France

Two Views of the Latest DSK Developments

|

Since it's America's birthday, why not bring up something related to the nation's oldest friend/fiend (depending on whom you believe)? Take it away, DSK!

At Slate, William Saletan says that the revelations about Dominique Strauss-Kahn's accuser that have seen print in The New York Times signal not simply the end of the case against the former head of the International Monetary Fund and possible contender for France's presidency but show that the American justice system is in good shape:

On Friday, I still thought Strauss-Kahn was guilty. Today, I don't…

The unraveling of the Strauss-Kahn prosecution is a victory for justice, because investigators found ways to check the accuser's credibility. Other accusers will pass such tests. This one didn't. What the c

ollapse of this case proves is that it's possible to distinguish true rape accusations from false ones—and that the government, having staked its reputation on an accuser's credibility, diligently investigated her and disclosed her lies. The system worked.

None of this would have been possible without the layers of electronic surveillance and record-keeping—card keys, phone taps, tax returns, public housing forms, bank and billing data—that pervade our lives. We often complain that these devices and databases impinge on our freedom. Today, they have given a man his freedom. And they have given all of us hope that even when only two people were in the room, we can find ways to ascertain who's telling the truth.

The whole piece is here.

Over at National Review's The Corner, Victor Davis Hanson argues that even if the maid's testimony of a forced sexual encounter is shown to be a tissue of lies,

what bothered most observers still remains:

First, we were given a rare glimpse of the otherwise discreet lifestyle of an aristocratic socialist, and we learned that the life he practices in no way approximates the ideology of equality of result that he embraces. Second, European lectures about power imbalances, the corrupting influence of money and privilege, etc., do not exactly square with quickie sexual acts — even if mutually consensual, or paid for — in a luxury hotel room with a randomly met West African immigrant maid.

Third, we assume that the most powerful men on the planet, whether governors of New York and California, the president of the United States, or the head of the International Monetary Fund, have an obligation not to let their private lives intrude into their public ones, by reckless sexual behavior of the sort that lessens respect for the office and questions their judgement to such a degree that it affects the lives of those they are pledged to serve.

If the preponderance of evidence in the accuser's past soon undermines her credibility to such an extent that her word cannot be used against Strauss-Kahn, then we will still be left with a controversy. It will simply be a matter, not of legality, but of Strauss-Kahn's judgement, morality, and hypocrisy — as is usually the case in high-profile sexual scandals.

Whole thing here.

VDH's point goes to DSK's highest-profile preemptive defender, of course, BHL (AKA Bernard Henri-Levy), who dismissed out of hand the testimony of a mere "chambermaid" and a French journalist who accused DSK of attacking her when she was 22 years old. At best, DSK will have to cop to either paying for sex or, as Hanson points out, "that a young maid he just met was quite willing, in ad hoc fashion in a few minutes between work, to have sex with an older, plump foreign stranger." Either reality puts the lie to the idea that, as defender-of-Polanski BHL waxed like a Brazilian supermodel, that his pal was "…charming, seductive, yes, certainly; a friend to women and, first of all, to his own woman, naturally."

NEXT: Your Independence Day Musical Extravaganza

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. As we all scramble to reassemble the facts of the DSK incident in a way that confirms our worldview, I’m reminded of the immortal words of Homer Simpson: “It’s just a bunch of stuff that happened.”

  2. Our Founding Fathers didn’t DIE FIGHTING THE FRENCH just so this turd can get away with raping one of our citizens.

    Also, the market should dictate that luxury hotels screen the help a little better.

    1. I know you’re joking, but the frogs were essential in our victory over the limeys. There’s a reason a shit ton of things were named after Lafayette. I like the frogs.

      1. Watching the John Adams marathon on HBO today, are we? They took several liberties with history putting that miniseries together, you know. They didn’t even have hi-def cameras back then.

        1. It can’t be as bad as the liberties taken in John Paul Jones, which aired on TCM this morning. At the end of the movie, Ben Franklin is ministering to Jones on Jones’ deathbed in Paris.

