both fronts at the moment; and I am not sure that we won't get a better picture of what really went on down the line.  It may just be a case of two people not entirely of high character having had sex with one another based on some sort of mutual agreement; or it could have been forcible.  Seems like there's more to come, imo.  Stand by.


    Did you read the article on DSK (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Towanda on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 05:41:09 PM EST
    in the New Yorker, the talk about him by those who socialize with him? His rep with women now is only more widely known.  His rep with women in his circle of the elite, according to the article, already was well-known -- and so, those who know him did not leap to his defense.

    Funny you should ask that question. (none / 0) (#38)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 05:57:51 PM EST
    No I didn't read the article, but apparently I am only a few degrees from him and his wife through people I know who said that the inner circle really felt that he was set up.

    Again, I haven't taken a position one way or another.  I thought that he was toast just because they were going after him, but I never gave a thought particularly to whether or not he was guilty.  I tend to wait for trials to take place and juries to decide those sorts of things before I form my own opinion.

    Not all men who are womanizers or simply insatiable sluts are rapists.  Not all women who are maids in hotels are con artists or sluts.  Sorry to use blunt language, but the truth is that we should give the benefit of the doubt to both parties until all of the facts are out.  Or we help to undermine our justice system.


    Sure, in the justice system (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Towanda on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 08:14:36 PM EST
    he's innocent until proven guilty.  However, I am not such an innocent -- having had my dealings with the so-called justice system -- as to think that trials or juries or even judges get it right.  That's not forming your own opinion; that's following theirs.

    But it seems that this incident outed a lot of stories about him that would have meant he'd lose his job and status, anyway -- as others in his circle saw him getting caught as overdue.


    I was not clear I suppose. (none / 0) (#58)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 08:33:52 PM EST
    I don't not make my own judgment - if I ever do - until the trial and jury process has taken place.  I did not say that I agree with verdicts necessarily.  I just prefer to wait and watch before making a judgment.  I don't go by media reporting although often it does reveal where the power lies in any particular conflict.  One of the oddities of this case is that the very powerful guy has not enjoyed media power as far as I can tell.  Anyway, I think that there's a lot more to come.

    So what do you watch (none / 0) (#70)
    by Towanda on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 09:20:36 PM EST
    while you wait if not media reporting?  How do you make a judgment based on the trial -- access transcripts and read all the way through?  I have tried to do so in some cases but rarely find them fully available online, so I must resort to . . . media reporting.

    But I may be misunderstanding you, because I have to admit that I am having difficulty following this; is there an extra negative in the first sentence above?  You don't make your own judgment?  Or you do not not make your own judgment?  What does that mean?


    Sometimes I don't make (none / 0) (#89)
    by inclusiveheart on Sat Jul 02, 2011 at 07:48:27 AM EST
    a judgment figuring that I don't know enough to do so.  Why is that such a foreign concept?

    I watch the media reporting with the full expectation that it is generally incomplete and often influenced by reporter's opinions, pr flacks and other influence peddlers.


    Not "almost" like the Duke rape case (none / 0) (#45)
    by ks on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 07:42:55 PM EST
    That's a lazy comparison. Unlike the Duke case, there seems to be DNA evidence that DSK did have sex, or some sort of sexual interaction, with the alleged accuser.

    Overall, this case is all over except the shouting.  Her credibility is shot and no prosecutor is putting her anywhere near a witness stand. Right now, they are hoping DSK take a scaled down plea (very doubtful) and fighting with the cops to see who take the pr hit.


    dsk's lawyers (none / 0) (#47)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 07:51:10 PM EST
    never claimed there was no sexual encounter. They said there was no forcible encounter. It's like the Duke case because of the media (and public's) rush to judgment in favor of a poor female accuser against "privileged" males. The so-called class issue is clearly present in both.

    Eh, still weak tea (none / 0) (#50)
    by ks on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 08:10:17 PM EST
    I see your point but I think the actual cases are different enough that the comparison is a reach.

    I agree with Jeralyn on this (none / 0) (#69)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 09:20:09 PM EST

    The similarity was the rush to judgement and the class/race issue.

    All the best weasel words and all the best men (none / 0) (#23)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 04:13:12 PM EST
    Can't put Strauss-Kahn's rep together again.

    Bottom Line (none / 0) (#27)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 04:30:32 PM EST
    She lied about material fact to the case under oath in grand jury testimony used to indict the man.

    Game over from my perspective.  I don't really care about knowing the truth or not knowing the truth about what happened because we will never really know.

