It is impossible to understand the downfall of Dominique Strauss-Khan without linking it to his project for the creation of a new international reserve currency,

I think the more accurate linkage is the flawed one between head and his pants.  This is nothing more than the abuse of power by the political class.  It's a story as old as human history itself.  No conspiracy required.

The cause of DSK’s downfall is the nature of the accusation, no matter if it is true or not. Even if he gets acquitted (unlikely after the enormous prejudgement, “perp walk” and everything), the accusation will stick to him. His career is ended in any case.

I note that almost everyone claims to know if DSK is guilty or innocent. In reality there are only two persons who know the truth.

Here is some fun.

What makes you so sure that DSK’s guilt already is established?

I never said it was.

What is established is sufficient evidence for arrest and prosecution, which is also part of due process.   Legal thresholds must be met for issue of a warrant and prosecutions must be based on legally obtained and presented evidence.

Included in that prosecution is presentation of his long history of sexual misconduct, including other allegations of sexual assault which establishes a pattern of behavior consistent with the current allegations.  Guilt for this current crime will be established (or not) at trial. 

Momo: "Unlike you I am not convinced of DSK’s guilt at all."

The New York Post has a report today alleging that Dominique Strauss-Kahn's friends are trying to pay hush money to the family of the maid accusing him of attempted rape. According to the paper, while the maid remains in protective custody, the former IMF chief's friends reached out to her impoverished extended family in French colony of Guinea in West Africa.

Yes...clearly the actions on behalf of an innocent man.

Mike,

The warrant for arrest was signed by a judge … This establishes sufficient burden of proof to establish that a crime has taken place, including existence of a victim and a perpetrator.  Whether DSK is the perpetrator will be determined by trial.

Nope. You are fundamentally wrong.

The judge signed a warrant, because there is evidence to reasonably suspect that a crime has taken place. It is perfectly possible though that no crime has taken place.

If there was the crime of rape committed in that hotel-room, there is no doubt that DSK is the perpetrator, by the way. Nobody claims there was a third person present.

The evidence that has been brought forward is far less unambiguous than you claim.

How sad that you as a woman would not have greater compassion for another woman who was victimized

You cannot know if the woman was victimised. It is possible (though not certain) that she is a perpetrator in the crime of accusing an innocent of a crime that never has taken place. I as a woman am perfectly capable of having compassion with every victim of a crime, regardless of their gender.

You're right.  It [the song] doesn't even mention her.  That's the point.  In the attempt to satirize the politics of the situation, the victim is ignored. 

We don’t know if she is the victim. In an ongoing investigation (the result of which should be completely open) she is entitled to protection and to be left alone. The song does that. It is entirely about the political and economical implications, and this is legitimate. I even find it more thrilling than the criminal case itself.

Included in that prosecution is presentation of his long history of sexual misconduct, including other allegations of sexual assault …

When the warrant was signed there were no other allegations of sexual assault. There was his long history of “sexual misconduct” only, and this is legally completely irrelevant: adultery is not a crime, and doesn’t make anyone predisposed to rape. Calling it “misconduct” is a matter of your personal opinion, but not something the prosecution should consider.

Like Roger you claim to know who is the victim and take sides (different sides though).

I don’t think that with DSK as presidential candidate Sarkozy the Atlanticist neoliberal or Le Pen the fascist would have had a chance. And then there is the general policy of the IMF to consider, and especially that of the IMF in the Eurozone. Black Swan indeed. And this is independent of the question whether DSK is guilty or the victim of a conspiracy.

If what you say about American law is true, any allegation is indeed the same as a conviction.

This must indeed be a language issue, because nothing could be further from the truth.  A warrant requires MUCH more than a mere allegation.  It is based upon affidavits (sworn statements) of the the relevant evidence collected that supports a specific crime and specific perpetrator.

And this is exactly the “history of sexual misconduct” DSK is known for.

Not true.  There was a previous sexual assault that was covered up because her mother and DSK were big wigs in the socialist party.  The victim referred to DSK attacking her like a "rutting chimpanzee".

Iron Mike;

Speaking of sex and bad publicity, Ex-Governator Arnold Schwartzenegger has acquired a new title:

The Spermanator

A warrant requires MUCH more than a mere allegation

You said it required proof that a crime had taken place, remember. Which implies that a defence of debunking this point was inadmissible. And, YOU said that, not me.