          In real life, Franklin died two years before Jones.

          Ah, well, Charles Coburn wearing the Cowardly Lion’s wig from The Wizard of Oz is worth a laugh.

      2. the frogs were essential in our victory over the limeys.

        Bullshit.

        There is no way Briton of the late 18th century could have held the Colonies.

        1. Except that independence wasn’t an extremely popular position. And the British did hold on to Ontario, Quebec, and the Maritimes.

      3. The French are, by human standards, insane, but they’re still more our friends than not. And have been all along.

    2. I also realize you’re joking, but many of the founders did in fact fight the French. Twice, actually.

      Seven Years’ War
      Quasi-War

      1. Why do you hate the French so much? Did a Frenchman touch you once. OMG, ARE YOU THE MAID?

        1. You’re a little all over the place today. It’s kind of confusing.

          1. Tell me about it. It could be that I got spoofed. And by ‘spoofed’ I mean drunk.

            1. In that case, have another.

  3. When has a popular rape accusation ever turned out to be true?

    We keep seeing the same pattern over and over again. There is an initial rush to judgement, followed by the justification that the lie somehow gave us insight to some “larger truth”.

    1. Not us!

  4. I’m still in the ‘hang ‘im anyways, govnah’ camp. If only to piss off dash, aka whineboy.

    1. He is/was with the IMF. We should hang him just on principle.

      1. He’s French; custom demands that he meet with the Guillotine!

  5. I’m still not convinced the man is innocent.

    When trials like this come down to the credibility of the witnesses, that doesn’t mean the bastard isn’t guilty. It only means he isn’t guilty enough for a jury to convict unanimously beyond a reasonable doubt.

    One of the things Radley Balko’s work should have taught us over the past few years is that we shouldn’t completely abandon our reasonable doubts–even after someone is convicted! It seems to me that’s a two-say street. Just because someone is convicted, that doesn’t necessarily mean he did the crime, and just because someone isn’t convicted–that doesn’t necessarily mean he’s innocent either.

    The past lies and racism of the police, when brought to light, may have prejudiced the jury in the state’s case against O.J. Simpson so thoroughly that the jury even mistrusted the evidence, but that never meant O.J. Simpson was innocent. Only that they didn’t convict him.

    There’s still the matter of the man’s DNA, apparently, on something belonging to the cleaning lady–and consensual sex between a stranger and a cleaning lady still seems pretty far fetched to me.

    And even if the man is found “not guilty”–that doesn’t mean he’s innocent.

    And it remains quite possible for a liar to be sexually assaulted.

    1. If she was trying to set him up for money, consensual sex isn’t that farfetched at all.

      1. If she was a witch, she might have used her evil witch-powers to force him to do it against his will!

        Just because she might have financially gained by lying about how his semen got on her dress? Is no reason to assume she lied about how it got there.

        Isn’t that’s the basis of half the crazed conspiracy theories we see–“Follow the money!”

        1. Trust me, getting semen on a dress is EASY!

          1. Happens to me at the truck stops all the time.

          2. You get what I’m saying though.

            If the relative wealth of accused is somehow evidence that the alleged victim is lying?

            Then the Kennedys were all innocent?!

        2. It’s not a crazed conspiracy theory when the maid is recorded telling her boyfriend, who is in jail and has been laundering over $100K in cash to her, “Don’t worry, this guy has a lot of money. I know what I’m doing.” She’s also quite a bit less credible when she has demonstrated being able to tearfully and emotionally lie about being gang raped.

          1. I don’t think I said he was guilty.

            I think I just said I’m not convinced he’s innocent–and that he definitely has poor judgement.

            I said he was a piece of shit–and he is!

            I don’t think I said he was guilty.

            1. You said that the idea of the maid doing this for the money is a crazed conspiracy theory. It may not be the case, but based on the evidence, it’s not far fetched either.

