Dominique Strauss-Kahn: Countdown to Dismissal

The Wall St. Journal and the New York Post are reporting the DA's office is likely to drop charges against Dominique Strauss-Kahn at or before his July 18 court date, due to the accuser's credibility issues and prosecutors' doubts as to whether a crime was committed.

There are new details about the accuser's actions after the encounter and how she encountered her supervisor. The WSJ reports:[More...]

The woman also told prosecutors she hadn't hidden in a hallway after her encounter with Mr. Strauss-Kahn, which occurred around noon, but had continued to clean before reporting the alleged attack to her supervisor, said the prosecutors' court filing on Friday.

According to officials familiar with the situation, the maid never called her supervisor after the alleged incident but resumed cleaning a nearby room she had started earlier. She then returned to clean Mr. Strauss-Kahn's room, they said, and ran into her supervisor when she went to get fresh sheets.

The accuser has also provided investigators with details about a second source of income (she had initially denied any work outside the Sofitel:

[T]he woman acknowledged she earned money by referring customers to ACN Inc., a marketing business based in Concord, N.C. Carolina that offers Internet, television and phone services.
An ACN spokesman confirmed the woman was an independent contractor who had "acquired some customers" between November 2010 and February 2011.

She initially denied having more than one cell phone but later admitted having a second phone, which she used to call her inmate/husband in jail in Arizona.

The WSJ also reports investigators were concerned not just about the large deposits into her bank account (which she attributed to having been made by the AZ inmate and his friends without her knowledge) but large withdrawals.

Authorities also are looking into transactions involving tens of thousands of dollars in deposits to an account in the woman's name made by men in different states, the official said. The maid said she had given the bank account number to the inmate in Arizona and wasn't aware whether any of the deposits related to illegal activities. Investigators are trying to track who made large withdrawals from the account, the official said.

The WSJ also reports details of her new allegation of rape in Guinea (she previously admitted the gang rape story on her asylum application was false but said she had been raped at some other time.) Now she says:

"She was taken from her store to a jail cell by some military people, and she was then raped by two of them" one after another, the woman said, according to an official familiar with her account. The woman added that "she never told anyone about that until this day."

The New York Post, as always, is less flattering to the accuser and sticking to its claim that this was about money and she got angry when DSK didn't pay her and was dismissive of her. It now says its information is from both defense and prosecution investigators.

Meanwhile, defense sources described a different scenario, in which DSK admittedly engaged with the maid in a consensual, sex-for-money exchange in his Sofitel suite, with no force involved -- and she turned against him only when he stiffed her.

...Multiple investigators for the defense and prosecution have confirmed that they believe the maid was turning tricks at the hotel, and prosecution sources have even accused her of continuing to "entertain" male visitors while in a DA safehouse.

Defense lawyers said a few days ago there was no discussion of money, nor was payment asked for or contemplated by DSK. They seem to be saying DSK had no idea she expected money or would be angry when he left the hotel without leaving any for her, so there's no reason for him to agree to plead to a misdemeanor prostitution charge.

As I opined here and several times, it sounds to me like the only one still under investigation is the accuser, as prosecutors decide to whether to charge her with lying to the grand jury, tax fraud, and/or immigration fraud.

I don't think there's any more investigating the DA's office can do as to the truth of the sexual assault allegations. It's her word against his, she has lied, and he has remained silent, other than to deny a forcible encounter. I suspect the reason the DA hasn't yet dismissed the charges against Dominique Strauss-Kahn is because they are still investigating the accuser, and it's opened a big can of worms. And a lot of problems for her and her associates, whoever they are.

I'm convinced the DA's office will dismiss the charges against DSK, probably before July 18, the date of his next appearance. They probably want to do it in a nice, tidy way, with an explanation of why the accuser is or is not being charged for lying on her asylum application or to the grand jury. And that's the part they haven't figured out yet.

The Post reports there will be a meeting tomorrow between prosecutors and DSK's legal team.

I completely disagree with those who say the DA's office acted properly in arresting and indicting DSK before checking out the accuser's background. In a he-said/she-said case like this, where there is evidence of sex, and it is not inconsistent with a consensual encounter, there should be some corroboration. William Saletan at Slate has a good article on this aspect.