There was a previous sexual assault that was covered up because her mother and DSK were big wigs in the socialist party

Unproven so far. And this accusation only came AFTER the warrant was issued. In the beginning the “history” was DSK’s affairs, and this is an outrageous attempt to criminalise sex as such.

There are many features of the case that sound simply fishy. For instance, in a hotel with a fairly modern system of “keys” by plastic card, a hotel maid can’t open the door if the guest is in the room. I don’t want to list everything that raises more questions than answers, because I don’t want to argue for either side. What I am saying is that both your and Roger’s positions are dead wrong: everything is possible in this case. I am amazed at the degree of prejudgement and it is outrageous that this is not only done by the press, but by the prosecution too.

The only thing that is clear (because it doesn’t depend on guilt or innocence): DSK’s career is finished by the mere accusation. No proof needed for that part of the story. And this makes this accusation perfect for a conspiracy.

You said it required proof that a crime had taken place, remember. Which implies that a defence of debunking this point was inadmissible.

To clarify for you..."Proof" at this point in due process (warrant for arrest) refers to "evidence" a crime has taken place by a specific person with a specific victim (person or state).  There is no defense prior to arrest; you must be charged before you can defend.   Defense attempts to debunk evidence is offered at trial or in legal challenges pursuant to pre-trial discovery motions.

Unproven so far. And this accusation only came AFTER the warrant was issued. In the beginning the “history” was DSK’s affairs, and this is an outrageous attempt to criminalise sex as such.

Yes, unproven so far.  So what?  His history was not evidence used to obtain an arrest warrant.  It "may" be used at trial to establish a pattern of behavior.  That has yet to be determined by the trial judge because the trial has not yet begun.  But many legal experts expect the prosecution to try as was successfully done in the Marv Albert case. 

For instance, in a hotel with a fairly modern system of “keys” by plastic card, a hotel maid can’t open the door if the guest is in the room.

And you know this for a FACT in THIS particular hotel?  More idle speculation on your part.  From the NY Times.

The authorities have said that the housekeeper at the Sofitel knocked on the door to Mr. Strauss-Kahn's suite, called out to announce herself, used her master keycard to open the door, and left the work cart in the doorway, keeping it open. "

They would have a record of her using the key to gain access," Mr. Krauss said. "They should have a record of the door remaining open for X period of time, and the door lock being actuated again. The system can differentiate between the guest's card key and the housekeeper's master key." Inside the suite, the authorities said, the housekeeper entered the bedroom to clean and Mr. Strauss-Kahn then emerged naked from a bathroom and began to attack her.

When the woman ran for the door, it is charged, Mr. Strauss-Kahn shut it, an act of unlawful imprisonment. "They know what time the maid opened that door, propped open that door, and when someone closed that door," Mr. Krauss said.

In your attempts to tell me that I had no idea of what American law is you seem to have forgotten where our main disagreement is:

She is a victim who does not deserve to be victimized a second time in the press.  This is a poor African immigrant woman living in subsidized housing for AIDS patients, who was brutally sexually assaulted.  These are facts established by forensic evidence.  The rest is speculation.   

This interpretation of the evidence is supported (but not established) by forensic evidence. Enough for an arrest warrant to make sure that the accused is there for the investigation and trial, but not enough for your demands of acknowledging the woman was the victim and DSK guilty. You are the one indulging in speculation. We don’t know if she is a victim.

By the way, the amount of evidence necessary for a warrant (and as opposed to a guilty verdict) is pretty much the same here. I am probably more aware than you where the differences between the American (or Anglo-Saxon) legal system and the continental European one are. In this point (the amount of evidence) and in the presumption of innocence there are no huge differences. The legislative process is different, and so is the procedure of a trial and the role of the prosecutor, but not questions of evidence or the weighing of evidence.

Yes, unproven so far.  So what?  His history was not evidence used to obtain an arrest warrant. 

But it was used (by the prosecutor) towards the media in order to influence the public opinion (including the jurors). It fits with the absolutely disgusting “perp walk”: intended to prejudge the defendant, and considered inhumane treatment here.

My concern is not if the warrant was justified, my concern is with everything that is a risk for a fair trial. Additionally I am interested in the limits of justice by trials, that’s the point Owly raised.

You notice that you are taking one side all the time, don’t you? You deny that it is perfectly possible that DSK is the victim of a conspiracy. You are making the same mistake as Roger, who claims that this is clear.