              1. Then I also accused her of witchcraft!

                Uh, no, I said crazed conspiracy theories are often about following the money…

                That’s the basis of some anti-semitic conspiracy theories, Illuminati conspiracy theories, Bildeberg conspiracy theories…

                Just because some people profited from something–doesn’t mean they orchestrated it. …we laugh out every conspiracy theory that walks in the room on that basis.

                Just because someone tried to profit from being a victim, doesn’t mean she wasn’t a victim. Like I said, his best case scenario for how his DNA got on her? Was that it was consensual rather than by force.

                He’s the one asserting a conspiracy here.

                1. There’s still the physical evidence … vaginal bruising, bruising on other parts of her body, as well.

                  1. Happens to my wife all the time. She’s resigned to being married to a reincarnation of Milton Berle.

                  2. Yeah, there’s physical evidence–and if we’re talking about a criminal trial, that’s really important.

                    In the court of public opinion? The evidence matters, but there’s already more than enough evidence to convict this man of being a first degree jackass.

                    Even if it was consensual, it takes a first degree jackass to go around sleeping with any cleaning lady that happens to walk into the room.

                    I mean, seriously? Can you imagine if something like this had happened to the Republican frontrunners?

                    Whether he should be thrown in jail is one question–whether his countrymen should be ashamed of his behavior is another question entirely.

                    I’d hate to be the next lucky cleaning lady that accidentally wanders in to clean his room–can you imagine?

                    1. Are you for real?

          2. On an asylum application to get into the US.

            These a big different between lying for the sake of getting past some bullshit immigration red tape, and lying to put an innocent man in prison.

            I don’t think any of her lies demonstrate a malicious willingness to harm other people. Everything she’s been involved iwth is a victimless crimes (marajuana trade, lying on tax forms, lying on immigration forms).

            1. Blargh. There’s a big difference …

        3. It seem probable that to me that she was turning tricks for extra cash, which is explains there sexual encounter. And then DSK pissed her off by being a dick or stiffing her and she decided to get even.

          1. So lying on your tax forms, your immigration applications, and being involved with a pot dealer = YOUR OBVIOUSLY A WHORE!!!!

            1. You forgot about the 10,000s of thousands of deposits into bank accounts in multiple states. Lying about the her actions immediately after the incident. Telling a boyfriend that she knows what she’s doing, he’s rich. And the rumors of prostitution.

              The sexual encounter being an act of prostitution actually makes more sense than the only other possible alternatives, namely

              1)That DSK decides to rape his hotel maid as a bon voyage.

              2) That DSK seduced a maid into providing a quicky BJ.

              3) She honey trapped him as part of an extorsion scheme.

    2. No Ken ,reasonable doubt is for the accused,not the state.The burden should be very high,and it’s not guilty, not innocent.

      1. He is not talking about reasonable doubt as a member of the jury, hes talking as a random joe reading the news stories. We are allowed to have our opinions on the guilt/innocence of people whatever happens in court.

        1. We are allowed to have our opinions

          You know what else everyone has?

          1. Yeah, god forbid somebody have an opinion on someone who’s accused of sexually assaulting a cleaning lady…

            Meanwhile the French Socialist Party is making exceptions for him–holding the door open in the apparent hope that he’s still running for office…

            God forbid somebody have an opinion on something like that! …and express it somewhere completely inappropriate–like in the comments section of a public policy blog.

            I should be ashamed of myself, I guess?!

            “PARIS?The French Socialist Party said Monday it could tweak its process for selecting its candidate for president should Dominique Strauss-Kahn decide to mount a bid…”

            http://online.wsj.com/article/…..99610.html

            1. This incident may very well help him win election.

        2. And this isn’t a guy I would want representing me in government.

          Even if the best-case scenario is the truth? I wouldn’t want this guy on my payroll making decisions for me.

          Having consensual sex with random cleaning ladies on the road is probably not indicative of good judgement.