< Ungovernable In A Crisis | Casey Anthony Verdict In >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Any err... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 09:39:08 AM EST
    should be made on the presumption of innocence side, not the presumption of guilt.

    Nobody wants to see a violent criminal escape justice, but our system is designed as such to better protect the innocent...and thank goodness.

    France returns fugitives. Just because of (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by observed on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 11:14:01 AM EST
    one case, you can't infer a general policy.
    Look at it this way, you are arguing that the NY police should treat a foreign dignitary WORSE than an American citizen---viz, if DSK were American, they wouldn't rush to arrest.
    Is it really your position that US law enforcement should routinely violate as many rights of non US citizens as possible?!
    Obviously this is a frivolous charge, but because of the police rush to judgment, enormous damage to his reputation and career have been done.

    Thank you. (none / 0) (#19)
    by Buckeye on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 12:07:00 PM EST
    I am getting tired of people constantly referring to the Polanski case as if we are justified doing whatever we want to French citizens.  That case happened a long time ago and was exceptional.  I am no fan of Polanski at all, but the judge in his case was a clown that was trying to use this case for all he could get out of it.  Polanski and the prosecutors had made agreements and he had served some time.  It was all being ignored and Polanski knew he could not trust our judicial system.  What he did was wrong and IMO deserved worse punishment than what he got, but the problem in that case was on our end.  Because France protected this one person that one time does mean prosecutors should treat French visitors accused of crimes differently.

    All the DA had to do (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Zorba on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 12:54:13 PM EST
    was quietly launch an investigation, get its ducks in a row, and then have him arrested the next time he came to this country.  The IMF has its headquarters in Washington, DC, Strauss-Kahn owns a home in Georgetown, and I hardly think that it would have been terribly difficult to have him "extradited" from DC to New York City, the next time he came over here on IMF business.  Vance jumped the gun.

    It may be neither possible (5.00 / 0) (#53)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 07:29:41 PM EST
    nor necessary to conduct the investigation quietly.  But what is necessary is to conduct the investigation as thoroughly as possible prior to indictment.    Until now the bulk of the information undermining the prosecution's case comes from the prosecution.  At trial, of course, there would also be a defense--the product of their investigations and cross examination of witnesses.  

    Maybe in a perfect world, Zorba, but, (none / 0) (#34)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 03:16:53 PM EST
     I have my doubts whether the DA could have launched a quiet investigation of any kind in this clearly high-profile case; it would have required the accuser to remain quiet and the potential accused to do the same - along with law enforcement and related agencies.  

    I wasn't a fan of the perp walk, for sure; that was sensational and gratuitous, and has proven to hurt the whole operation rather than help.  If prosecutors were more focused on justice and the presumption of innocence, as opposed to seeming to be hell-bent to lock people up, we might have a system that is truer to the founders' intent, but there I go again, dreaming of that perfect world.


    Too true, Anne (none / 0) (#39)
    by Zorba on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 05:24:58 PM EST
    It seems to be all about the publicity, as opposed to actual justice being done.  Although, I'm not so sure that the accuser would have run to the media immediately, given her immigration questions, incarcerated husband, questionable bank account, and other problems (unless she was totally stupid- naive, maybe, but probably not totally stupid).  And I highly doubt that DSK would have gone public if he did not know that he was being investigated, or believe that he had done anything wrong.  

    Thems the breaks... (none / 0) (#5)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 09:58:11 AM EST
    the presumption of innocence and the rules of criminal justice engagement are bigger than any one rapist, murderer, etc.

    It is regrettable, but suspects fleeing the jurisdiction before evidence is gathered and analyzed, corroboration obtained, etc. should happen on the regular in a system such as ours.  I do not wanna live in a society where police can just grab anybody before the facts are straight...thats Kafka-esque tyranny.


    Saying "it happens every day"... (none / 0) (#9)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 10:34:23 AM EST
    don't make it right boss...but you're right, it does...and the sh*t ain't right.  

    We are way too quick to the draw with the handcuffs, no doubt.  Pretty rare for it too happen to such a rich powerful international figure is all.  Not the equality under the law I had in mind to strive for...treating everybody as bad as the proles are treated.


    in this country. I saw this article linked to yesterday. A guys trial is delayed for 680 days and the Mississippi Supreme court is ok with it.