    What I do know is that a woman lied in her testimony and that testimony was used to put a man in jail for a time and bring him up on very serious charges.

    There were a lot of black men who lost years of their lives (or even their lives) back in the day because of just that fact pattern.  I have zero tolerance for it.

    Charges should be dropped and the woman should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.  If she wanted to avoid that and receive justice, it was completely within her hands.

    She could have just told the truth under oath.  Her lies were material and relevant. And under oath.

    This is one of those times (none / 0) (#28)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 04:34:14 PM EST
    where I'd get banned over at Shakesville. Interestingly, this whole blow up isn't even happening over there. No one is commenting about it. No one is saying anything about it.  That's kind of fitting because they don't like to talk about this sort of possibility.

    I am pretty sure that when they do, there won't be much anger at the accuser. Which is really, really intellectually dishonest.


    You have a strange interest in that site (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by ZtoA on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 05:03:43 PM EST
    I use it (none / 0) (#31)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 05:15:57 PM EST
    as a proxy for a number of sites that fall into a certain category.  There are the sites subscribing to a less extreme feminism (Jezebel, etc.) And there are the more hardcore sites like Shakesville.

    I just use Shakesville but it could easily have been another similar site.

    In any event, the idea that a rape accusation in this type of scenario is a he said/she said" was completely crapped on by Shakesville (link here)and at the time I was shocked. That's exactly what it was. Only two people were in the room and our struggle as a society was to figure out who was telling the truth and who was lying.

    But people who said it was a he said/she said were "classic rape apologists".

    Well screw that and screw anyone who tries to look at things objectively as a "rape apologists".  That's a serious charge and one that you don't use without careful consideration. Sites like that are very sensitive to the impact of words used except for when they are the ones loosely slinging the damaging language.

    But if I use Shaklesville as a proxy too much, let's use Feministing.  They had a long scathing piece ripping a female reporter (and feminist) for daring to suggest that we not jump to conclusions before all of the evidence is in.  


    Feministing called that poor woman (who looks to be right) a rape apologist as well (or to be exact a "a Wolf in sheep's clothing.").

    These folks need to be called out because what they are doing is hurting victims of sexual assault in the long term.


    well, AngryGuy (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 05:26:09 PM EST
    you could just take your tantrum over to Shakesville - there's probably an open thread that would accommodate you

    especially since you're the authority on feminism, extreme & hardcore varieties


    he's also welcome here (none / 0) (#36)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 05:53:13 PM EST
    don't insult him please -- or any commenters for that matter.

    & i was not suggesting (5.00 / 6) (#73)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 09:54:40 PM EST
    that he is not welcome here

    but 2 consecutive long comments bashing 2 known feminist sites, by name, seemed to me a bit o/t, particularly since no one here had raised the points he was "debating" (with himself)

    your site, your call, of course


    Thanks Jeralyn (none / 0) (#49)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 08:08:20 PM EST
    I appreciate the forum and the freedom to speak.

    W E L L... (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by christinep on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 09:13:06 PM EST
    I hope that I am wrong. And, I didn't even want to comment....but, what are these references that you make to "feminism?"

    Perhaps, I misread the adjectives. I hope so.

    Look.  You know that I find most of your comments quite worthwhile, and--many times--in alignment with my analysis as to the direction of our President.  Yet, there is an area that upends everything for me (and--admittedly--I've had a glass or two of wine with dinner tonight) and that area is when I sense overt anti-feminism. Here is what I see here: Lightly, very little camoflaughed anti-feminism. Not because of your conclusion in this matter (which I tend to agree with); but, the persistent pattern of knocks against feminism that are included in your commentary.

    Please say it ain't so, ABG!


    I haven't bothered to waste my time (5.00 / 9) (#81)
    by nycstray on Sat Jul 02, 2011 at 12:25:44 AM EST
    with ABG's response. Why? Because he actually wrote here not too long ago that HRC's only experience while running for Pres, was her husband's.

    Consider that while judging his remarks, and his over the top attempts to be a 'feminist'.

    I respect that you want to support Obama's ways, but look before you continually hitch yourself to another O supporter. How they 'define' women's rights could leave you a bit cold, if you're honest, that is.


    the internet (none / 0) (#86)
    by ZtoA on Sat Jul 02, 2011 at 01:05:54 AM EST
    is not necessarily a place where one finds honesty. Alliances, as you say nystray, can be tricky. At some point a 'being believable" line is crossed and then one's cause is actually damaged by the arguments one is advocating for.

