Goodness, What A Surprise! Looks Like Strauss Kahn May Have Been Unjustly Accused

[haha]

The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia

According to NYT, case near collapse. Accuser has ties to drug smuggling, money laundering and lied frequently in police interviews.

 

[clifp]

My if this true, I wonder where Strauss Kahn goes to get his job and reputation back.

 

[obgyn65]

IMO he cannot get his reputation back. The damage has been too great.

My if this true, I wonder where Strauss Kahn goes to get his job and reputation back.

 

[BigNick]

IMO he cannot get his reputation back. The damage has been too great.

It will be ironic if he loses everything over something that he didn't do - or rather, which it can't be proved that he did - but there will be a sense of justice on behalf of all the women he has hurt over the years by abusing his power.

There are still a lot of unanswered questions in the case. The fact that an immigrant hotel maid knows people who are in jail does not entirely surprise me; nor does the idea that someone fleeing persecution in Africa might be a little untruthful on an official form. She had been working at that hotel for some time, so she didn't just get herself hired so she could sting this guy. We've not heard any suggestion that she got her shifts changed so that she could be cleaning DSK's room to give herself an opportunity to get to him. Nobody is disputing that sex took place, which generally requires, at the very least, a man to make a positive decision.

And even if it was consensual, and even if she walked into the room and said "How about it, big guy?": does anyone here think that it's remotely normal for the head of a major international organisation and potential candidate for President of a state with strategic nuclear weapons, to have a casual sexual encounter with a hotel employee ? What does that - on its own, without any need to dig into his past - tell us about him ?

 

[clifp]

And even if it was consensual, and even if she walked into the room and said "How about it, big guy?": does anyone here think that it's remotely normal for the head of a major international organisation and potential candidate for President of a state with strategic nuclear weapons, to have a casual sexual encounter with a hotel employee ? What does that - on its own, without any need to dig into his past - tell us about him ?

All good points. But dare I say it puts him in pretty "good" company with both JFK, and Bill Clinton, who by all accounts where open to sex with any woman under 40 at pretty much any time. Correct me if I wrong but aren't mistresses, a stable of French political leaders?

Now I happen to agree with you and while I thought Ross Perot was a nut case. I did find myself shaking my head in agreement when explained why he fired workers who had affairs "if your wife can't trust you why the heck should I". I think that view is an increasingly uncommon one.

 

[jayc]

My if this true, I wonder where Strauss Kahn goes to get his job and reputation back.

He has lots of choices. Work at CNN, FOX, or as a U.S. Congressman.

 

[chinaco]

He will get neither back.

It is turning into a he said/she said case.

He may get his freedom (reasonable doubt). If that happens and he is really good at what he does, someone in the industry will overlook his indiscretions and hire him.... but perhaps in a capacity that is in the background (out of public view).

If the criminal case goes away or the charges reduced (possibly plead away), she could still file suit. But if her credibility is shot... she may not prevail. A team of competent attorneys would likely rip her credibility to shreds. My guess, there would be a settlement!

 

[ls99]

As is usual, what is said by the media may not have a lot of facts. I'd sure like to read the court transcripts.

 

[Texas Proud]

I agree with a lot of the post...

It does not mean it did not happen... Kahn's attorneys have already stated that he had sex with the woman, so he can not take that back now...

Lots of other women have come out and made similar accusations, so it seems likely that he did the deed...

Now, will he be convicted, with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt... probably not...

As far as heading a major country... I bet that almost every French president has had an affair... so not a difference there... the only thing that I would say is there can be a willing participant and a non-willing participant.... the second is the one that disturbes me...

 

[Brat]

I agree with Texas Proud.

 

[Shawn]

And even if it was consensual, and even if she walked into the room and said "How about it, big guy?": does anyone here think that it's remotely normal for the head of a major international organisation and potential candidate for President of a state with strategic nuclear weapons, to have a casual sexual encounter with a hotel employee ? What does that - on its own, without any need to dig into his past - tell us about him ?

"What would it tell us about him?," you ask. Well, it would tell us the same thing about him as it would about her.

There is an episode of Seinfeld where George Costanza has sex at his office with the cleaning woman. When George doesn't want to be boyfriend-girlfriend with the cleaning woman, she goes to his boss and has George fired. Although the show doesn't go into any detail, the implication is that the cleaning woman is not fired. A man and woman have consensual sex in the office. The man is fired. The woman is not. Man bad. Woman good. An no, there was no power relationship here.

