Strauss-Kahn's pals bid to pay off woman's kin

[Nye Bevan]

Source: New York Post

Friends of alleged hotel sex fiend Dominique Strauss-Kahn secretly contacted the accusing maid's impoverished family, offering them money to make the case go away since they can't reach her in protective custody, The Post has learned. The woman, who says she was sexually assaulted by the disgraced former head of the International Monetary Fund, has an extended family in the former French colony of Guinea in West Africa, well out of reach of the Manhattan DA's Office.

"They already talked with her family," a French businesswoman with close ties to Strauss-Kahn and his family told The Post. "For sure, it's going to end up on a quiet note." Prosecutors in Manhattan have done their best to keep the cleaning woman out of the reach of Strauss-Kahn's supporters, but the source was already predicting success for the Parisian pol's pals. "He'll get out of it and will fly back to France. He won't spend time in jail. The woman will get a lot of money," said the source, adding that a seven-figure sum has been bandied about.

While the DA's office has sequestered the maid -- and is even monitoring her phone calls -- her extended family lives in a village that lacks paved roads, electricity and phone lines. The average monthly income is $45, which is near-starvation, and some of her family members can't even afford shoes. They live so off-the-grid in a remote village that they didn't know the maid was allegedly nearly raped until reporters trekked to the village to inform them.

...

The DA's office has warned local family members not to accept calls from associates of Strauss-Kahn. Even without the maid's testimony, however, prosecutors claim they have plenty of damning evidence to prosecute Strauss-Kahn, including her videotaped statement, grand-jury testimony, statements from fellow hotel employees and semen samples found on the hotel room carpet.





Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/maid_offer_ya_can_refuse_joKw8dxbw6AkYOmJsEZiaN

---

I guess this approach worked for Michael Jackson.

[Fumesucker]

1. Oh boy...

Your comment will prove slightly controversial I predict..

:popcorn:

[Oceansaway]

2. k & r...nt

[LuvNewcastle]

3. I'm surprised they didn't get to her

before he was even arrested. I still don't think he'll serve any time for this. They're going to drag this woman through the mud before it's over.

[CTyankee]

4. I don't see how this could NOT become an international incident if it happens this way.

That powerful, rich people in other countries could subvert our American system of justice in such a public way does not seem possible without serious international repercussions. DSK is not a rock star. He is a major political player in his country and this is a dicey international game to be playing.

[JackRiddler]

23. It worked for the CIA assassin, Raymond Davis, why not for Strauss-Kahn?

"Our American system of justice," indeed.

'Blood Money' Deal Frees CIA Contractor Raymond Davis From Pakistan
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cia-contractor-raymond-davis-freed-pakistan/story?id=13146587

I certainly hope there's justice in the DSK case, but the fact is, petty thieves and pot dealers populate the world's largest prison system, while the perpetrators of frauds that cost trillions of dollars are not only free, but were given taxpayer bailouts; some of them were even appointed to run the Treasury and economic teams, both Bush's and Obama's. So don't tell us about "our American system of justice."

[CTyankee]

27. DSK is at a completely different level than Davis. I'm not saying what went down with Davis was

right. I'm just saying that the DSK alleged crime is not so easily covered up and brushed off. I may agree with you on some of what you say but in reality it is just not the same.

[joshcryer]

38. What are you talking about? The rich do this all the time.

[mopinko]

5. since bribery and obstruction of justice

are illegal, what is to stop them from taking the money and still testifying? including about the bribery? accepting a bribe is illegal here, but i doubt it is guinea.

[ironrooster]

6. bribing a witness is a felony in NY

http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/PEN0215.00_215.00.html

[mopinko]

7. it's not the crime, it's the cover up.

[JDPriestly]

17. But what if she is blackmailing him or something akin to that?

We don't know the facts.

The press is portraying the facts this way. How do you know these facts are the true?

I don't know which story is true.

And if she goes away for money, couldn't the authorities here accuse her of having filed a false police report?

[brooklynite]

26. We DO know some facts...

We know he's been indicted, which means evidence (presumptively her statement) has been presented to the Grand Jury.

What exactly is she blackmailing him with? If she wants a payoff to avoid testifying, it's already too late.

[JDPriestly]

32. There is a saying in the law: A good prosecutor could get a

grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. It doesn't mean that the case is any good.

[joshcryer]

49. That's utter bullshit, there were a few hundred or so Grand Jury indictments in NY...

...in 2009 or 2010 (I can't remember the date but I can find the source if you wish), out of tens of thousands of cases.