          That’s like rule #1 of leadership: Don’t embarrass the shit out of yourself, your family, the company you work for–and everyone who’s invested time, money and effort in your success. It scares away people who might want to invest time, money and effort in your future plans–it makes them afraid you might embarrass the shit out of them for being associated with you.

          Whichever way the jury goes be it in criminal court or in a civil trial–one thing should be clear to everybody. Public opinion is absolutely right in its verdict–this man is a piece of shit.

          Best case scenario? His piss poor judgement leads him to bang cleaning ladies with impunity. Some people go their whole lives without banging any cleaning ladies–hard to believe but it’s true!

          1. Are you for real?

          2. Are you for real?

          3. Are you for real?

    3. I agree, and while her credibility might be damaged enough that a jury would not believe her, I don’t think that her particular lies indicate a strong probabiltiy of an extortion scheme either.

      Lying on immigration forms is totally understandable given how difficult it is to get into the US legally. Lying on tax returns is, similarly, to me at least, no big deal.

      The phone call to the pot-dealing friend may be the one thing that gives reasonable doubt to a jury, but, to me at least it doesn’t prove an extortion scheme. OF COURSE once she heard that DSK was a rich man, she must have realized that there might be a civil case and some money for her in it. For all we know, he might have been advising her to drop the case for fear of jeopoadizing her immigration status, and she was trying to give him a better reason why she shouldn’t.

      Finally if the end result of this is that people whose immigration status is questionable are afraid to report rape to the police then what sort of situation have we created?

      If this maid ends up being deported back to Guinea, what kind of message does that send, considering the possibility that she might be telling the truth? Open season on illegal immigrant maids?

      1. Lying on immigration forms is totally understandable given how difficult it is to get into the US legally. Lying on tax returns is, similarly, to me at least, no big deal.

        So multiple felonies to fraudulently gain residency, extract as much money as possible from the welfare system and help a friend run a criminal enterprise are “no big deal” to you.

        Certainly nothing, in your opinion, that justifies deporting her.

        Do you realize how crazy that is?

        1. Well, Josh, if the world ever needs someone to keep us safe from Teh Cleanin’ Lady Menace, it’s nice to know we’ll have someone to turn to.

          In the meantime, if you find yourself in New York, and you don’t want to get sucked into the desperate world of immigrant cleaning lady problems?

          Try not to fuck the cleaning lady!

          1. So I guess welfare fraud, tax evasion and criminal conspiracies are all ok by you as long as your an immigrant, right ken.

            What other crimes is it ok for immigrants to commit?

            How about us natives, do we get a pass on stealing from tax payers. Making false felony accusations.
            Operating organized crime rings.

            1. “So I guess welfare fraud, tax evasion and criminal conspiracies are all ok by you as long as your an immigrant, right ken.”

              Nice straw man.

              What does that have to do with some jackass who–at best–looks for consensual sex from the cleaning lady?

              Oh, and you are aware that even if this cleaning lady had committed welfare fraud, tax evasion and criminal conspiracies–that wouldn’t make it okay to sexually assault her, right?

              [You’re] aware that immigrants have rights–just like everybody else?

              And you’re aware that calling up the meanest dude she knows–after she’d been sexually assaulted–and asking him for advice on how to proceed? Could be the perfectly typical rage response of a sexual assault victim as well–just as easily as at could be indicative of some conspiracy?

              1. What does that have to do with some jackass who–at best–looks for consensual sex from the cleaning lady?

                Nothing.
                DSK is a disgusting pos on many levels. The rape charge against him fit my world view of him and seemed to be much deserved.

                But I’m honest enough to admit that with further evidence and reflection the charges are almost certainly bullshit.

                Oh, and you are aware that even if this cleaning lady had committed welfare fraud, tax evasion and criminal conspiracies–that wouldn’t make it okay to sexually assault her, right?

                Never said that it would.
                In fact, it would be crime if she was a prostitute and he assaulted her.

                The problem is that her credibility has been destroyed by a series of lies and criminal behavior. Not only that, but here actions immediately after the incident indicate that it was not a case of violent rape.

