Is the Head of the IMF a Sex Criminal?

@firefly,

You have some facts wrong..

..DSK said that he was with his daughter at the alleged time of the interaction, because he was....the state had the time wrong.

DSK has a decent arguement that he did not have sex with her, as the momentary contact between his dick and her face was accidental. There are a lot of Americans who do not regard jacking of on another person as "sex".

And lastly thic chick did not only lie to immigration, she lied to Vance, and over and over again put on an act after DSK left the building for anyonme who would watch.

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

. He didn't admit to it until confronted with DNA evidence of his lie.

I've not read anything about this case anywhere else but on this thread or seen it on the News. I don't remember seeing any evidence that DSK admitted a sexual encounter took place. Will you cite the evidence ff?

If only to avoid the prospect of Mr Dershowitz regaling Harvard classes on ethical-legal matters with tales of imaginary jism. Which would be even more amusing that the real thing.

Your obvious fascination with the subject is causing me to wonder what your motives are. I find it hard to believe that you are all that concerned about an immigrant hotel maid with a load of bank accounts and some pretty iffy social contacts. Certainly not to the extent you seem to be considering the many other more important subjects on which you might exercise your compassion and concern to better effect.

2 Replies

@spendius,

Spendius Firefly is likely making up "facts" as DSK wisely lawyer up almost at once so I to would love to see all those false statements to the police she is claiming he make over this matter documented.

Second, the defense that she only lied about being a rape victim to get into the country but of course she would only lied in order to get a green card not for a chance to get millions from DSK is nonsense on it face.

Good moral character with a few hundreds thousands in bank accounts in her name all over the county in amounts all slightly under the ten thousands dollars reporting limit and a boyfriend in the drug trade.

Sound like she "the maid not Firefly" is an outstanding person in so many ways that a jury should grant credibility to................her.

Lord a first year law student could tear her apart in court once more so my bet is that this will never never come before a jury.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Then you haven't even followed this thread--after his initial denial of any sexual encounter, he admitted to sex, but claimed it was consensual--and that's been posted many times in this thread--that's his defense.

Quote:

May 17, 2011
DSK Says it was Consensual Sex
New Alibi-Yes We had Sex

Defense attorney for IMF head Dominique Srauss-Kahn attempt to explain the sexual assault charges by claiming it was consensual sex between Kahn and a chambermaid at the luxury Sofitel Hotel last Saturday.

By a report in the Business Insider DSK claims he first did not have sex with the employee of Sofitel and secondly it was consensual sex. The claim is contradictory to his early claims of denial of the act.

Now the statement from the defense is : he did have sex with the Sofitel employee due to the fact that the investigators have DNA evidence which cannot be refuted and if so it places him in jeopardy of lying.
http://www.politicolnews.com/dsk-says-it-was-consensual-sex/#ixzz1ofmomaOE

Quote:

Your obvious fascination with the subject is causing me to wonder what your motives are.

I like to watch the legal maneuvers of high priced attorneys. That was the main reason I was disappointed there was no criminal trial. I'm hoping the legal arguments in the civil trial will be well covered.

Other than that, this is a rather routine sexual assault case without much particular interest.

4 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

By a report in the Business Insider DSK claims he first did not have sex with the employee of Sofitel and secondly it was consensual sex. The claim is contradictory to his early claims of denial of the act.

A report in the Business Insider an internet web magazine with the current title headline article "Was Sandra Fluke A Honey Trap?" is Firefly proof of DSK lying to the police !!!!!!!!!

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

Other than that, this is a rather routine sexual assault case without much particular interest

.

Of course it is of interests that a lying third world con woman can cause this must harm to DSK and the world finance system with the aid of a prosecutor that was more eager to make headlines then to check the facts out first.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Are you unaware of the facts of this case too? Your ignorance is astounding.

DSK lied initially--he said he wasn't even in the hotel room with the maid, that he was having lunch with his daughter.
The DNA evidence nailed him, so he admitted to a sexual encounter, but claims it was consensual. That is his defense.

Look it up anywhere on the internet.

More recently, DSK described the encounter as, "consensual but stupid". He has previously denied any monetary arrangement with the maid. According to him, he "abhors prostitution".

Quote:

Finally, We Get DSK's Side Of The Sex Story: "Consensual, But Stupid"
Tracy McNicoli
December 03, 2011

In the new book Affaires DSK: La Contre-enquête (DSK Affairs: The Counter-Investigation), by Strauss-Kahn biographer and confidant Michel Taubmann, the one-time favorite for the French presidency lays out never-before-heard details of the series of sex scandals that have ruined his presidential prospects.