    Of course I'm sure he didn't have resources of DSK.


    I hope the omelette... (none / 0) (#29)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 01:02:45 PM EST
    tastes really good to justify all the broken eggs.

    Personally I think it tastes like sh*t...all the kings horses and all the kings men can't put the busted eggs back together again, and I see no Utopia.

    Economics ain't the only arena where we've lost our god damn collective minds.


    clearly the accuser has not been raped (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 12:42:21 PM EST
    she has been womanized

    I give (none / 0) (#24)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 12:44:09 PM EST
    what does this mean?

    Addams can certainly (none / 0) (#33)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 01:56:38 PM EST
    respond better than I, but my understanding of the comment is that DSK's behavior at the Sofitel is being chalked up by some as just being another example of his reported caddishness--a case of his roving eye and other body parts to be thought of as "womanizing" and not the serious crime of rape or attempted rape and sexual assault.  The frustration and cynicism that I sense, underscores the need for care in building a case for criminal prosecution--one that is required to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.  Accusations of rape have been observed to be difficult to prove. The recent case of NY policemen Ken Moreno ("the cuddling cop") and Franklin Mata resulting in acquittal seemed particularly egregious given the circumstances of four visits (one conjured up to justify a return)  to the apartment of an intoxicated woman whom they were assigned to escort home. However, the intoxication seemed to trump the charge and introduced sufficient doubt.   While the cases are different, of course, it points out that the serious crime of rape needs serious preparation for effective prosecution.

    I think the only people.. (none / 0) (#26)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 12:54:15 PM EST
    who will ever know are DSK and the accuser.

    And that's probably true if the DA went ahead and prosecuted as well...the nature of he said/she said and no other evidence of use of force.  There is no more difficult crime to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

    I guess it boils down to the lesser evil, rapists going free or caging innocents.  I have my opinion of the greater wrong, but reasonable people can disagree.  


    I understand there was a semen sample (none / 0) (#35)
    by hairspray on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 03:24:10 PM EST
    Does that mean it could have been consensual sex?  

    Yes... (none / 0) (#57)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 06, 2011 at 08:32:01 AM EST
    or a sexual assault, or a rape, or he left a sample in the room on his own...semen alone proves nothing criminal.

    I get it, it sucks that it's such a hard crime to prove...but just because it sucks doesn't mean we scrap innocent until proven guilty, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, etc. People might not wanna hear it, but there are worse things than rapists going free, such as innocent men being convicted of rape.


    That has always been the male (none / 0) (#58)
    by hairspray on Wed Jul 06, 2011 at 01:18:30 PM EST
    fear hasn't it?

    I don't lose sleep over it... (none / 0) (#59)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 06, 2011 at 01:29:40 PM EST
    I'm more worried about innocents in prison in general, any charge.  And the guilty of crimes that should not be crimes.

    But an accusation of rape alone will scare one for life, no doubt.  


    You've come a long way baby (none / 0) (#61)
    by Rojas on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 07:49:56 AM EST
    Did you ever give a moment to think about the human cannon fodder in your cultural war?
    Warning, the link is graphic.

    At some point we might want to consider just who do we empower when we deny others their civil rights?
    The officer was convicted of a misdemeanor. He
    received a 6-month suspended sentence.


    Bottom Line (3.00 / 1) (#6)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 10:06:13 AM EST
    "Multiple investigators for the defense and prosecution have confirmed that they believe the maid was turning tricks at the hotel, and prosecution sources have even accused her of continuing to "entertain" male visitors while in a DA safehouse."

    If any part of that is true . . . wow.  

    This is why I hope that women's rights advocates this week don't go the "victim-blaming/shaming" route in defending the accuser to the bitter end.  When they dismiss the case (not if, when) a flood of interviews and information is going to come out and we'll learn the truth about the accuser. My suspicion is it is not going to look very good for her and will only make her look worse.

    The more women's rights advocates put their reputations on the line to defend her, the more ammo they give those who would seek to discredit any rape accuser.

    This will immediately become relevant because of the accusations by the French reporter.

