So, you are saying that it would be fishy for him to be charged with something he really did? Based on the rule of what happens to people in high places I doubt that he will get the full hammer of justice at the conclusion of this. But, I’m not much for wild speculation.
I have an idea as to what DSK was trying to do, or rather a thought. Although it might have been “just” a(nother) violent rape by this creep, I tend to agree with the opinion of Clayton(original poster), this whole affair smells of power play .
I suspect that DSK wanted to continue to the sale of gold the IMF had already done, to emerging economies. The American wing of IMF would not want that of course as this would limit their able to inflate without losing value and perhaps world reserve status to another currency. The emerging economies wing such as China, India, Sri Lanka, Brazil and the lesser economies that sit on huge dollar reserves and US debt managed to press through a certain amount of sales but not at pair to what they think it ought to be(and rightly so).
The US economy contributes less than other big economies in the form of actual goods to the world economy relative to the dollar value, and the statist solution to this is to make the relative value more equitable in the amount of gold backing its currency and enabling them to challenge the US with less losses. The US and other affiliated govts could not allow such a move and moved themselves to replace the socialist dupe with some other friendlier dupe. This is pure speculation, but the fact that DSK is a french politician and the closure of the gold window was an important event especially in the minds of the french political class and a confirmation of their emasculated positions to US power does help my imagination.
It was four months in coming but, alas, the sweet taste of vindication! NY prosecutor likely going to drop charges.
Again - just a reminder - I’m not on DSK’s side and I don’t think he’s a good guy (being head of the IMF is a bad thing) and I don’t think the prosecutor charging or not charging him has any connection with his guilt-in-fact or innocence-in-fact. DSK is a political figure, a member of the Elite, and if he’s in legal trouble it’s only because someone wants him to be. His legal troubles will come to an end when he has straightened things out with whoever took him out as head of the IMF (probably Obama-Sarkozy-Merkel) and, even if he were guilty of a crime, he would never actually face trial for it.
Clayton -
Note the callousness of the system to the plight of either the accused or the accuser. When the DA is on the side of the accuser, the accused loses all rights to free movement and is lucky not to be immediately imprisoned. Actual guilt or actual innocence is completely irrelevant and the costs of the DA/judges decisions in the life of the accused (for example, losing a high-paying and important job) are simply ignored. No one is liable for these costs.
But when the DA changes tune and switches to the side of the accused, her accusations will never receive a voice, at least, not in criminal court. This is an ineradicable problem of having a law monopoly. It has no rational incentive to consider the needs of its clients. Regardless of who was guilty or innocent in the Strauss-Kahn case, it is a dramatic object lesson because of the extremes involved. But this kind of thing happens, on a smaller scale, to countless people throughout the “civilized” world.
Many innocent people lose their jobs over legal entanglement in false criminal accusations. If they are innocent and they’re lucky enough to have enough savings to feed themselves, pay the rent, the light bill and pay defense lawyers for however many months the case goes on, they might escape prison. This is why prosecutors achieve 80%-90% rates for plea deals. Considering what they can do to you in court and the odds of you actually being able to afford to exonerate yourself, you are often better off just pleading guilty even if you are actually innocent.
And, on the flip side, many genuine victims of crime never get a voice in court. If they don’t have a high-powered team of lawyers, they have no chance in civil court - but civil courts can only administer civil fines. You can have all the lawyers in the world but, without a prosecutor’s permission, it is impossible to prosecute a crime. So, it’s all up to the prosecutor. The prosecutor holds all the Aces and has the keys to the dungeon. Then there are these TV shows like NCIS, Law & Order, etc. etc. that are supposed to make us feel so sorry for the poor prosecutors whose hands are tied all the time. The very existence of such propaganda shows on television should be disturbing to you if you think through the implications about the level of actual versus imagined freedom we have.
The prosecutor’s office is the modern incarnation of the executioner and the dungeon - the root source of the power of the Prince. This is why Princes are constantly depicted holding the sceptre in their hand - the sceptre symbolizes the power to beat or punish. Bill Gates or Warren Buffet may be filthy rich but they can’t put you in prison where you can be raped and assaulted by your fellow inmates with impunity while the guards turn a blind eye for years and years. It is impossible, in the modern world of “democratic government”, to see the Man behind the Curtain but we can still see the curtain and we can be sure there must be someone behind it.
Clayton -
Good exposition of facts (timeline & places) and questions surrounding the events:
This whole fiasco was an awesome illustration of the power of the praxeological method when applied to current events. My operating premise was that the Elites take care of each other unless one of them is being hung out to dry. The story quickly went south with the accuser’s veracity being highly questionable and has only gotten murkier with every new detail released. What’s amazing is how well trained the public is. They respond to the beck and call of the media like Pavlov’s dog salivating to the bell.
Media: “He’s a rapist!”
Public: “Hang him!”
Media: “Oops, maybe not.”
Public: “ZZzzzzzzzzz”
Clayton -
I’m with you Clayton: for me the idea that he was set up is simply a given. The idea that it was purely a case of a sexual misdeed is laughable. I’ve just been wondering why ever since the story first broke. It’s hard to imagine what somebody at that level (head of the IMF for chrissakes) would have to do to get thrown under the bus like that. I suppose it’s too much wishful thinking for me to think that he was trying to do something good, though.