DSK worried about a "honey trap" eh?

[Ripley]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/16/dominique-strauss-khan-tristane-banon?CMP=twt_gu

What a lying fucking asshole rapist piece of shit.

For some, the story of Strauss-Kahn's fall from presidential hopeful to prison cell was a combination of sordid tale and Shakespearean tragedy. For others the story was so extraordinary it smacked of a set-up.

Only three weeks ago, Strauss-Kahn evoked such a possibility in an interview with French newspaper Libération when he said he thought he was under surveillance and named the three principal difficulties he foresaw if he was to stand for the presidential elections.

"Money, women and the fact I am Jewish." He added: "Yes, I like women ... so what?" He said he could see himself becoming the victim of a honey trap: "a woman raped in a car park and who's been promised 500,000 or a million euros to invent such a story ..."

Now you tell me why in the hell someone worried 3 weeks ago that he would be set up would have "consensual sex" with a complete stranger - a maid he just met in his hotel in a foreign country?

No. He doesn't like women. He obviously sees them as objects to be abused violently and it is pretty damned disgusting to see how many people at DU defend his attitude and behavior.

[Ohio Joe]

1. Honestly... It is pissing me off

I am not getting why so many are defending this POS.

[monmouth]

2. Me neither...This place has become so different in the last two years or so...n/t

[seabeyond]

3. yup. he is a creep. the ultimate in creep. he is well aware he has been assaulting women

and possibly worse. people tend to out themselves. to cocky. so sure.

[Dreamer Tatum]

4. Because he is French and therefore is our cultural better.

Sophisticated Europeans have the innate right to fuck anyone they want at any time, and anyone
who has a problem with that is clearly an ugly American puritanical clod.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spooky3]

6. You raise a great question.

[Hannah Bell]

20. but without understanding all the aspects of said question.

[spooky3]

46. what does that mean? what is your point?

[DLnyc]

7. I agree. Anyone accused of a horrible crime should be immediately thrown

in prison for life. Evidence and trials are just for wussy, bleeding heart, terrorist-loving, women-hating liberals! Your opinion about the facts of the case is certainly enough to convince me that we can dispense with any more questions and just lock the guy up forever! I can't believe anyone could imagine for a second that you don't know every single fact and nuance of the case, since you have obviously read some reporting about it!

[Kaleko]

17. Exactement.

Considering any other alternative - such as a set up - makes me a boorish piece of Euro trash.

[Hannah Bell]

21. it's the new american way. extrajudicial assassination & trial by media.

[joshcryer]

25. Uh, no one has ever said that.

But people have said that this is a conspiracy. Figure that one out.

[leftstreet]

35. +1

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. I expect this in... The Mirror or the NYP

Not the Guardian...alas thanks guys...a certain semi major character of mine will "benefit."

[sabrina 1]

9. Who on DU is defending 'his attitude'? And isn't it against the rules

to attack DUers like this?

I am proud to say I am and will continue to defend due process before pretending I know anything about this case. 'He doesn't like women'. Do you know this person? From what I have seen, most DUers never heard of him until last weekend but they can read his mind, they know he 'did it' because Rupert Murdoch's rag reprinted rightwing propaganda that has been a huge issue in France, and everyone decides 'case closed'?

I will never apologize for defending the rights of the accused in a case like this where there is no way to know what happened until evidence is presented by reliable sources. How that translates into 'defending his attitude' is beyond me. What is his atttitude? I don't know this person at all, I don't know the woman either. So where did you gain this insight into the mind of a total stranger?

Contrary to your opinion, we have heard today from people who actually know him, for years, and according to them what they are reading about him in the US media doesn't sound like the person they know at all. So now we have two contradictory opinions on the man. What to believe?

People seem to have lost all sense of reason over this case. And when Rupert Murdoch and the right-wing Sarkozy operatives become the sources for information on this country, it truly is disturbing.

WHEN he has been convicted, then I will know what 'his attidude is'. Until then, the man is a stranger to me. And whether anyone likes it or not, I will defend his right to be heard, not represented by Rupert Murdoch, but by more credible sources, before I pass judgement on him.

As one rational attorney said, 'these cases in the first few days tend to generate a lot of material that will change as the case develops'.

He may very well be guilty of everything he is charges with, and if he is, then he will deserve whatever he gets. But we don't even know yet whether or not there was a crime, we know it has been alleged that there was. Now pass the smelling salts, I actually dared to point out that not a single person here knows what happened in that hotel room. Shame on me! :eyes:

Edited to say, I meant to unrec this but rec'd by accident ~ just for the record.