    Supporting women does not mean supporting women who do not deserve to be supported or placing the principles of fairness or justice aside. This is a case where the system actually appears to be working.  An accusation was made, the evidence and statements are being investigated and the burden of proving guilt is failing.  And this is happening in part because the DA executed his ethical duties and did the right thing. That's not failure.  That is success.

    But I don't think many will see it in that way.

    You had me clear up until (none / 0) (#8)
    by Buckeye on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 10:29:36 AM EST
    DA executed his ethical duties and did the right thing. That's not failure.  That is success.

    There was a rush to judgment by the DA and he made an arrest against a high profile defendant before he thoroughly investigated this case.

    Once an arrest is made on very serious charges, it scars you for life.  And not just high profile defendants like DSK.  In the era of google, being arrested on charges like this, even if they are quickly dropped, will follow you for the rest of your life.  DSK lost his job, his reputation is impaired, and he is no longer a candidate for the Presidency of France.  This happened because the DA felt like he needed to arrests DSK before he boarded his plane to France and did not investigate this case.  He simply depended on the accusation of someone he did not know.  The system protected the innocent from going to jail.  It did not protect the innocent from suffering from these charges for the rest of his life...and it should have.


    Buckeye (none / 0) (#10)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 11:04:29 AM EST
    OK, here is where I get to flex my feminist street cred a little bit.

    When you have DNA evidence, the accused fleeing the country in a suspicious way, and a story that looks like it adds up reported immediately by the accuser (and backed up by the hotel staff), I understand the DA's actions to some degree. Especially because the man was about to leave the country.

    I think they were trying to do the right thing, and I am having a hard time punishing them for getting it in front of a grand jury quickly.

    But I do see your point and it's a completely supportable one. This is just one of those judgment calls where I give the DA a little leeway, especially because of the extradition issues.


    Good points, the only problem with this is (5.00 / 0) (#15)
    by Buckeye on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 11:58:03 AM EST
    that the DA did not have DNA evidence when he made the arrest.  He arrested DSK immediately and did DNA testing AFTER he was in custody.  DSK was never asked if he had sex with her or not (he eventually did rendering the DNA evidence irrelevant).  I also struggle with the "he is leaving the country" bit.  This is a highly visible person that is not going to disappear in a third world country.  (I realize France has protected Polanski from the US criminal justice system, but that case was exceptional in every way.  The judge in that case was a clown and the courty was breaking every agreement they made with Polanski).

    Prosecutors will never be 100% and it is unreasonable for society to demand such.  There are going to be times where the system fails to protect the innocent or their reputation in spite of their best efforts.  My only problem with the DA in this case is that he arrested someone without doing any investigating other than taking the word of someone he did not know.  It was only after the arrest which cost this man his job, reputation and future political career before the investigation revealed the truth.  IOW, this DA was hardly a Nifong, but there is a lesson in this case to investigate thoroughly first, and arrest later.


    Yes, and the (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 01:01:57 PM EST
    claim that the accused was leaving the country in  a "suspicious way" is a stretch.  DSK was departing to Paris using a previously purchased ticket.  The nature of his work required travel, and, indeed, he was to meet with German Chancellor Merkel the next day.  Any appearance of hurriedness could be explained by his luncheon date with his daughter and reports of traffic.

    The only reason one would think (none / 0) (#30)
    by Buckeye on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 01:18:00 PM EST
    DSK was leaving "in a suspicious manner" or "fleeing the country" as the DA apparently was assuming would be if you are already assuming guilt.

    What "feminist street cred"? (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by itscookin on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 06:31:58 PM EST
    Thanks for the laugh.

    Who knew... (none / 0) (#3)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 09:44:13 AM EST
    ya could play so fast and loose with a bank account, and here I am getting printed to cash a measley 3 figure paycheck.

    I assume the bank dropped a dime to the IRS, as is the law on transactions over 10k...I wonder if the IRS was after the accuser.

    One way to cut down on (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 11:30:48 AM EST
    government employment and expenses. Never prosecute anyone for rape w/o evidence exceeding "he said; she said." Great break for rapists also.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#13)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 11:33:23 AM EST
    in many of these cases, he said/she said is all that we have.

    You don't want to create a situation where date rape is impossible to prosecute.  That's the real end result of that policy.