[joshcryer]

48. We don't know DSKs side of the story because his lawyers are being silent.

What facts we do know from the side of the defense (and whatever police officials leaked information) are extremely damning. If DSK had a good defense he'd be putting it out there in the court of public opinion by now, particularly the conspiracy defense because if that was true then the public would eat that up (international scandal level stuff there).

Unfortunately for some, we do have free speech and a free press (even if that press if heavily corporatist), so that means whatever information is available is able to be digested by the public, and the public is allowed to have an opinion.

[entanglement]

55. Are you Mrs Strauss-Kahn or something? Why are you so strongly against this woman?

[JAnthony]

29. I think we should charge ANY one who attempts to bribe a witness, and

put them on trial, too, convict them, send THEM to prison, too!

[jberryhill]

42. What do you suppose was witnessed in Africa?

[keopeli]

8. Why the non-sequitor? Does the case not appaul you enough already?

I suppose it's so we can all know a little more about you instead of the story you posted.

[Nye Bevan]

21. Precisely. Anyone can buy the newspaper.

But people have to go to DU to see my informed words of wisdom.

[msanthrope]

52. Um, DSK hired Jackson's molestation lawyer. So it's not a non-sequitur. n/t

[Downwinder]

9. Isn't that how we got Raymond Davis out of Pakistan?

[dipsydoodle]

12. Exactly - good example.

Its custom and practice in some cultures. Doesn't mean its right - just a fact of life.

[orangeapple]

16. different cultures do handle things like this differently

Her and her family will likely benefit much more from restitution than seeing him simply put in prison or fined/probation.

I see no reason it can't be both (restitution to the victim, prison to protect society at large from a predator).

[JackRiddler]

24. In both cases it's intercultural, and someone is paying a bribe. Bribes are universal.

[JDPriestly]

19. But what if the facts she has told about the incident in the hotel room

are utterly untrue or only partially true? or there is some explanation for what happened other than the one the press has presented?

Maybe her story is much weaker or her background reveals problems that make her story incredible, maybe all the parties would prefer to see her leave the country?

Don't you think she would accept a lot of money from, say, a tabloid for her story sooner or later whether it is true or not?

Personally, I think her story is partly true and party not. That's just my personal opinion. The truth is somewhere between his story and hers.

[JackRiddler]

25. hm, "her background" may render her story incredible?

Speacking of dicey territory...

[JDPriestly]

31. She is from a French-speaking country in Africa.

Sarkozy wanted to eliminate Strauss-Kahn from the upcoming French elections.

She worked at Sofitel, a French hotel chain.

She was not a petite woman. And forced oral sex by a not so small, much younger woman? There were only two people present when and if anything occurred.

Most women would have no motivation to claim something that was not true about rape. In fact, more women refuse to admit sexual assault when they have been assaulted than anyone would care to believe.

But the potential political and financial repercussions here mean that the claims of this woman have to be scrutinized more carefully than claims in ordinary sexual assault cases.

There could -- potentially -- but not certainly -- be motivations on the parts of some to bring exaggerated or downright false accusations against Strauss-Kahn. These are circumstances in this case. It may be that I am being very unfair to this woman.

But each party in this case deserves a fair opportunity to present his or her version of the facts.

I am defending Strauss-Kahn because the mob is rushing to convict him. He could not under any circumstances get a fair trial in this country in my opinion.

The press, from sophisticated news media to the supermarket tabloids, rushed to convict him.

[JackRiddler]

33. I think you're engaging in the standard blame-the-victim cliches.

Her size says nothing about how she might react to a sudden assault by a man, one she knows is paying more for that room in a night than she probably makes in 10 weeks. This wasn't a prizefight! She's a refugee and no doubt extremely dependent on the job. The power differential couldn't be greater.

Maybe you, too, should let the case unfold before engaging in speculation. The people coming forward to accuse DSK of harrassment and rape attempts should make you pause. Not to mention the reports from within the Sofitel, of how he was trying to get several employees there into bed.

Your speculations could always turn out to be true. But there would be nothing unusual about rapists in high places taking advantage of the powerless servant class. That's as old as the hills.

[JDPriestly]

34. Let's just wait and see.

The woman's past conduct is, in some states, inadmissible in a rape case. A man's past conduct, evidence of his character is, perhaps, just as irrelevant.

Apparently Strauss-Kahn has been accused of sexual aggression but never convicted. That is also something to consider.

The question in this case will be what happened in that specific hotel room between those two specific individuals. And that neither you nor I can know from reading newspaper articles or watching news reports.

