Is the Head of the IMF a Sex Criminal?

Jessica, I also read the New York magazine profile of Anne Sinclair, and while I agree it was fascinating, to me, it was only fascinating for the remarkable amount of disdain it has for Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s alleged victims.

But first, I wanted to address the comparisons you drew between Sinclair and Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Edwards. I don’t personally care much what goes on in anyone’s marriage, especially a political marriage, as long as it doesn’t affect me. If Anne Sinclair wants to be the first lady of France, it’s her prerogative. But when it comes to breaking the law, all bets are off. And that is where Sinclair and Clinton diverge from the late Elizabeth Edwards. The “harsh judgment” directed toward Sinclair and, many years ago, toward Hillary Clinton, is justified. They have stood by men accused of far worse things than adultery—remember that it was Paula Jones’ sexual harassment lawsuit against Bill Clinton that gave us the Lewinksy scandal, and that Juanita Broddrick gave an interview to Dateline alleging that Clinton raped her in 1978.

The New York article repeats the oft-shared Sinclair response to learning of one of DSK’s dalliances—“It is important for a politician to be able to seduce”—but leaves out the part where she said that she was
“rather proud” of his reputation as a womanizer. No word on how she feels about the way he allegedly reacts when he is unable to seduce.

Every time a conservative politician is outed as a philanderer, liberals rail against the hypocrisy. It’s no less hypocritical for liberal women who champion feminist ideals to not only stand by but to vigorously defend their husbands against claims of sexual assault or intimidation.

The New York profile of Sinclair addresses many of the accusations against Strauss-Kahn but does so in such a dismissive tone that it’s only slightly less disturbing than Sinclair’s attitude toward her husband. In a single sentence, Vanessa Grigoriadis bemoans that it’s “terribly humiliating for a woman to tell the world that she’s been sexually abused” before describing Nafissatou Diallo’s interview with ABC News as “a bit rich and clearly calculated as a last-ditch effort to get the D.A.’s office to bring the case.”

Grigoriadis later describes Tristine Banon, another DSK accuser, as “ a moderately employed journalist and the author of a series of semi-autobiographical books.” The other women who’ve accused DSK of impropriety—a member of the French National Assembly, a French actress, a European journalist—are given about as much ink as Sinclair’s shopping trip for $500 espadrilles or a rundown of the Sinclair/Strass-Kahn vacation properties.

Grigoriadis dismisses the idea that “the encounter” between Diallo and DSK was consensual, mocks Diallo’s lawyer, acknowleges that Diallo “may not be a prostitute,” and concludes that “It seems probable to me that Strauss-Kahn acted violently toward Diallo, or at least disdainfully.” Yet she laments that “It’s a sad truth that you cannot take down a man like Strauss-Kahn—even if he’s guilty—unless your past is pristine.” It’s an odd statement considering everything in the article that came before it

I would expect that my wife would stand behind me if some maid in a hotel charge me with jumping out of a shower and attacking her.

It would be a poor wife and a poor marriage indeed if a woman take the word of a strange woman over her husband.

If my wife would take any actions other then supporting me I would file for divorce at once even before the case of rape is over with as that how damn mad and disappointed I would be in her and the relationship.
.

An in related news the beat go on as the new woman head of the IMF come under investigation for possible wrong doings

As for Dominque Strauss-Kahn, the grossly priapic former chief of the IMF, and hotel worker Nafissatou Diallo -- I believe her story. Rape victims remember some facts vividly but often get confused about exact timelines. I fully understand the desperation of a third-world woman who embellishes her case for legal immigration; I understand why a worker with little more to file than an employer's W-2 form would claim a deduction for a fictitious child, especially while corporate executives on the DSK level are granted so many loopholes in our tax codes. It worries me that if I ever needed to file a rape charge, a defense lawyer might discover that I frequently lied on job applications by claiming I was a college graduate. Would my pathetic old lie, abandoned decades ago, be admissible evidence in court and speak to my credibility?

Susan Brownmiller's "Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape" (1975) was selected by the New York Public Library as one of the 100 important books of the Twentieth Century.

Obviously it undermines a person's credibility if they are shown to have lied on previous occasions to get their own way.

Obviously it undermines a person's credibility if they are shown to have lied on previous occasions to get their own way.

Reasonableness. Is it reasonable to believe that a 62 year-old man, even one as oversexed as DSK is supposed to be, would emerge naked from the bathroom of his hotel suite sexually to confront a maid whom he had never met before, and whom he did not expect? Is it reasonable to believe that stark naked and wielding no weapon he could have forced a taller, younger and more muscular woman to commit oral sex twice, and that the transaction would have resulted in DNA, without some level of participation on her part? She claimed on television that she was too scared to resist and feared she would lose her job. But she hasn’t claimed yet that DSK threatened her in any way. If her fear was self-generated, can the prosecutor make the case that the defendant applied force? And is it believable that she didn’t offer any resistance, cry out or flee when she presumably knew where the door was, having worked in the hotel for three and one-half years? Many similar questions would occur to DSK’s seasoned defense counsel, including the possibility that this was a busted prostitution transaction with DSK, refusing to pay (called in the trade “a trick gone south”). If the case proceeds, those questions should occur to the prosecutor as well. They certainly will occur to the judge and the jury.