[Ohio Joe]

10. Attack DU'ers? Like call them tools of FOX?

You mean attack like that? Maybe people are believing the victim instead of blaming her and accusing her of being yet another FOX tool because of Tristane Banon's claim he tried to rape her. or perhaps because Piroska Nagy claims he used his position to force her to have sex with him. I guess they are just some more FOX tools... or maybe the guy is a douchebag rapist.

[CreekDog]

15. When DUers say he was "set up", they are making an accusation of guilt

of the woman involved and of other people.

it's hypocritical and contradictory to say 1) that we can't accuse him yet and then say 2) he was set up by the woman or that she had a role

oh, and it HAS been said on DU and not just once.

[sabrina 1]

18. Well, I haven't said he was set up. What I have said is that

people claiming they know he is guilty because he is a pig, he is fat and ugly and rich and rich people always get away with these crimes etc. etc. and that pointing out that we do not know that he is guilty, is saying she is, is simply ludicrous.


The system itself does not say either one is telling the truth or not. All there is right now is an allegation that a crime was committed. Unless there is a body eg, or money missing from a bank or photos, videos, eyewitnesses, confessions we don't even know for sure there was a crime. In this case there is none of that. So neither of them are guilty or innocent at this point.

As for him being set up, he was threatened with being set up, in France and it was common knowledge before this happened. So much so he had hired lawyers to stop the smears and threats against him. So that part is a fact, his lawyers had announced their intentions at least two weeks ago. For some reason it bothers people to relate actual information that is known. And that's too bad, if the information is out there, it will be reported here and elsewhere. But if someone is so invested in him being guilty that they do not want to hear anything other than 'yes, you're right', that's not going to happen and they need to get used to it.

[Hannah Bell]

22. no, they aren't. here's a scenario in which the woman is also set up &

unknowing:

dsk asks the concierge to get him a whore.

concierge (or whoever) sends maid to clean room.

now please furnish some links of people saying that he was set up *by the woman.*

[joshcryer]

29. That's apparently not the scenario the defense is indicating.

Otherwise they would not say that "the evidence, we believe, will not be consistent with a forcible encounter."

Got any others that might fit the defense's statement?

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[joshcryer]

32. Yes, and I asked for an example that actually made sense.

You answered a hypothetical with reference to a real case and real quotes coming from DSKs lawyers. Under what scenario would "the evidence, we believe, will not be consistent with a forcible encounter" make sense?

Let me give you a hint: it's the one that makes the victim look bad.

[CreekDog]

37. setup to rape somebody?

:rofl:

okay give him 1 less year of prison. :wtf:

and you don't even see it.

it's like arguing with the people in the gungeon. their adherence to their philosophy is so strong that it nullifies empirical evidence.

which is what you're doing here --you don't even get why your example of a setup is so ridiculous. if i go to your house and offer you a stack of money for something, that's a setup. if i send someone to a rapist's house thinking that person will get raped --that's NOT a setup.

heck, you were doing this with the Japanese nuclear stuff, so convinced by your philosophy that because certain people were lined up economically or politically in a particular way, that the whole thing wasn't as dangerous as it verifiably was.

the problem with your philosophy is that it seeks to deny facts and no healthy thinking would do that.

[truth2power]

44. Thanks, Sabrina...

As I posted in another thread a short while ago, ever since the story first broke and I heard that he might challenge Sarkozy, that little voice inside me wouldn't shut up. I kept thinking, "Is this a set-up?"

He surely is a threat to the PTB in France. Sufficient, IMO, to make sure he's marginalized.

Yes, he could be a total dirtbag. I have no way of knowing. But something stinks about this. Just sayin'.

[sabrina 1]

45. You're welcome.

Better to stick to the facts and take into account everything that is known about this. It will not only affect what happens in France, but to the IMF also, which imho, could be called a criminal organization for what it has done to so many developing countries over the years. He was apparently attempting to correct some of the ways in which the IMF has harmed countries. And that did not go down well with many powerful people either. So this case has far-reaching implications. So all these factors cannot be ignored in this case. Otoh, he could be just a total dirtbag as you said. We don't know yet.

[RaleighNCDUer]

11. There are people defending him? Here?

I guess I've been fortunate to have missed those posts.