One thing is certain. Sarkozy does not want to face Strauss-Kahn in the next French election. Staruss-Kahn's apparent popularity in France makes me wonder about all the gossip about how sexually aggressive he is. He is 62. Wouldn't his past have caught up with him by this time?

[joshcryer]

47. In New York the conduct of an individual is certainly admissible, and you're laying out the defense.

Believe it or not your speculation will be the defense's "facts." They will likely go scrounge up people overseas that she's related to, and try to form a connection between her and them and try to build this conspiracy that she was looking for money.

That's assuming he doesn't plead which I fully expect him to do.

[joshcryer]

46. Yes, you're laying out the defense very well, she will be chastized as a money grubbing liar.

And you will likely consider that defense "plausible."

[Downwinder]

35. Diyya -- Sharia Law

[AngryAmish]

10. Take the money, testify anyway

They sue the prick. win, win, win

[Peace Patriot]

11. Accused = disgraced? What kind of justice is this?

"The woman, who says she was sexually assaulted by the disgraced former head of the International Monetary Fund, has an extended family in the former French colony of Guinea in West Africa, well out of reach of the Manhattan DA's Office." --from the OP (my emphasis)

"Friends of alleged hotel sex fiend Dominique Strauss-Kahn secretly contacted the accusing maid's impoverished family...". --from the OP (my emphasis)

These highly prejudicial phrases--"alleged hotel sex fiend," "the disgraced former head of the IMF"--should give us serious pause about the anonymous charge that Strauss-Kahn's friends were trying to buy off his accuser, as well as about political/profit interests that the Post may have in destroying this man in the eyes of the world, before the evidence against him has been vetted in a court of law and before any objective judgement has been made of that evidence, in so far as a judge and jury can be objective. It's not as if the corpo-fascist press doesn't LIE to us, routinely, on many important matters.

I am appalled to see DUers joining this witchhunt. I've seen it before at DU--DUers piling on some accused person like a rabid mob. It is disgusting.

[BobbyBoring]

13. It's the NY Post

usual stuff for them

[Zorra]

14. Agreed. If DSK is found to be

innocent, everyone that is engaged in this witch hunt will have done a disservice to all future victims of rape/sexual abuse.

"Yeah, she's cryin' rape, just like that African woman that smeared Strauss-Kahn" will become the mantra of rape deniers everywhere.

[Nye Bevan]

15. So it's wrong to refer to people as "criminals" until they have been convicted in a "court of law"?

Like you have done in the past?

They SHOULD BE prosecuted and punished. They are war criminals and traitors.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3504195&mesg_id=3504926

At least DSK has been arraigned. You referred to someone as a "criminal" who has not even been arrested!

[Lenomsky]

22. They SHOULD BE prosecuted and punished. They are war criminals and traitors.

Well they are are they not?

As for the Press printing alleged facts well that's pretty normal but not condoned.

[provis99]

28. never underestimate DU's talent for hypocrisy.

[Peace Patriot]

39. I'm sorry but Bush, Cheney & Rumsfeld and their cohorts are in a category by themselves,

having been IMMUNIZED from prosecution--and even from investigation--for the war crimes that they clearly committed, admit to and even brag about--immunized by our own president, who said, and I quote, "We need to forward not backward" (--they teach that at Harvard Law School, for the crimes of the most rich and powerful).

In the post you quote, I was arguing that, if convicted, they should NOT be executed. I don't believe in capital punishment, a point on which most of the civilized world is in agreement with me. I would rather see them punished appropriately, as a lesson to all--say by being made to wear electronic anklets for the rest of their lives while they serve out their time emptying bedpans in Veterans' hospitals.

Though the head of the IMF is right up there, in the world power establishment, he has not committed any war crimes that I am aware of, so he is merely a lowly human, accused of a career-wrecking crime, and is entitled to the presumption of innocence and objective consideration of the evidence against him in a court of law.

We should support that process, not lend ourselves to the mob mentality that the corpo-fascist press encourages. Corpo-fascists would like to be rid of the law as it applies to them. I imagine that is one reason that their propaganda horns lead mobs and witchhunts like this one--their inherent contempt for the rule of law and obvious efforts to exempt themselves from any law and obvious intention to ravage our democracy--our supposed sovereignty as a people, by which we supposedly have the right to charter these corporate entities and to tax and regulate them, and de-charter them and bust them up, at our will. They clearly don't want our system to work. And the other reason is, of course, to "sell papers"--to sensationalize, to appeal to low instincts, to sell ads and cat box liner.