    The point (none / 0) (#87)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sat Jul 02, 2011 at 02:02:00 AM EST
    Was to show the logical conclusion of Ferraro's statements stray. Her statement about Obama's advantages were easily flipped.

    And if a black named hussein had an advantage when he set out to run, what the heck to you call the head start of a white guy?

    You are trying hard to demonize me but I am not going to fit in your box.



    in vino veritas, christine (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Jul 02, 2011 at 12:05:09 PM EST
    you identify an actual set of expressed attitudes - a pattern of conduct, if you will

    Christene (none / 0) (#72)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 09:47:24 PM EST
    Have no fear.  Your worries are unfounded.  To be honest i had a very odd experience in coming into a real awareness of feminism shortly before the 2008 elections.  I had a close friend that was into itvand got me to do some real reading  Then, as lucknwould have it, I faced a world in which Sarah Palin was called a feminist, Progressive women like my wife were hinted to be anti feminists for supporting Obama and lines of race and gender were drawn pretty starkly.

    I have always been one to dislike black leaders who believed that every issue should be seen through the prism of race because it's like crying wolf. When you make EVERY issue a racial one, no one will believe you when there is real racism to tackle.  I think they hurt us more than help.

    I began to see that same dynamic happening amongst some feminists disappointed that Hillary lost and i had the same reaction. In short, I have little patience for the Jesse Jackson types on issues of race and have equal problems with his feminist equivalent.  That doesn't mean Jesse is always wrong when he points out the ills of society, it just means that he sometimes loses perspective.  That's exactly what I feel about the branch of feminism that views every issue, no matter how complex or simple, as a symptom of the patriarchy.

    There are a lot of "isms"' sexism, racism, classism, etc.  And we should be tackling all of them.  But we need some perspective too.


    I hope (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by ZtoA on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 10:43:45 PM EST
    your wife was able to handle those "hints". Sounds like it was difficult for you. In your real reading, you never came across the name of Naomi Wolf? I must be out of touch with what real reading about feminism was 3-4 years ago. What did you read?

    Agree. (none / 0) (#77)
    by christinep on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 10:43:10 PM EST
    Its an interesting debate (none / 0) (#35)
    by ZtoA on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 05:47:50 PM EST
    and I enjoyed reading about it at your link ABG. It all seems in flux.

    I like to read around too. I enjoy the back and forth, the media and communications issues and the styles of blogs and writers. You might like Hope and Change - a site that you might really relate to.


    I will check it out (none / 0) (#51)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 08:11:40 PM EST
    Always looking for new information and good discussion. Thanks.

    So, (none / 0) (#43)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 07:12:49 PM EST
    when the first scraps of information came out you were 100% sure HE was guilty. Now, a few scraps come out regarding the victim and you shout out just as vehemently that HE should be released immediately and SHE should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

    Since you toss around "material evidence" so freely and want HIM released immediately please point to the evidence indicating that the original charges were untrue.


    Once (none / 0) (#61)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 08:57:59 PM EST
    You lie under oath in a rape case, I do believe the case should be tossed.  In a case that hinges in the credibility of the victim we have to demand that high a standard.

    The only crime that we know for sure has been committed (because she admitted it) is perjury.  And perjury in a case like this is everything.

    I convicted him in my mind but was fine with him receiving bail and being put on house arrest because that is the system.  But now we have a clear indication of wring doing and we can't ignore that. I changed my opinion completely but the facts indicate that I should.


    If she lied (none / 0) (#80)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 10:50:17 PM EST
     about the alleged rape, and DSK is innocent of those charges, then I have no problem throwing the book at her. My point was that simply lying about things that are not germane to the charges should not be the basis for a potential rapist to be set free. The lying should be relative to the main point: did he, or did he not, rape, or attempt to rape this woman? If she lied about tangential issues, charge with perjury for that. But the two things are not one.

    Update: apparently there is new evidence further casting doubt on her accusation so the topic is moot. But the points I made remain valid.


    snort! (none / 0) (#57)
    by ZtoA on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 08:25:54 PM EST
    Oh, "that poor woman" "reporter"....! Love it.

    Naomi Wolf has been around for a long time. I don't follow feminism and even I have heard about her for decades. Agree or not agree with her she is a brilliant person and celebrated author. Advised Clinton and Gore campaigns. Just looked up her Wiki site and enjoyed reading about her. The "poor woman" can handle being called anything in a blog.