The prosecution is feeding the press with exactly the same notion: establishing DSK’s guilt before a trial has even started. All the world has seen the prejudging pictures and has read the insinuations. Appalling. I would even find it beyond the pale to parade a convicted man in that inhumane and humiliating way, but in this case it is done in order to blow up the presumption of innocence, which is even worse. It is not only a matter of finding a jury. Every participant in that trial is steered in one direction.

It is damaging for both sides, by the way. The defence will be forced to take their argument to the public too. If this woman is deliberately lying, she has deserved that, if not, it will be hell for her. Blame the prosecutor, they have set the tone. You can’t say that this method helps to find the truth.

Mike,

While I appreciate your persistence, I again wonder why you bother.  It's not as if you are going to convince the Momester to forego twisting facts.  If it hinders her ability to criticize the United States, we all know she's going to ignore logic.  It makes no difference if twisting, exaggerating, and ignoring the logical "big picture" puts her in the same corner as extremists and conspiracy wing-nuts.  As long as she can say, "US baaaddd.  US eeeevil," she's a happy camper.

Ah, now even insisting on a fair trial and the presumption of innocence is “anti-Americanism”. I’ll leave you to your racist speculations about the opinions of the French and the “part French” then. And don’t forget to congratulate each other on your anti-Nazi stance while you celebrate the elimination of justice.

For me, that was that.

It is entirely YOUR decision to treat everything as a case of nationality. It is the only thing you can think of. Your problem, not mine.

Bullshit.  You made it "civilized, fair, European" versus "inhumane, unfair, American" systems, not me.   Your problem, not mine.  You just ignore it, along with facts.

 It fits with the absolutely disgusting “perp walk”: intended to prejudge the defendant, and considered inhumane treatment here.

(By "...here", I can only assume you mean Europe, or Germany.  And the US system differs by tolerating "inhumane treatment.")  You made it about nationalities, not me.  Not that I'm surprised.  I'm certainly not, in fact.  Just another in a long line of "you people suck" comments I've come to expect from you.

(By "...here", I can only assume you mean Europe, or Germany. 

Right.

And the US system differs by tolerating "inhumane treatment.")  

The US system definitely tolerates this sort of inhumane treatment, which is illegal here. We can debate what the European equivalents are, if a prosecutor wants to influence the public opinion (there are some, in my view), but I guess you aren’t interested anyway, because it concerns “largely irrelevant” people, who disgust you in any case.

Just another in a long line of "you people suck" comments I've come to expect from you 

Your expectations are entirely your own, nothing to do with my posts.

As long as she can say, "US baaaddd.  US eeeevil," she's a happy camper

Apparently you deny that detainees are treated inhumanely in the US. Apparently you deny that the US are bad and evil. Have you any ARGUMENTS, or is stopping people from speaking up  the only thing you want?  

Evidently, Italy does not share your belief that showing a suspect in handcuffs, doing the "perp walk," negates a fair trial:

http://tinyurl.com/3e6g6cl

nor does Britain:

http://tinyurl.com/3s8yp58

nor, apparently, does Germany:

http://tinyurl.com/3l4xrnx

But, why would I expect a few facts might stand in the way of your calling the US "inhumane"?

Who says DSK was "paraded" outside? Journalists were all over it because of who he is and the nature of the allegations, not because police or prosecutors were intentionally "parading" him for the cameras. It's part of having a free press -- you take the bad with the good.

And of course there's an assumption of innocence. Mike's merely pointing out that the standard of evidence to obtain a warrant and to bring the case is high, and rightly so. Not enough evidence? Then you have no prosecution. The fact that he is being prosecuted merely means prosecutors were able to convince a judge that there was enough evidence to proceed to prosecution.

And very few courts in the US allow video or photo to be taken inside courtrooms while trials are in process -- it's why you see so many artist's renderings.

Momo,

as this case is apparently about to crumble I thought it would be interesting to reread this thread, and it was. Your criticisms of the American legal system were apparently well founded, and the American legal system is going to walk away from this looking quite badly I'm afraid, as it should.

I think there is a tendency of Americans to always think they have the best 'everything', in this instance the best legal system, but how they can arrest a potential Presidential candidate, humiliate him in front of the world, and then throw him in Rikers Island on such flimsy evidence is appalling. I think it is the American legal system which is now humiliated in front of the world.

Good on you Momo!