Dominique Strauss-Kahn Innocent? So Who’s Guilty… and of What?

After an international perp-walk, the end of a career with the International Monetary Fund, the derailing of a campaign for the presidency of France, and millions of dollars spent complying with court requirements, it would appear that the Americans don’t have much of a case after all. Dominique Strauss-Kahn will now be allowed to slowly process out of the legal system – in order to attempt to save that system as much embarrassment as possible, and allow them to salvage any charges they can so that prosecutors can post some sort of ‘win’ on their resumes- that he was unceremoniously thrust into. The prospect of sensationalism, and the glory of a show trial, seemed to be sufficient temptation to cause the prosecutors to overlook little things like evidence and the veracity of the alleged victim’s testimony.

The inconsistencies of the case were apparent from the beginning. A 62 year old man apparently emerged from a bathroom, naked, and then was able to over-power a taller, and more physically fit, 32 year old woman before she was able to turn back out the door or scream for help. Then, somehow, Strauss-Kahn was supposed of have been able to force the woman to perform oral sex on him without any weapon, other than her teeth, being present.

Rape is a horrible crime and should be prosecuted vigorously; so should the use of the courts as a tool of political expediency. Whether it’s due to attorney grand-standing and resume padding, or influential third parties seeking political advantage by sabotaging a rival, a thorough investigation, and prosecution, with the same rigor and quick action (except accompanied by adequate evidence this time) must be pursued.

These new revelations come only days after the appointment of Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s successor, Christine LeGarde, former French Minister of Finance , as head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). More importantly, these revelations, potentially exonerating Strauss-Kahn, come immediately after the harsh imposition of austerity measures in Greece, which he opposed. Strauss-Kahn was in favor of a plan which was similar to the Marshal Plan, basically grants from the IMF, rather than the debilitating loans, with enormous interest payments, that have been thrust on the Greek people. This would not have been nearly as profitable for international financial interests. Strauss-Kahn was potentially standing in the way of their ability to rape Greece.

The inconsistencies in the case were myriad from the beginning yet very little attention was given. Crucial questions were never asked. The media, in this case, did very little, if any, investigation. They all reverted to being paparazzi and tabloid reporters.

The fact that the American media jumped on the band-wagon and spun the story in the most defamatory way possible was very telling. Someone was pushing a narrative in this story and everyone fell in line. Much attention was given to the fact that DSK was caught on a plane as if fleeing the scene of the crime. Little to no attention was given to the fact that the flight had been booked weeks in advance.

The fact that he left a cell phone behind was offered as evidence of his hurried flight from the scene of the crime. Little mention was given to the fact that he called the hotel to ask them to hold on to the phone so that he could arrange a way to retrieve it. The media tried and convicted him from the start. Why?

The fact that he had the reputation of being a seducer was offered as proof that he could commit a crime of violence. That’s what rape is, a crime of violence. It is not a crime of sex. Being guilty of sexual harassment is not the same as being guilty of, or even being prone to commit, the violent act of rape. Xenophobic undertones regarding the lascivious French and Europeans colored the commentary on every news outlet. It was an embarrassing display of American ignorance and sexual repression.

Now, as the ‘case’ falls apart, is the time to ask the truly important questions. If the crime of rape wasn’t committed, what crime was? Who profited from this charade? Was it Nicolas Sarkozy, the French President that DSK threatened to unseat in the next election? Was it Christine LeGarde, who inherited his post as the worlds most powerful banker? Was it the global financial interests that stand to make trillions from the loan agreements imposed on Greece? Was it a meticulously planned conspiracy by all of them, or was it a fortuitous set of circumstances brought on by a horny DSK and a gold-digging, opportunist housekeeper?

The New York legal system, and, by extension, the American legal system, has just taken the proverbial header down the stairs in front of the entire world, at a ball it threw in its own honor. Brushing it off and pretending it never happened will not suffice in this situation, though. It is time to go back, while everything is fresh, and pour over the case looking for all the places where things were being steered in directions that the facts didn’t take them. Who exerted pressure? Who dropped hints? Who tried to intimidate? Follow the money. Follow the power. It’s time to find out the truth. The people of France deserve it… and so do the people of Greece.


4 Responses to Dominique Strauss-Kahn Innocent? So Who’s Guilty… and of What?

  1. +1 Vote -1 Vote +1Bailey
    July 1, 2011 at 11:42 pm

    I agree with your conclusions, but you should reference some of your information. Like that he opposed Greek austerity measures or that he had the ticket booked and phoned the hotel. I would appreciate looking at these myself.

  2. Vote -1 Vote +1Danny May
    July 2, 2011 at 3:03 am

    Embarrassing just embarrassing

  3. Vote -1 Vote +1Allene Swienckowski
    July 6, 2011 at 2:40 pm

    We Americans are notorious for coveting sleazy sex headlines, especially about people in high places. American MSM providers always ensures that “a story will always lead if it involves blood (an unconscionable, explicit crime), an/or salacious sex encounters. What other country would devote so much ink to ex-Representative’s Weiner’s weiner?

  4. Vote -1 Vote +1Pat Hoekstra
    July 7, 2011 at 2:10 pm

    You did not mention three other parts of the story that wer very interesting as well:
    1. Putin came out almost immediately in support of DSK, saying he suspected that the charges were unjust and politically motivated.
    2. DSK was in New York to collect gold bullion promised in 1972 to the IMF for reserve in the creation of SDR (special drawing rights) new world “currency” that was not delivered as promised. Rogue elements of the CIA had delivered documentation proving that US gold reserves in Ft. Knox are in fact NOT there.
    3. An 72-year-old Eygptian banker who is a devout Moslim was charged with rape of a hotel maid in a luxury New York hotel when he arrived to pick up the CIA documentation a week or two later. What is his current status?

    What is the status of the US gold bullion to the IMF?
    I suspect that if you follow the real money, i.e. the gold, you will discover the true story behind politically motivated rape charges against these two IMF bankers while visiting New York..