                Some type of prostitution is the most probable explanation of what happened between her and DSK. Obviously it went wrong at some point, but their is no evidence that it was violence on his part.

                And you’re aware that calling up the meanest dude she knows–after she’d been sexually assaulted–and asking him for advice on how to proceed? Could be the perfectly typical rage response of a sexual assault victim as well–just as easily as at could be indicative of some conspiracy?

                Yeah, except that her telling her friend that “she knew what she was doing, he has a lot of money” fits better with a con man bragging about their next score than it does with a victim seeking help.

                [You’re] aware that immigrants have rights–just like everybody else?

                I guess we’ll just have to disagree that immigrants have a “right” to be here the same as citizens.

                Immigrants that gain fraudulent entry, apparently as part of a conspiracy, then engage in multiple felonies and milk the welfare system should be deported in my opinion.

                1. “I guess we’ll just have to disagree that immigrants have a “right” to be here the same as citizens.”

                  I didn’t say they have a right to be here–I said they have rights.

                  Crimes committed against illegal aliens are just like crimes committed against anyone else. There’s no difference between sexually assaulting an immigrant or anyone else.

                  1. There are two issues here.

                    1) Crimes against anyone, citizen, legal resident, tourist or illegal immigrant should be punished equally.

                    However, when the accuser is a self admitted serial felon, in other words a career criminal, their accusations are rightfully suspect.

                    The fact that the career criminal in this case is also a female black african immigrant does not mitigate the fact that she is a self admitted career criminal.

                    1. This comment system sucks for drunks

                      I’m filing an ADA suit in the mronni.g

  6. VDH said, multiple times, that DSK has to do X or Y to prove his innocence. DSK does not have to prove his innocence, the burden of proof is on the prosecutors. He merely has to show a reasonable doubt.

    1. He merely has to show a reasonable doubt.
      That is the standard for avoiding a criminal conviction.

      The public relations standard for restoring his, uh “reputation” is quite a bit higher. As he is out at the IMF this is for the Frogs to worry about (when and if the NY DA drops the case and barring a credible civil action by the maid).

      1. They have nothing to worry about: they’ll rehabilitate him just to piss of the Americans.

      2. Which is what VDH was talking about.

  7. None of this would have been possible without the layers of electronic surveillance and record-keeping?card keys, phone taps, tax returns, public housing forms, bank and billing data?that pervade our lives.

    CARAMBA!

  8. ….looks like the ballyhooed charges against the alleged assaulter of the SF Giant fan on Dodger’s opening day are slip-sliding away….it was a heinous crime, and not really a rush to judgement, but the Law Enforcement and City Officials made a very big deal about the suspect’s arrest…and now it looks like it’s probably the wrong man…

    1. A serious crime puts a lot of force into the effort to put someone, anyone really, behind bars.

  9. Over at National Review’s The Corner, Victor Davis Hanson

    engages in a lot of stuffy moralizing and theatrical disappointment in the failure of a Pillar of Society to live up to his (Hanson’s) ideals.

  10. Breaking News:
    Rich Elitist Socialist Politician is a hypocrite!
    Thanks VDH!

    1. You say “rich elitist socialist” like it’s a bad thing.

      1. That DSK is one sexy beast, I mean which woman could resist him ? As a bonus he is a powerful socialist, you must wank off thinking of this guy every day.

  11. Seriously, is this idiot from Slate telling us that pervasive governmental surveillance of our lives is not only a good thing, but essential for our justice system to work? In that case, allow him to be the first to volunteer to have his phones tapped 24/7.

    1. You would welcome that evidence if your freedom depended on it.

      Pop quiz: Which of the following qualifies as your “pervasive governmental surveillance“?