In the book, Strauss-Kahn calls his sexual encounter with Times Square Hotel Sofitel chambermaid Nafissatou Diallo “consensual but stupid” and suggests it was her idea. He admits to a having an open sex life and participating in sex parties, but in the spotlight of the pimping probe known as the Carlton Affair, he says he abhors prostitution....

“Nothing would have happened if I hadn't had those consensual but stupid relations with Nafissatou Diallo. That day, I opened the door to all the other affairs.”...

As Taubmann tells it, when Strauss-Kahn, naked, sees Diallo for the first time, “the young Guinean seems surprised, but not in the least terrified.” She crosses the room to leave, “but she hardly hurries.” He writes that she turned around and “looks him straight in the eye. Looks ostentatiously at his genitals. The flesh is weak. Dominique Strauss-Kahn saw a proposition. The situation amuses him. Rarely in his life has he refused the possibility of a moment of pleasure. He does not resist the temptation of fellatio. The act is quick, very quick ... about five to six minutes.”...

Once sexual assault is ruled out, Taubmann argues, readers now must wonder about the nature of the relationship. Strauss-Kahn tells Taubmann that he didn't pay Diallo. The writer says the notion that a 32-year-old woman would feel “a sudden and disinterested desire” for a naked man her father's age “appears unlikely ... except to DSK.” “The aging Don Juan lacks lucidity about himself. And is hardly interested in the chambermaid. When Nafissatou Diallo offers him a little treat, he doesn't question the lady's intentions.” But Taubmann does. He suggests it might be “implicit” that Diallo is a prostitute, and in that scenario, she expected to return after her client had left and find her payment. He suggests that when she didn't find it, she sought revenge.

But Taubmann quickly says he finds the prostitute thesis implausible. Instead, he explores various other conspiracy theories...
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-12-03/news/30471147_1_dominique-strauss-kahn-dsk-affair-french-presidency#ixzz1ofutRhzm

You shouldn't even comment on this case if you are so unaware of the facts. Your ignorance is rather consistent, no matter the topic discussed.

3 Replies

@firefly,

He's completely unreasoning and just repeats his own prejudices, time after time. He's on a loop, and in his world, he probably thinks he's winning the argument instead of coming across as an unthinking moron.

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

DSK lied initially--he said he wasn't even in the hotel room with the maid, that he was having lunch with his daughter.
The DNA evidence nailed him, so he admitted to a sexual encounter, but claims it was consensual. That is his defense.

Strange you care about claiming that DSK lied about facts when there is official statements that the maid did not tell the truth over and over again about facts and actions of her that day or about her past backgrounds.

It however does not matter to you if the only "witness" to his claim misdeeds that day in a proven liar.

No question at all about it that she would not know the truth if it bit her in her rear end.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

She's a poor woman he lies were understandable, his were the actions of a preditor trying to cover his own back. I know you can't see it because you're living in the same fantasy world as him, that were a woman to see you naked she would be overcome with lust, when in fact she would be overcome with nausea.

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

“The complainant was untruthful with us in nearly every substantive interview. She was untruthful about matters great and small in significance.” Assistant District Attorney Joan Illuzzi-Orbon, to the court on Tuesday.

End of the matter when the only claimed witness to an act is a declare liar by the state.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

Strange you care about claiming that DSK lied about facts

No, it's strange you're absolutely ignoring the fact that he initially lied and said there was no sexual encounter at all--that he wasn't even in the suite with her.

So, it's all right with you if he lied--about something very pertinent to the sexual assault they were questioning him about--but it's a big deal to you if she lied on an immigration application, that had nothing at all to do with whether DSK assaulted her?

Why is his lying unimportant to you? He clearly lied. Why do you think he lied? What was his motive? Don't you think at all?

There was no evidence--none--that she lied about the actual sexual assault she accused DSK of. And Vance made that very clear when he dropped the charges. He just felt he couldn't go forward with a witness who had credibility problems on other issues.

But Dershowitz, who, surprisingly, completely changed his own mind about the case, wound up feeling that Vance was being cowardly and that he should have gone to trial because DSK's contention that the encounter was consensual was so ludicrous, and unbelievable, that the case could have been won--even with her credibility issues--and he felt Vance did a disservice to victims of sexual assault by not going to trial.

You've already shown your ignorance about this case. You didn't know DSK's original statement to the police was a lie--he denied having any contact with Diallo. He didn't admit to any sexual contact with her until he was cornered by the DNA evidence and he had no other choice. You didn't know what he had admitted to in the book by his biographer, or how he had described the encounter with Diallo. His version of events is totally unbelievable--her's isn't. And Tristane Banon's version of events wasn't unbelievable either according to the French investigators--they just couldn't go forward with prosecuting him because of the statute of limitations, not because there wasn't the credible suspicion of sexual assault.