We see this throughout society ... Clinton, Spitzer, Schwarzenegger, Weiner. When a man engages in some sort of consensual but socially forbidden sexual behavior, the man is vilified, the woman is not. (And Gloria Allred always seems to turn up in these cases - she doesn't seem to recognize her own sexism.)

I can't speak about what happened with Strauss-Kahn and the hotel maid (in fact, the initial media reports made me think he was guilty). But if the hypothetical scenario you poise is true, why on earth would I vilify him? I find it ironic that it is politically incorrect to object to homosexuality but it is perfectly acceptable to condemn men for casual (consensual) sexual activities with women. More so, in the scenario you describe, it would mean that the hotel maid was using false accusations in an attempt to convict him of a felony. So if the incident really happened in this way, I wouldn't be condemning him or his behavior. Instead, I would be asking that she be sent to prison for 10 years for the false accusations meant to ruin another person's life.

 

[Lancelot]

My guess, there would be a settlement!

Perhaps it began as consentual, then the lady felt wronged and was advised to seek more?

 

[Bimmerbill]

I heard on a radio news show that there was also some unusual activity in the maids bank account.

 

[Amethyst]

It almost sounds like you are equating being gay, with being straight and promiscuous. Whether gay or straight, male or female, a person can be celibate, have a committed relationship, casual sex, be promiscuous, be a predator, whatever. I believe most people object to sexual predators of any type. People disagree on whether promiscuity is objectionable.

Amethyst

" I find it ironic that it is politically incorrect to object to homosexuality but it is perfectly acceptable to condemn men for casual (consensual) sexual activities with women. .

 

[BigNick]

We see this throughout society ... Clinton, Spitzer, Schwarzenegger, Weiner. When a man engages in some sort of consensual but socially forbidden sexual behavior, the man is vilified, the woman is not.

I think you may be conflating "a man" with "a man who wants us to trust him with enormous amounts of power". I don't care if Jimmy from room service has a quickie with the maid. Good luck to Jimmy. I do care if Jimmy wants me to entrust him with the power to appoint governments and spend my tax dollars. That's why it's also entirely relevant what Wolfowitz got up to (consensually, apparently) with his g/f over at the World Bank.

 

[Brat]

In a he said - she said event the credibility of both is critical. He didn't deny the sex act but claimed it was consensual. She said it wasn't. He has a reputation for assertive sexual behavior with women. There was no reason during the hours and days right after this event not to believe her story and he was headed to France where we have no extradition treaty. I think the court acted appropriately.

Subsequent events put in question her credibility, which is critical for any prosecution of this case. She destroyed any chance for her to achieve justice assuming her initial claims were correct. Time to tell both parties have a nice day.

Given that the prosecution has learned new information about her activities I wonder if it will impact her residency status, and that of her daughter. The child may be the one most harmed.

What perplexes me is a statement made by someone in the press (aka, not reliable) that there has been interesting financial activity. It may be that there has been a pay off in return for taking actions which made the case not suitable for prosecution.

 

[haha]

Given that the prosecution has learned new information about her activities I wonder if it will impact her residency status, and that of her daughter.

I certainly hope so.

What perplexes me is a statement made by someone in the press (aka, not reliable) that there has been interesting financial activity. It may be that there has been a pay off in return for taking actions which made the case not suitable for prosecution.

If some reporter can find this, so can the prosecutors. And they would use that to kill Strauss Kahn.

So I don't think this idea has much to recommend it.

Ha

 

[deserat]

I think you may be conflating "a man" with "a man who wants us to trust him with enormous amounts of power". I don't care if Jimmy from room service has a quickie with the maid. Good luck to Jimmy. I do care if Jimmy wants me to entrust him with the power to appoint governments and spend my tax dollars. That's why it's also entirely relevant what Wolfowitz got up to (consensually, apparently) with his g/f over at the World Bank.

+1 on statement regarding entrusting - goes to character

However, a bit of a re-direct on Wolfowitz - the Europeans can have a double-standard - affairs/etc OK for them, not for US citizens in world organizational executive positions - bit of resentment at times regarding US viewpoints and power... I deal with it a lot over here in my business. It's subtle, but there nonetheless.