We should heap contempt on rotten journalism rather than on an INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY man, even if we don't like the IMF and rich people. And we should also ask, when someone in a position like his does get hauled off by the police and charged with a sex crime, what might be the political reasons for this prosecution and/or is there a conspiracy against him for his IMF policies (one of which, I read, was to encourage Europe to get off the U.S. dollar)?

I'm not saying there is a conspiracy. I'm not saying it's political. And I'm not saying he's not guilty. I DON'T KNOW. But I think the questions about this prosecution are reasonable and the presumption of innocence should be maintained. It may also be that he's guilty of the assault and it is STILL a political prosecution--that is, someone who did the same thing but was NOT advocating, say, that others get off the U.S. dollar, would NOT be prosecuted. I think that is possible--that men is his position are protected if they toady to the biggest dog in the pack.

Please understand that, in a phrase like "alleged hotel sex fiend," the word "alleged" is meant to be ignored. This phrase tries, convicts and puts him away forever--before a single piece of evidence has been presented to him in court, with an opportunity to refute it. It is intended to END HIS CAREER even if he is found innocent!

And considering the source--the NY Post--I suspect they aren't just trying to line their readers' cat boxes. I suspect they have a MOTIVE for ruining this man that has nothing to do with what he is charged with, or with his innocence of guilt of that crime, but with BIG MONEY profiteering. THEIR being so viciously against him inclines me to this view--that some BIG MONEY motive is behind not only their portraying him this way but also possibly the prosecution itself. His "innocence until proven guilty" is therefore all the more important to assert. If some Star Chamber rightwing/bankster cabal is after him, that is his ONLY protection.

This right is not only important to the poor, it is also important to the rich when they get targeted by their own and lose the immunity that is bestowed upon the Bush's, Cheney's and Rumsfeld's of this world.

[joshcryer]

50. Right, so the Bush's, Cheney's and Rumsfeld's of this world are not innocent until proven guilty...

...in your own publicly expressed opinion. Welcome to the court of public opinion, where anything goes, thanks to the freedom of speech and the free press. Try that in a country that denies you the right to say anything critical of the politicians.

[Peace Patriot]

54. Bush, Cheney & Rumsfeld have been IMMUNIZED by FIAT. And there is NO QUESTION that

they ordered the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent people for no good reason, and ordered the torture of thousands of prisoners in violation of U.S. treaties, the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions, the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Constitution of the United States.

Where is the investigation of these crimes?

It has been PREVENTED--disallowed, banned by fiat. So you're damned right I get to call them criminals. They are heinous murderers and torturers by their own admission. They are proud of it!

It's as if the Nuremberg Trials had never happened and Herman Goering & pals were still walking around free--spouting off on TV, getting medals from the U.S. government, building their libraries and monuments, writing their memoirs and plotting their return to power.

No accountability.
No investigation.
No trials.

The guilt of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld & pals is plain for all to see. Tens of thousands of innocent people are dead by their order. Some estimates put the number of dead in Iraq, due to the U.S. war, at ONE MILLION, all told, but we will probably never know the exact number because it was the stated policy of the Bush Junta not to count the Iraqi dead. Millions of other lives have been forever ruined--by injury, by war-aggravated disease, by malnutrition, by trauma, by massive displacement, by false imprisonment, by torture, by deliberate stirring up of tribal warfare, by U.S. 'contractor' theft of the money intended for reconstruction, by neglect, by malfeasance, by design.

And these are just SOME of the Bush Junta's WAR CRIMES. Their plain guilt does not mean that they shouldn't have a trial. Neither will the lack of a trial silence me about their crimes! Cuz that trial ain't gonna happen!

You have deliberately NOT read what I said. And I have found this characteristic of your comments in the Latin American forum--ill-considered, off-point, uninformative, muddled comments, ALWAYS in defense of rightwing "talking points."

Now you are defending Bush, Cheney & Rumsfeld, who never will go to trial because they are "made men" of the highest order. They are IMMUNE to investigation and prosecution!

Not so, Mr. Strauss-Kahn. And THAT is the difference.

[joshcryer]

45. He has not just been arraigned, he has been *indicted by a grand jury.*

Yes, I've pointed out this sick double standard before. I personally have no problem calling various government officials criminals (indeed, our free speech allows us to do this with impunity; try that in France). I'm not on the jury (nor would I be able to sit on a jury of anyone who I have publicly called guilty).

[JDPriestly]

20. I'm with you, Peace Patriot.

There are always, always, always two sides to a story. This story has not been investigated enough for us on DU to know the truth.