Diallo's civil case against Strauss-Kahn is certainly going to go forward--I can believe she wants a trial--and, believe me, he's not confident that the outcome will be favorable to him. He's not as dumb as you are.

0 Replies

@firefly,

I hadn't seen any proof is all I said. All I had seen were reports that something had happened and, as hawk says, it wasn't sex. There is only one possible definition of sex which separates it from shaking hands and other physical contact without risk of fertilisation.

Surely you can see that it is risk of fertilisation that causes rape to be treated so seriously. And rightly. When you start carrying over that seriousness to cases where the risk is non existent, and thus merely dealing with an offence against personal dignity, you obviously have a bad case of morbid, prurient hysteria, man hate and chronic obsessive fixation with all things underpantish. And newspaper sales aimed at an audience in such a sad condition. With drooling mandatory.

Your report contains this--

Quote:

forensic evidence has been collected but not yet analyzed.

What does that mean?

Anybody seriously interested in the the legal maneuvers (sic) of high priced attorneys will find many more cases of greater technicality that this one. I think that's an excuse to cover your fascination with "DNA evidence"--a euphemism for splattered jism---, naked men--a euphemism for dicks---, money, and general all round bodice ripping in posh settings---a euphemism for us poor lady victims in a masochism frenzy.

Try the Leveson Enquiry ff. You'll see some really advanced legal manoeuvres in that. The DSK case is like catching minnows and bringing them home in a jam jar compared to that.

Some of your newspapers are owned by an organised gang who have been tapping phones, opening mail, peeping through keyholes, bugging rooms, listening at open windows and doors, harrassing kids and bribing public officials with used currency notes and little holidays in expensive health farms--a euphemism for blow jobs twice a day by well trained and dedicated practitioners of the art in salubrious settings.

It's your skewed disproportion that gives you away. 50 million Americans are on food stamps for ****'s sake to say nothing of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Pakistan, Afghanistan and North Korea. And you are here displaying your obvious fascination with a teaspoonful of jism, which hasn't been analyzed yet, almost as if it presages the end of the world as we know it.

Pull the other one ff. It's got bells on.

2 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

Other than that, this is a rather routine sexual assault case without much particular interest.

In which case would you care to justify those front pages you brought before our tear-streaming eyes. "Without much particular interest" indeed. Not bloody much.

It was America's reaction to this trivial event, if such it was, that is of profound interest. One shake of the mattress and look what fell out. By the look of the two judges we saw one might have thought the sun was about to explode.

0 Replies

@spendius,

God, do you really believe the crap you come up with?

Your thinking on this issue is as out of touch with reality as your reasoning was about why Dr. Conrad Murray should not have been found guilty of killing Michael Jackson.

You've been sniffing fumes too long, spendi. They've taken a toll on you. You're in fantasy land.

1 Reply

@firefly,

That's what they all say on the evolution threads ff as if the posts I submit are disqualified because I'm pissed.

My condition is neither here nor there and when allegations about it, baseless as they are, are brought forward it is quite obvious what the reason is.

The post is the post.

Dr Murray was not charged with killing Mr Jackson as I understand it. I think the Jackson family killed the man and all those who led him into an impossible situation. Dr Murray was a scapegoat.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendi:

Quote:

it is risk of fertilisation that causes rape to be treated so seriously

I had stopped replying to your vacuous theories but this patronizing tenet is way too much ; even for you.

You imply that a rapist who studiously rolls on a condom is not as guilty as one who uses no protection.
You also imply that male on male rape is somehow less serious because there is no danger of fertilization

That there is room in your noggin for this type of macho claptrap is amazing to me.

2 Replies

@panzade,

Quote:

You imply that a rapist who studiously rolls on a condom is not as guilty as one who uses no protection.

This is of course true, but for public health reasons (STD's).

0 Replies

@panzade,

Judges here apply lower sentences to rapists if the use of a condom or C.I. is applied.

Shove your pointless insults up your fat ass pan.

I'm not interested in "male on male rape" whatever that is. That's not sex. There has to be a chance of fertilisation for sex to be happening. Bill Clinton did not have sex with Ms Lewinsky as he insisted. Or at least until people like you beat him down with your little lad's prurience.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

There has to be a chance of fertilisation for sex to be happening.

So what do you call vaginal penetration by a penis when either party is sterile?
Are they not having sex? What are they having?

Quote:

Judges here apply lower sentences to rapists if the use of a condom or C.I. is applied.

What is C.I.?
So they apply lower sentences to rapists who use condoms, as if they're using a condom to protect the victim? The reason they're using a condom is to minimize their DNA trail and their chances of being caught.
So the judges are letting the people who are less likely to be caught the next time out of prison sooner?
How does that make sense?

1 Reply

Is the Head of the IMF a Sex Criminal?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know