    Poor woman (none / 0) (#62)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 08:58:59 PM EST
    She is clearly a very capable woman,  if my words indicated that she was not, I retract them.

    Are you sure that is why (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 06:40:29 PM EST
    they aren't talking about it at this moment?  That seems very presumptive to me.  As a feminist I care deeply about rape and prosecuting rapists.  At the same time I also know, I know, that the accusation will be falsely made at times.  I don't have enough information yet though to ascertain if this person lied about DSK assaulting her.  I do know that she has lied about other things in her past.  Understand though that most women who honestly care about prosecuting rapists become enraged by those who accuse those who have done nothing of the kind in order to gain something.  They make things worse for the next raped person, they hurt every very real and hurt victim when they use something like this as a way to gain attention or some other asset or manipulation.  

    Tracy (none / 0) (#55)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 08:21:25 PM EST
    Your points are all good ones. I have daughters and seeing the world through their eyes has helped me to notice sexism that I never knew existed. But I am also a man that has known other men who have been falsely accused. It really is a life destroying event and it happens more than we'd like to admit. There is no easy answer.

    I think we succeed when we remember that everyone is innocent until they have their day in court and being respectful of the unique position that sexual assault has in our society.

    I think we can do that while still valuing the devastating impact that such assaults have on the victims and dropping the hammer on any accuser caught lying.  I fear that many will try to defend this accuser until the bitter end instead of acknowledging that there are some bad people who will stoop to making stuff up for various reasons. There are simply some who will never believe that an accuser will do that, but unfortunately they exist. And we cannot and should not stretch to defend them.

    Again, I count myself among the guilty in large part because I wanted the rich attacker to get his just deserts. But think about it: didn't we convict this guy of rape mentally based in part on his prior patterns of behavior and his status? Isn't that  what we are trying to avoid with the accusers? It's a really complicated issue.


    Are you a lawyer? You'd probably be good at it. (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by ZtoA on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 08:42:50 PM EST
    Possibly the accuser will soon become the accused. She will then have defense rights, no?

    This case does not seem binary like the Gore groping incident. His arrest and detention, the actions of the police, unclear political connections, money, drugs and whatever else... all are at this point unclear. IF this was a set up, then who benefited and how did they benefit? I like the detective part, but maybe judgment might wait till more of whatever the truth is. Mob emotion either for or against might not be the best idea especially in this case.

    Question for lawyers: if an accuser retains legal representation and then is proven to have falsely accused and in turn faces charges does their representation automatically change? (sorry is this is a silly question)


    I am a lawyer (none / 0) (#63)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 09:00:33 PM EST
    That's why my mental conviction of DSK is a little embarrassing.

    Just because you're a lawyer (none / 0) (#68)
    by brodie on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 09:19:23 PM EST
    doesn't mean you give up being a human being.  And we're all susceptible to outside influences, esp from the MSM, and we're all capable of forming strong first-impression opinions.

    The key is in legal cases not to allow the early emotional impressions set quickly into concrete such that you're unable to see clearly later when disconfirming evidence comes out.


    I am not a litigator (none / 0) (#65)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 09:07:40 PM EST
    But my thought is no. They can keep the same counsel.  The fact that you represent a client in one matter and then need to represent them in another matter (perjury defense) should nit require a new lawyer.

    A litigator that knows better may disagree.


    They had DNA evidence (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 02, 2011 at 09:38:58 AM EST
    of sexual activity, they had a guy leaving the country, they had a guy with a very bad reputation and women saying he had cornered them before and was not a respecter of sexual boundaries.  I don't see where the prosecutor was enormously at fault here.

    Certainly not a regular (none / 0) (#54)
    by brodie on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 08:17:28 PM EST
    reader of that site, and if I ever commented there I'm sure I would have committed what she or her followers would consider a flagrant red-flaggable thought crime within the first several posts.

    Occasionally you do find the zero-tolerance, strict constructionist, hanging type judges on the left.

    I much prefer to hang out with Naomi Wolf ...


    Who did the leaking-NYPD or Manhattan DA's office? (none / 0) (#39)
    by jawbone on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 06:07:18 PM EST
    If it ws the NYPD, there is apparently a huge difference in Police Commissioner Ray Kelly's reaction to these leaks about Strauss-Kahn and another high profile case where there were leaks.

    Also, considering the "rush to judgement" by Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance (per criminal defense atty discussing the issue on WNYC this morning), I wonder how so much information got out to the media so fast. Again, who leaked, NYPD or the DA's office? Why so much leaking?