Accusations are not always true. And the accusations that you read in the newspapers are often hyped to the point that they are no longer the original accusations.

[Dreamer Tatum]

41. But you've never used highly prejudicial language in your takedowns of GWB?

Yeah, right.

Lest you claim that you're writing on the Internet and not in the general media, so are the DUers you're calling out.

[Odin2005]

18. Slick bastards!

[Mz Pip]

30. She can always sue him

in a civil court regardless of the outcome of the criminal procedures.

[Demeter]

36. This man must be crucified--figuratively

Literally, I'd settle for castration.

[daleo]

37. Castration, then trial? n/t

[sabrina 1]

43. Amazing, isn't it? Frightening really. And all based on Rupert

Murdoch's Post and his 'anonymous' sources. So far almost everything published in the Post from the beginning of this case, has turned out to be wrong. But hey, let's not interfere with a good 'hangin'. Will there be a picnic too? And trial? Who needs a trial.

So, back to reality. The relatives live off the grid, have no means of communication with the outside world yet 'friends' of DSK managed to find them. And what good would it do the woman if they paid the relatives? What relationship does she have with them? Who are they, mother, brother, father? And who are these 'friends' of DSK who managed to go slogging off into the wilds, leaving their lives of luxury behind, to find them? Willing to risk jail for bribery? Does Rudolph Murdoch have any names, I mean they committed a crime if true. Were they wearing evening gowns tuxedos on this safari? :eyes:

As for DNA, you can't have DNA the day of a crime. Ask any law enforcemtn person. That claim came from France's version of Roger Stone, a spin-doctor named Dassier who has a blog, sort of like Free Republic. He starts the rumors there, the Post picks them up, then the rest of our lazy media takes it from there.

Meantime, DSK's attorneys state that from what they've seen of the case, he will be completely exonerated. So, the prosecutor says one thing, the defense another. As always. Assuming someone doesn't kill the guy first, I guess we'll eventually find out who is right.

The bloodlust surrounding this case is truly disturbing. If he is guilty, he will go to jail, hopefully he will be allowed to serve his time without being tortured or murdered. Have we really gone that far down the road that we've lost all sense of decency and have become no better than those we want to hang? Seems that way.

[joshcryer]

44. Oh bullshit, the *same people* who said DSK shouldn't be caught because he's powerful and rich...

...are denying the very plausibility that he'd use his power and riches to do this. Just utter nonsense. Note that I agreed with those saying DSK shouldn't be caught because generally because he's powerful and rich and that in the end he just wasn't able to control the situation. So while these anonymous sources should be taken with a grain of salt, we can at the bare minimum agree that it's plausible, unless we just want to be inconsistent.

[sabrina 1]

51. Wrong, I am denying nothing. I am sure the rich and powerful

use their power all the time. However, we are talking about this case and specific claims being made every day. The sources which almost all these stories are coming from, when you trace them back, it's the same circle of unreliable, partisan, Rovian people. Dassier being an operative whose 'articles' are so filled with errors, they are almost laughable. He is setting himself up to be subpoenaed though, and seeing France's Roger STone under oath would be a thrill in itself. Dassier/NYPost/Spitzer Madame also connnected to the real Roger STone? I'll wait for more reliable sources before hanging anyone.

They need to come up with better material. Just imagining friends of DSK trekking through the wilderness to try to bribe this woman's relatives, well it's funny I suppose. I don't think the rich and famous are into risking jail for something like this. It sounds like a Rovian 'throw it all at the wall and see what sticks' kind of thing which Dassier is also good at. I do hope they are called in to testify about all this though, under oath.

Meantime, it is still a case of no one knows anything, since the whole timeline was so incorrect from those same sources, people were off on the wrong track from the start. Now, with most of that info filled in, it is easier to come to some conclusions, at least as far as where everyone was, although no way regarding guilt or innocence.

[msanthrope]

53. Oh, but the DSK apologists are being consistent.

I don't know if you've noticed, Josh, that rape apologists for DSK are fairly consistent in their stance that both DSK and Julian Assange were set up by CIA operatives. I think if you did a Venn diagram, you'd find a consistent overlap.

And that's the rub--'cause Julian's got a July court date, and if DSK can prove that his charges were a set up, then Assange can make a more credible argument.

Which is why you've seen poor, poor, DSK set up as a 'reformer' of the IMF. And not just as the man who raped because he could.

Just like Julian.

[Dreamer Tatum]

40. Next he will try the more direct approach, I'm sure. nt