 

[Shawn]

I think you may be conflating "a man" with "a man who wants us to trust him with enormous amounts of power". I don't care if Jimmy from room service has a quickie with the maid. Good luck to Jimmy. I do care if Jimmy wants me to entrust him with the power to appoint governments and spend my tax dollars. That's why it's also entirely relevant what Wolfowitz got up to (consensually, apparently) with his g/f over at the World Bank.

I understand what you mean and I realize you are not specifically suggesting that this incident was consensual (you bring up a mere hypothetical). But what is wrong with sexual activity between two or more consenting adults? I am not clear why it matters who they are (Jimmy vs Strauss-Kahn). Is it wrong because Strauss-Kahn is married and has broken his wedding vows? Does this mean that divorced people can't be trusted because they have broken their "until death do us part" wedding vows?

Under your hypothetical scenario, all Strauss-Kahn did was have consensual relations with a maid. Is that worse than if Strauss-Khan announced that he was homosexual? Is that worse than if he and his wife said they were so called "swingers?" What does two adults in the privacy of a hotel room have to do with trust? I thought we were supposed to be tolerant of others and not care about what they do in the personal lives as long as they do not harm others.

 

[haha]

I understand what you mean and I realize you are not specifically suggesting that this incident was consensual (you bring up a mere hypothetical). But what is wrong with sexual activity between two or more consenting adults? I am not clear why it matters who they are (Jimmy vs Strauss-Kahn). Is it wrong because Strauss-Kahn is married and has broken his wedding vows? Does this mean that divorced people can't be trusted because they have broken their "until death do us part" wedding vows?

Under your hypothetical scenario, all Strauss-Kahn did was have consensual relations with a maid. Is that worse than if Strauss-Khan announced that he was homosexual? Is that worse than if he and his wife said they were so called "swingers?" What does two adults in the privacy of a hotel room have to do with trust? I thought we were supposed to be tolerant of others and not care about what they do in the personal lives as long as they do not harm others.

But you come to the world capital of judgmentalism with this scurrilous message?


Ha

 

[TromboneAl]

Given the probable skill of the absolute top lawyers in the world doing their best to paint the defendant as a liar, I'm not convinced one way or the other.

I do think that some powerful people got that way because of a defect in their personality (megalomania?) which can lead to this kind of behavior (John Edwards, Clinton).

Also I'm having a little trouble picturing this 62 year old guy

convincing a 32-year-old maid to perform oral sex consensually. I'll bet in skivvies and a wife-beater, he looks even older.

Are you guys saying that money was involved, or that he seduced her in the few minutes she was in the room?

 

[BigNick]

Under your hypothetical scenario, all Strauss-Kahn did was have consensual relations with a maid. Is that worse than if Strauss-Khan announced that he was homosexual? Is that worse than if he and his wife said they were so called "swingers?"

Yes, it is worse. If he were to announce in public that he was in the habit of having sex with the maid when he stays at a hotel, *that* would make it equal.

The guy sits at powerful tables in a suit, exuding authority. Part of that authority derives from the idea that he is, in some way, superior to the other people round the table. After all, he has hire-and-fire power over them, at least if it's an IMF internal meeting, or perhaps in a different scenario a French government meeting. Part of the basis of his authority in such a situation is the degree to which all involved tacitly agree to maintain the polite fiction that we respect the elementary rules of our society; currently, for 62-year-old married men, those rules include not unzipping in front of the domestic staff.

That's not because of any prudishness or morality; it's because of the implied abuse of power. You don't have to be Gloria Steinem to spot that there was an unequal power relationship in whatever went on in that hotel room. When you pay a guy half a million bucks a year and give him the power to close down the economy of medium-sized countries, you expect him to be able to exercise a little self-restraint in the pants department, albeit with perhaps a gentle reminder now and then:

Also I'm having a little trouble picturing this 62 year old guy convincing a 32-year-old maid to perform oral sex consensually. I'll bet in skivvies and a wife-beater, he looks even older.

Two words: C. Note.

 

[TromboneAl]

That picture is too perfect.

 

[Brat]

I do not believe that the last shoe has dropped in this case. Also, I am not convinced that Stauss-Kahn will wait/return to the US for its resolution. When/if he returns it will be with diplomatic status.

 

[kcowan]

There is much speculation of both sides. Yet I don't think the truth has been reported. He has lost his job and reputation. Has she lost anything?