Another Day in the Life of the US, Israel & the NYT
Editor's Note: Some of the expressions in this article have been adapted from comments by readers, to whom I offer my thanks.
It was fascinating to watch the NYT during the past 6 or 7 weeks. There is no way to avoid the conclusion that they were firmly controlling the reader comments on all their articles on DSK. Not even a hint of a suggestion of a setup was permitted until one article on July 6, long after all the damage had been done.
The comment threads were constantly led to topics like "rich white man, poor black woman", or the US legal system, or how money can buy freedom or how even liars can be raped. Whenever a comment was posted that was "off-topic", more correct ones were inserted to bring readers back into focus.
Further, many of the comments posted were ill-conceived and amount to little more than speculation intended to fuel hate and/or contempt. Our CIA friends have almost certainly been busy on this one.
There would appear to be no question that the NYT was on the same page as the NYPD, the DA and, we must assume, the CIA and the White House. On which topic I would note that Hillary was conspicuous by her silence. One of the grandest international opportunities in a decade, and Hillary had nothing to say.
Back to the NYT, not only did the editors control the posts, they added some of their own, posted to the "Highlights", to help readers focus. Among them was this gem:
"While France will now criticize us, we should remember that French people enjoy few of the rights we do when accused. French "authorities" can hold people for up to one year (!) without charges in an attempt to pressure them for cooperation in a criminal case. In Europe, the presumption generally is that the person accused is guilty and he must prove otherwise."
It is astonishing that the Times had the gall to do this. A clever way to excuse the illegal barbarity of the events unfolding, but also claims that are totally false. France can retain a person for no more than 24 to 48 hours before release, and the NYT editors would surely be aware of this.
No newspaper would make such a claim without checking its accuracy, so we must conclude they knowingly made a false statement, seriously maligning France in the process and leaving a disturbingly dishonest impression on the 80% of Americans who are sufficiently ignorant and simple-minded to believe anything.
Also, the US media, and especially the NYT, avoided mentioning that the woman lied to the grand jury, and the indictment against DSK was obtained based upon perjured testimony. DSK was released because that immediately invalidates and voids the indictment.
The general rule is that if a story doesn't make sense, it's usually not true. As with most fabricated stories, this one has many gaps that cannot easily be plugged, and serious questions that are either not addressed or are riddled with implausible explanations. Among them is this gem:
"Investigators with the Manhattan district attorney’s office learned the call (to an unspecified prison) had been recorded and had it translated from a "unique dialect of Fulani," a language from the woman’s native country, Guinea, according to a well-placed law enforcement official.
When the conversation was translated - which they suggest was done after a 6-week delay - investigators were 'alarmed': "She says words to the effect of, ‘Don’t worry, this guy has a lot of money. I know what I’m doing,’ " the official said."
But what the NYT and other American papers neglected to tell us is that Fulani is one of the three major West African languages (excluding French), and is not in any sense a "unique dialect."
Moreover, there are nearly 100,000 Fulani speakers living in and around NYC, and have been for decades. The courts know this, the police know this, the hospitals know this, and specifically because of the courts and police, all the interpreting agencies of the city have had many occasions to find Fulani interpreters.
So, if this prison phone conversation in Fulani took place the day after the events in mid-May, why did it take six weeks to have it translated - especially when the prosecutors began having doubts about their victim almost immediately?
The Times tells us is that "Within a week of Mr. Strauss-Kahn’s arrest, the authorities learned of a recorded conversation between the subject of a drug investigation and another man, who said his companion was the woman involved in the Strauss-Kahn matter."
Among other items, the authorities would have known immediately that their claimed story would not hold up, because the room cardkey records disproved within hours much of the woman's (and their own) claims about the sequence of events.
From the cardkey data, the prosecutors knew that she delayed reporting the sexual assault, took an hour or more to clean another room, then returned to Mr. Strauss-Kahn's room - the room where she'd just been raped - to clean it. And still didn't report the assault. Are we to believe that?