    But at the same time, I think we need to publicize the identity of the accuser and the accused or publicize none of their names.  That has to be the trade off for allowing cases to be brought on the testimony of one person with no other evidence.


    Yep, and its the latter. (none / 0) (#16)
    by Buckeye on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 12:01:47 PM EST
    we need to protect the identity of both.  Victims need to feel empowered to report sexual assault crimes when they occur without fear of humiliation/reprisal, but we need to protect the identify of those accused until they are convicted to prevent a different injustice from occurring.

    NYT op-ed columnist, Joe Nocera (none / 0) (#14)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 11:38:22 AM EST
    provides a defense of DA Vance, saying that "..for the life of me, though, I can't see what Vance did wrong."  The underpinning to Nocera's position is that law enforcement had no time to spare--he was on a plane about to depart for France, "the same country that, for decades, helped shield Roman Polanski from being prosecuted..."  And, under New York law , if prosecutors don't indict within five days, they must release him on his own recognizance.  

    My view is much less sympathetic and forgiving to the process used by the prosecution.  There would have been time to spare if consideration was given to the fact that the alleged crime is called a "case" for a reason--there are individualized facts and circumstances.

    To pull the cloak of Polanski over this case not only misreads Polanski, but, importantly, misdirected this case. The plausibility of the urgency needs to take into account DSK's job at IMF, which is headquartered in Washington and requires travel around the world.  DSK has a home in DC, and any aspirations of being president of France would be dashed if he was a fugitive in the US.  

    The prosecution needed time to verify the facts and circumstances.  It is not, as some assert, that the accuser become the "defendant".

     If a case involved visual identification that was critical to effective prosecution, it would behoove the prosecution to check the vision of the witness or accuser. If glasses were needed to see, it would be important to know if they were worn at the time of the incident.  To find later that the witness was unsighted would surely jeopardize the case, not to mention, cause embarrassment to the prosecution.

    So, too, the facts as reported in this case as well as the credibility and reliability of the accuser needed to be ascertained and verified.  The building of a serious criminal case takes care and time.  The unnecessary rush to indict will now extract its toll on all involved.

    Do let us all be aware (none / 0) (#17)
    by scribe on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 12:05:40 PM EST
    that the complainant is now reported to have filed a defamation lawsuit against the Post over the sex-for-money allegations.

    Of course, that also means she'll have to be testifying under oath in the open - not behind closed doors of a grand jury room.

    Have to admit (none / 0) (#22)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 12:27:32 PM EST
    I didn't see that coming.  Hope the Post has its facts together or this woman could get paid.

    There are going to be a lot of (none / 0) (#48)
    by hairspray on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 06:54:51 PM EST
    court cases regarding this incident.  Now we learn that Tristane Banon has resurfaced with her accusations against DSK from 2002.  She is going public with the accusation of attempted rape that she was dissuaded from pursuing because of DSK's political stature.  And DSK is going to sue her for criminal slander. She stated that she was furious at his arrogant beHavior since his release.   This should all be very interesting.  If he sues her for slander they will all go under oath, I believe.  His reputation isn't out of the woods yet.

    So was I (none / 0) (#56)
    by Nemi on Wed Jul 06, 2011 at 06:10:07 AM EST
    furious at his arrogant behavior since his release
    or put more accurately, I was appaled. Couldn't he, his wife and their friends have toned down the victorious crowing ... at least as long as the cameras were rolling?

    But for her to give that, "His arrogance made me furious", as a reason for changing her mind about accusing him - 9 years later at that - I really don't think that will be of much help to (the reliability of) neither herself nor for that matter future rape victims.


    The question is about his passport (none / 0) (#18)
    by Towanda on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 12:06:22 PM EST
    for me, then.  Was he given the option to surrender his passport and stay here, not in custody, awaiting further investigation?  If so, was he willing to do so?

    That is, I agree that his imminent departure was a reason for detaining him -- but it was not the only option for preventing his departure.

    That's what I was asking (none / 0) (#46)
    by Towanda on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 06:39:28 PM EST
    if you read my post -- but not to detain him, only to prevent his departure from the country.  That was in reply to the parent post.

    So you have no answer?