Motive in testifying. Diallo allegedly told an incarcerated friend in a taped conversation that Strauss-Kahn is a wealthy man and suggested that she could profit financially from the incident. Also, her lawyer says that he is planning to bring a multi-million dollar civil case against DSK. If DSK is convicted, the conviction would be conclusive of liability and make the civil case a slam-dunk. A witness’ financial motive in the outcome always bears on credibility. In a criminal case, juries don’t like crime victims who stand to gain financially if the defendant goes to jail. Diallo’s financial motives would be a fertile field for any cross-examiner to plough.

Prior inconsistent statements. Diallo’s account is riddled with them. To recount but a few: (1) she told the grand jury in sworn testimony that she left the room, waited in the corridor until DSK left and then reported the incident, but, confronted with electronic key card evidence, she now admits she cleaned another room and then returned to the scene of the crime (did she go back looking for money?) before reporting the incident; (2) she told investigators that she fled the room as soon as she could, but she told the rape counselor at the hospital that she waited in the room for DSK to get dressed; (3) she told someone that the two never spoke, then told ABC-TV anchor Robin Roberts that they did speak. Which was it? The defense will portray her as a latter day Athenaeus who can’t tell a straight story.

Past lies under oath or penalty of perjury. Diallo also told Robin Roberts “as God is my witness, I’m telling the truth.” But she hasn’t always told the truth when “God is…[her] witness.” Diallo lied in her sworn asylum application about being raped. Unknown persons coached her to tell convincing lies and provided a cassette as a learning tool. Some argue that it was an excusable lie justified by her desire to enter the country. But it was a lie under oath nonetheless. She has also signed false tax returns, taking bogus dependents to reduce her taxes. Another excusable lie?

Character. Diallo’s character is far from pristine. She has much to answer for in her phone records, her many bank accounts through which apparently washed hundreds of thousands of dollars, and her close association with drug dealers. A skilled cross-examiner can suggest with some force that the whole affair was a set-up, and that sinister underworld puppeteers control Diallo. This also affects credibility.

Mr. Vance is under political pressure from community groups to proceed. He has been criticized in the media for a “rush to judgment” before many of the facts were known. Legal experts here and abroad have criticized his handling of the case. Elements of his feminist political constituency have said they will “jump ship” if he capitulates. Of course, the district attorney’s job must transcend all such pressures. He has a hard choice to make, and that’s why we elected him.

To proceed or not to proceed, that is the question. The district attorney’s awesome duty is to determine the facts, vindicate the law and see that justice is done. To do this, he must resolve the question in his own mind as to whether he can honorably present a criminal case to a court and jury with such a problematic witness as Nafissatou Diallo.

This takes us back to Frederick Lehmann. A prosecutor always wins his point “whenever justice is done.”

Air France trashed a report Thursday that it purposely kept its female employees away from Dominique Strauss-Kahn because of the Frenchman's infamous boorish behavior.

The airline staunchly countered claims made in an anonymous letter mailed to lawyers of Manhattan maid Nafissatou Diallo, who accused the then head of the International Monetary Fund of sexually assaulting her.

"Air France has in [its] possession a few hundred complaints from customers, employees, crew members, etc ... against the man accused of having abused your client Mrs. Diallo," reads the letter, mailed July 17 from Canada to the Fifth Ave. office of the Thompson Wigdor law firm.

"Consequently, it was decided that only male employees (should go) to the 'First Class Lounge' when this client is traveling," terse letter claims.

Diallo's attorneys released the letter Thursday claiming Strauss-Kahn's crude behavior prompted Air France to keep female employees away from him.

Air France blasted the claims as bogus.

"Air France formally denies having given any instruction about the composition of its crews," a spokesman for the airline said after news of the anonymous letter was first reported Thursday by the French newspaper Le Parisien and picked up widely.

Stauss-Kahn's attorney Benjamin Brafman declined comment, saying he was unaware of the latest twist coming from Diallo's camp.

Diallo, 32, of the Bronx, and her legal team have been pleading with the Manhattan District Attorney not to drop charges against DSK



Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2011/08/05/2011-08-05_we_did_not_purposely_keep_female_employees_away_from_dominique_strausskahn_air_f.html#ixzz1UEryd9h6

The hotel maid who has accused former IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn of sexually assaulting her has filed a civil lawsuit against him.

In the suit, which was filed in New York and seeks unspecified damages, Nafissatou Diallo alleges she was left humiliated, violated and degraded.

Mr Strauss-Kahn has pleaded not guilty to sexual assault charges and has been freed on bail.

His lawyers have sought to challenge Ms Diallo's credibility.

In a court filing, lawyers for Ms Diallo said Mr Strauss-Kahn "intentionally, brutally and violently sexually assaulted Ms Diallo and in the process humiliated, degraded, violated and robbed Ms Diallo of her dignity as a woman."

The filing says Mr Strauss-Kahn bruised her vagina, injured her shoulder, tore her underwear and violently grabbed the back of her head in the alleged 14 May attack

DSK is now no longer willing to write a check to her for any amount