      1) card keys
      2) phone taps
      3) tax returns
      4) public housing forms
      5) bank and billing data

      1. Gee guy, you’ve convinced me! I want the government to tap all my phone calls, keep a dossier on me with all my personal information in one place and accessible by the cops whenever they want, all to protect me just in case someone falsely accuses me of a crime. Because I can sleep soundly knowing that the good and just government would NEVER use this personal information for any other purpose…

        1. You confuse surveillance with standard investigative techniques and top it all off with tiresome libertarian boilerplate, paranoia, hyperbole and sarcasm. To wit, you’re just another whining dupe, contributing nothing to the conversation.

    2. No doubt the comments at slate will be all about whether the guy is innocent or guilty.

      The fact that people are living in a surveillance state and is supposed to be essential for freedom will not be discussed by anyone there.

  12. Credit card records have so effectively enabled Big Brother to track us, we should require biometric identity confirmation (via Real ID) for all transactions including cash. For our own good.

    FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

  13. Naomi Wolf knows what’s wrong with you. You’re a depraved pervert.

    What is driving this weirdly disinhibited decision-making? Could the widespread availability and consumption of pornography in recent years actually be rewiring the male brain, affecting men’s judgment about sex and causing them to have more difficulty controlling their impulses?

    1. Smack that ass like it’s the workplace 1960 and 3!

      If only.

      When I was a work place minion, I only dabbled in romance when two conditions (a criteria I developed after some stupid shit went down in college) were met, 1) the lady initiated flirtatious contact, and 2) she did so in front of witnesses. After that, game ON!

      Met my exwife under those conditions*, so it is not impossible in the current oppressive environment to have fun. You are navigating through an uneven,and quite unnaturally arranged, balance of power though.

      *a female coworker noticed her staring at me — I had noticed to, but I thought she was just daydreaming while gazing off in my direction. I just don’t think of women as being creepy like that.

  14. As I understand it this woman lied about being allowed to work in the US and she asked a drug dealer for advice on how to profit from this. I don’t think the first part actually makes her less credible. If that can become a factor used to discredit victims of crimes then we are gonna see a lot more illegals get attacked.

    1. The first part is only an issue because one of the lies she used on her asylum application was regarding a gang rape. That is sort of relevant to the case at hand.

      1. It’s not clear that the gang rape didn’t happen. Just that she embellished the story to make it sound good on the asylum application.

        1. According to the letter from the DA, “she stated that she lied about its [the gang rape] occurrence and fabricated the details, and that this false incident was part of the narrative that she had been directed to memorize as part of asylum application process”. Note, that it doesn’t say that she embellished or exaggerated the incident, but that she lied about its occurrence and fabricated the details.

          1. Accounts differ. Other articles say that she was raped, but modified to the story.

            1. Considering the quote I gave you was from the letter written by the NY DA’s office, I’m going to go with that being the official word (which obviously is different from the truth, but likely more accurate than some random account on Jezebel). Where did those articles get their information from?

          2. Also note

            “and that this false incident was part of the narrative that she had been directed to memorize as part of asylum application process”.

            Directed to memorize – by someone else obviously. Meaning that she was involved in a criminal conspiracy of some sore from the beginning.

  15. Those guys seem to be making a LOT of sense when you think about it. Wow.

    http://www.total-web-privacy.tk

  16. I have been avoiding this story since it first broke, but I am of the general opinion that politicians should be considered extremely guilty and ‘terminated with prejudice’ until proven innocent.

    It is possible that one of them will accidently be innocent of a particular charge. If so, they are entitled to being exonerated. Posthumously.

    1. And they say moderation isn’t a virtue. An outstanding and REASONable idea as any I have ever heard.

      1. They wonder why nobody takes libertarians seriously.

  17. but he’s french, so this is cool

  18. The unraveling of the Strauss-Kahn prosecution is a victory for justice, because investigators found ways to check the accuser’s credibility.

    Are you kidding me? He was arrested, detained, and lost his job, THEN the prosecution says, “never mind.” And this is justice? How convenient the case fell apart AFTER his replacement was found. Whew — thank goodness THAT’S over, eh?

    1. Justice mean him not spending the next three decades in jail for a crime he didn’t commmitt. Aside from that, he seems like a total dick to me so I can’t say I feel sorry that he lost his job. He’ll land on his feet though since vindication is always good for your career.