    An interesting tidbit: Since Sarkozy viewed S-K as a pretty certain opponent for the presidency, is the fact the Sarko was a friend of Ray Kelly of any importance in how this was handled?

    In 2006, Ray Kelly was awarded France's Legion of Honor by France's Interior Minister, then one Nicolas Sarkozy. The two have remained close since then.

    More info from this post by Leonard Levitt of NYPD Confidential:


    Police Commissioner Ray Kelly's tepid response to allegations that the NYPD has leaked damaging information about the sexual assault case of International Monetary Fund ex-leader Dominique Strauss-Kahn is so out of character it makes one wonder.

    "I certainly hope that's not the case," Kelly said of the alleged police leaks, after Strauss-Kahn's lawyers complained that the disclosures were damaging his right to a fair trial.

    Such a meek response from the police department's micromanaging commissioner raises this question: Could Kelly be deliberately seeking to discredit Strauss-Kahn?
    Those alleged NYPD leaks about Strauss-Kahn to the media were devastating. They involved reports that he supposedly attempted to flee to France after the alleged rape, and other reports that his DNA matched semen found on the maid's clothing.

    While this column would never suggest that Kelly might do anything unethical or improper [other than accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars in freebies from the non-profit Police Foundation or having detectives from his detail chauffeur his wife around town], it is interesting to contrast his response to the Strauss-Kahn leaks with his draconian reaction to leaks in another high-profile sexual assault case, which occurred a few months before he received his Legion of Honor award.

    That was the murder of Imette St. Guillen, a graduate student found raped and bound off the Belt Parkway in Brooklyn after she left a SoHo bar.

    Then, Kelly was so disturbed over leaks that he launched a sweeping probe of the NYPD's entire Detective Bureau. (My emphasis)

    There seem to be layers upon layers upon layers in this situation....

    (Via Bernhard at MoonofAL blog.)

    Layers upon layers of BS (none / 0) (#40)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 06:15:33 PM EST
    If this had been an ordinary chump, say (none / 0) (#41)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 06:18:05 PM EST
    one who couldn't spare a quarter of a million dollars per month to pay for his personal imprisonment, the case would have proceeded as usual to the usual end, a plea and prostration.

    why continue forward? (none / 0) (#44)
    by markw on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 07:22:07 PM EST
    The chances of a successful prosecution seem close to zero.  Any guesses as to why the case hasn't already been dropped? Press reports said they wanted DSK to plead guilty to a misdemeanor. Perhaps for soliciting prostitution or something like that?

    Could they really be continuing this to get dirt on the maid, as suggested above? (That seems unlikely to me.)

    Or just to be extra thorough or something?

    Anybody have any thoughts?

    I think the other shoe will drop (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 07:43:30 PM EST
    tomorrow when the details of the accuser's fiance/jail inmate (according to last night's NY Times article) and the money laundering and drug charges come out. They could still be investigating whether this was a setup.

    OR maybe they want to time the dismissal of DSK's charges with the filing of charges against the accuser. Poetry in motion.

    The criminal case against DSK is toast. It wasn't a crime for him to have consensual sex with a hotel maid -- unless he paid for it. And if she accepted payment, that makes her guilty of prostitution. I doubt they could ever prove it now since it would require believing yet another changed story of the accuser.

    His lawyers always said the defense would be there was no forcible encounter not that there was no encounter.


    Jeralyn, (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by ZtoA on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 08:07:00 PM EST
    You have an amazing nose for innocence - or maybe false accusations. Not always 100% but close enough. IF this was a set up, what is your theory about who orchestrated it and for what reasons?

    Agree with that (none / 0) (#56)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 08:24:55 PM EST
    When Jeralyn and others were suggesting that we wait for the facts, I thought they were nuts. I couldn't have been more wrong and I like to think I have a nose for such things.  That's what you get for assuming you know how things will turn out.

    well (none / 0) (#74)
    by desmoinesdem on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 09:55:42 PM EST
    on the very first day didn't they try to say he was having lunch with his daughter at the time of the alleged assault?

    I agree with you, there is now no case against DSK.


    Assuming the DA's office (none / 0) (#76)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 10:37:23 PM EST
    Has concluded the alleged victim is not a credible witness, DA's office should ASAP $pve to dismiss the case in the interest or justice. No ethical basis to delay.

    thread cleaned of off-topic comments (none / 0) (#92)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jul 02, 2011 at 11:15:17 AM EST
    please keep your comments to the DSK case here.