    I'll repeat what I sad on a prior thread: (none / 0) (#20)
    by scribe on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 12:10:12 PM EST
    Consider the alternative to what Vance's office did.  Imagine for a second that Leslie Crocker Snyder had won the DA election instead of Vance.  She made her bones building, from nothing, the NY County Sex Crimes unit and went on to be a hanging judge.  I'd be willing to bet that the phone calls would never have seen the light of day out of the DA's office if she were there - and they might not have even investigated.  The calls and the accuser's problems would probably have surfaced, but only later and only in the context of the defense bringing them out.  While that's bad enough for the justice system now, if it had come out later it would have been a massive black eye for everyone if it had continued to be buried.

    Prosecution 101 (none / 0) (#21)
    by Rojas on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 12:22:53 PM EST
    Don't ask questions that may tend to undermine your case.

    i just went and read the constitution, (none / 0) (#31)
    by cpinva on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 01:25:45 PM EST
    perhaps some of you should give it a gander as well. after diligent review, i see no amendment stating that "innocent until proven guilty means you can't be arrested until the trial is over." if it's there, someone please cite the specific location.

    heck, this happens, well, all the time, to our own citizens, who don't have the material & political resources of mr. DSK, a non-citizen on his way out of the country. so arguing otherwise is, at best, disengenous. in fact, i can look at the police blotter section of any daily paper around the entire country, and see examples of this practice.

    This is still so (none / 0) (#32)
    by lilburro on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 01:33:10 PM EST
    so odd.  France's possible next President, brought down this way...through a series of terrible coincidences?  I guess I have my tinfoil hat on to some extent.

    As for the NY Post...I am not sure I believe the accuser is doing her working girl act in a DA safehouse, "prosecution sources."  Although I guess she could be a completely bizarro idiot.

    It is seeming more and more (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 04:15:32 PM EST
    like an episode of Weeds.

    Unnamed (none / 0) (#37)
    by lentinel on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 05:21:50 PM EST
    sources, or unnamed "officials familiar with the situation" are people to whom I pay little or no attention.

    Note: law enforcement is (none / 0) (#38)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 05:23:09 PM EST
    required by law to arrest only on "probable cause.". Not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

    You need (none / 0) (#42)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 06:26:56 PM EST
    a little more research before typing your headline.

    Thank you (none / 0) (#45)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 06:36:19 PM EST
    for justifying my statement.

    Yes, that's the point (none / 0) (#49)
    by Towanda on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 07:03:06 PM EST
    which is that we must wait and see, as there are no charges as yet.

    The Tinfoil Hatters were right ... (none / 0) (#51)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 07:09:27 PM EST
    on this one it seems.  And they are more often than many like to admit.

    why delay? (none / 0) (#54)
    by markw on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 11:43:31 PM EST
    Given that the deadline for filing for the French socialist primary is July 13, I'm wondering why the DA's office is delaying in dismissing this case. DSK may not even be interested in running for president any more, but, if the case is dismissed after July 13, the DA could always be accused of even more directly impacting the presidential election in France.

    Jeralyn seems to think they want to pair a dismissal with charges against the accused.  That doesn't seem like an important enough reason to dismay the dismissal, given the possible international stakes involved.  Could it be that the prosecution is trying to make a deal--we will dismiss the case if you promise not to sue us for false arrest--or something like that?  I'll be curious to see what comes out of the meeting tomorrow.

    actually I think they want to (none / 0) (#55)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 06, 2011 at 01:11:39 AM EST
    pair it either with an announcement they are or are not  filing charges against the accuser. I think it's tidy either way and I don't have an opinion yet which way that will go. If there are immigration charges or removal proceedings, those would be brought federally, and the feds would want to conduct their own investigation. I don't think tax charges are likely, probably a civil penalty and an assessment for back taxes is more likely for taking the extra dependent.

    As for the false statements to the grand jury, that's the one that has me on the fence. They don't want to dissuade other potential victims from coming forward out of fear their backgrounds would be investigated, exposing them to charges. On the other hand, lying to a grand jury is serious. Also, they could make that a misdemeanor saying they don't think it was material.

    I doubt anything will be resolved tomorrow. They will probably talk about a misdemeanor plea for DSK, which I suspect the defense will reject, and they will keep investigating the accuser until they have decided what to do (or not do) with her.

    All this is just my speculation, of course, so we'll soon see if I'm close.