[sabrina 1]

12. No, you haven't missed those posts because there were none. The OP has made a false

claim about other DUers. What people on DU have done is to defend a person's right to due process. There still are people who believe in the rule of law in this country and in actual evidence before locking someone up, calling them a pig and throwing away the key.

Somehow that got translated into 'defending him'.

[blondeatlast]

16. there are no posts that I am aware of that have judged him guilty and passed sentence, either.

And unlike the actual judicial system, Even if they did, Americans are free to voice an opinion on an accused's guilt or innocence.

Is GWB guilty of war crimes without being tried? My opinion is that he is--but I don't carry out sentencing, which is how the public and the judicial system differ.

[sabrina 1]

19. Yes there are. And yes, they have a right to do so.

And others have equal rights to point out that they do not know that right now.

As for Bush, he confessed to a crime, publicly. The result was Congress passed a law rescinding the law he broke and making it retroactive.

As far as the other crimes his cabal has been accused of, we know there were crimes, unlike this case where all we have are allegations of crimes.

Re war crimes, there are bodies, torture victims, photos, videos, eyewitnesses, news reports from people like Sy Hersch. Members of Congress who viewed video of the crimes, and then the testimony of people like Lindsey Graham who described what he saw on the videos this way: 'we are talking about rape here, sodomy, torture and murder'.

Even Rumsfeld conceded that what was on those tapes were crimes, bad crimes. And we've seen some of the Abu Ghraib photos. We've also seen the Iraq/Afghanistan War logs with confessions of crimes, and we've seen video of a war crime in action. There are also lawsuits filed by victims of these crimes.

There is no comparison in these cases regarding whether or not crimes were committed. To say Bush is guilty, well, we know there are crimes, and we know US soldiers were involved, and we know he was the CIC when they were committed. We don't know if he ordered them, or knew about them or simply did nothing to stop them.

[Hannah Bell]

24. really? you must have missed all the posts vehemently calling him a rapist.

seems like that = "judging him guilty".

[joshcryer]

27. I've stated before that I believe that the evidence that has been made avilable indicates his guilt.

DSKs lawyers are likely salivating on the prospect of trying to get that information barred from court. But it won't work.

[snagglepuss]

13. Excellent observation. Why indeed would he 'consent' to bed a stranger when

he suspected he was going to be set up?

[joshcryer]

23. LOL, authoritarian socialists are two faced liars. Look at Chavez and VAT.

Few months back VAT was the enemy, not meeting the challenge that Chavez had created (build millions of houses in a few years time), and Chavez recently issued a decree giving the very builders from the VAT tax free and duty free privileges. The enemy is now my friend!

[leftstreet]

30. Do you really believe French Socialist party has anything in common with Chavez?

:rofl:

[joshcryer]

33. Nah, I consider them all SINO.

Socialist in name only.

edit: to clarify, this "everything is a conspiracy" crap is used so much that it's just embarrassing. The last time we had a President that made up conspiracies was when we had Bush (terrorism conspiracies which he only managed to use for a few years there before the people got fed up with it).

[JVS]

38. Well they are both to the left of Colonel Klink, so the connection is fairly obvious.

[Dash87]

14. He was clearly tricked into jamming his dick into a maid's mouth.

That settles it. Poor poor man. Being picked on by the evil, conniving female.

:sarcasm:

[Hannah Bell]

26. so many DUers *love* to say that phrase. i think you're the third this week.

[JVS]

39. They must have recently heard the joke about the difference between jam and jelly.

[Nye Bevan]

41. Well, he *did* forcibly insert his penis into her mouth.

After chasing her down a hallway. And grabbing her.

Then he jammed his penis into her mouth.

That's 4.

[polly7]

36. I haven't seen a single post demeaning the woman. I don't even know

where a description like yours comes from.

[Matariki]

28. I'm thinking people think it's a set up because the rich and powerful just never get punished.

So it seems suspicious when they do. I'd prefer to think that occasionally there is actual 'blind' justice in the world.

[Behind the Aegis]

34. The trial is already over? That was quick.

[GeorgeGist]

40. Innocent until proven guilty ...

is really a crock; isn't it?

[Renew Deal]

42. Why would a married guy say he "likes women" in this context?

That's bizarre.

[seabeyond]

43. and then say he loves his wife more than anything she means everything to him

yes

it is all pretty damn clear

i would feel SOOOO special, being amongst all that love