      1. He will land on his feet because he is in the boss class.

        An ordinary yob caught in this situation would be screwed, even if he was proven completely innocent (as opposed to merely being ‘presumed innocent.’

  19. Of course, journalists and regular people can accuse DSK of being a rich, skirt-chasing hypocritical European socialist – it’s a fair accusation.

    But he wasn’t arrested and locked up on a charge of being a hypocritical socialist – he wasn’t even locked up on suspicion of being a European. And he wasn’t locked up on charges of solicitation or fornication, either.

    He was arrested and locked up on charges of *rape.* And by all accounts, the evidence that a rape took place (as opposed to a consensual encounter) is largely based on the testimony of a single witness. Now, it seems that this witness has admitted making up a story about rape in the past, as well as doing some other things undermining her credibility.

    This seems like a fairly cut-and-dried situation, and those who bought the accusation can’t to walk it back by saying, “well, rapist or not, he’s demonstrably a European socialist.”

    The case shows the left and the right displaying that they are somewhat unclear on the concept of the presumption of innocence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

    According to Saletan, violations of privacy “have *given* a man his freedom.” [emphasis added] No, freedom is not a gift, but a right – yes, even if you’re a socialistically-inclined Frog.

    Victor David Hanson opines:

    “So, to recap: To *prove his innocence,* if the forensic evidence of a sex act turns up, Strauss-Kahn will either have to *prove* [etc.]”

    No, he doesn’t have to prove jack (or jacques). The prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the sexual encounter was rape rather than voluntary (and rough). If the complainant’s testimony is all the prosecution has to prove the claim of rape, then the prosecution needs to give the jury some reason to believe the complainant is more credible than DSK.

    We seem to be setting the bar fairly high for people accused of rape – if you are fortunate enough to have an accuser who admits making up a story about rape in the past, to be involved with a drug-dealer, etc., etc., and if you’re rich enough that the cops won’t dare risk covering up the evidence in your favor, then the system will graciously let you go, and the media – disappointed that you didn’t fit their narrative – will print sour-grapes editorials about how you morally deserved your treatment because you’re a European socialist or a lacrosse player or a [name of opposite political party], and we all know that such people *deserve* to be arrested and humiliated for crimes they didn’t commit.

    Are cases like this really an opportunity for the media to practice “class justice” – regardless of the facts, the defendant is guilty of socialism, or playing lacrosse, so in a larger sense they’re still guilty. And why not go the next logical step and mention that DSK is a Jewish banker? Why not put that particular fact into the metanarrative, if we’re going to target people based on group membership?

    1. Well put. Then again, the lynch mob insists that they are entitled to their own opinion.

  20. As a general rule I assume all high-profile rape claims are false, and that generally turns out to be the case.

    And as a matter of common sense, any time any one claims they were somehow forced to perform oral sex it is obviously a lie. there is no possible way to force such a thing without putting a gun to her head. This so-called “rape” claim was one of the most obvious cases of a false claim i’d ever heard.

    1. Happily, the local lynch mob has seen the error of its ways and has promised never again to fly off the handle like a clown-car full of knee-jerk Balkobots. Or not.

  21. .. I paid $32.67 for a XBOX 360 and my mom got a 17 inch Toshiba laptop for
    $94.83 being delivered to our house tomorrow by f3dex. I will never again pay expensive r3tailprices at stores.I even sold a 46 inch HDTV to my boss for $650 and it only cost me $52.78 to get.Here is the website we using to get all this stuff, BuzzSave.com……..

  22. “older, plump foreign stranger”
    I highly resemble the “older, plump” and I am highly, highly offended with the insinuation that older plumb males are incapable of seducing foreign chamber maids with our suave charm and bottles of viagra…
    and cash….lots and lots of cash…
    yes, naked I do resemble a plucked chicken ready for roasting, but what young women doesn’t find that irresistably sexy????

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.