The Hotel and the NYPD had confirmed that the woman was known to act as a hooker in the hotel, offering special services and "turn-downs". That much appears certain, but when the claims became public too quickly, everyone rushed to deny it and the hotel representative said, "We have no knowledge about that".
Let us stop being naive. It might be interesting for members of the press to have an off-the-record chat with the Sofitel's concierge. Although all major hotel chains will deny it, frequently the concierge is the "go-to" man for a wide variety of services including hookers.
And even more than naive, let's stop being so hypocritical as to suggest we don't want to elect "leaders like that". I don't know many government leaders who don't have affairs. Sarkozy is hardly better than DSK in this regard.
And for sure, the US has had its share of presidents at least from Kennedy onward who had the same problem, and with much less discretion. There have been so many reports of Kennedy, Johnson, Clinton and others, having an aide open the limousine door only to find some girl on her knees and the Leader of the Free World not quite ready to disembark.
The big difference between then and now is that then the media were always silent.
Then we have the supervisor calling "security", after which the security officers "conduct an investigation" and find semen on the floor and wall. They then call the police, setting off the quick chain of events that led to police arresting Mr. Strauss-Kahn at the airport.
Are we to believe that the mall-cop wannabes comprising hotel security are competent to perform such an investigation of a crime scene, an examination of a hotel room, are equipped and able to perform lab tests to determine the presence of semen, and then only after confirmation (of semen on a carpet) would they call the police?
As to the media claims of the accused's semen being found in the room and on the maid's clothing, there has been no actual confirmation of any of this, nor about the many veiled claims about "DNA". The NYPD and the prosecutors are simply letting media speculation run wild and are doing nothing to combat it.
All of these claims were based on leaked rumors. A spokesman from the New York Police Department denied that the results from any genetic testing had been released. Investigators claimed they had given "no result and no information" about any DNA test results, the police said on Tuesday, following news reports earlier that the DNA tests had given a positive result.
Readers should note that anyone with access to a hotel guest's laundry, also has access to everything necessary to spread that guest's DNA (possibly including sperm and other body secretions) on any surface or any clothing anywhere. Perhaps more to the point, the maid proceeded to clean the room where the rape supposedly occurred, thereby destroying (or staging) the evidence.
As well, a prominent US defense lawyer claimed that there was substantial doubt in the legal defence community as to the quick turnaround of the so-called DNA evidence and the match that they might have made in just a few short days, since accurate DNA testing normally takes several weeks.
Perhaps even more to the point, in the case of a rape claim, the "walls and carpet" are not normally the first locations one would examine for semen but, in spite of the virtual flood of minute detail provided, there is no reference to any examination of the woman that might have proven her claim. We're told she was "taken to a hospital and treated for (unspecified) injuries", but that was after the arrest and charges.
The formal charges accused Strauss-Kahn of ripping the woman's pantyhose, trying to rape her and "forcing her to perform oral sex". Well, maybe, but (and at the risk of appearing inexcusably low-class) one of the factors making rape possible is that vaginas don't have teeth. I can't speak for Bill Clinton, but most men have a natural aversion to "putting themselves in harm's way".
And in the end, we have no independent confirmation of who this woman is, whether she was actually an employee at the hotel in question, or whether anything happened. The maid, if in fact she exists at all, would appear to be just another pawn in the hands of the masters of the new world order.
Everything about this event has a stink of conspiracy, of a setup. Sexual entrapment, of the kind that got Julian Assange, Mordechai Vanunu and many others, is a favorite of the Mossad. Of the CIA too, but they're more clumsy at it.
And there are some aspects of the story that are simply complete nonsense, such as the woman's claimed "reporting" of the event to her supervisor in which her first statement was the question: “Can any guest at the hotel do anything they want with us?"
Do we need to even think about this, to know that it cannot possibly be true? A "very pious, devout Muslim woman who had been a housekeeper at the Sofitel for a few years" (or, a not-so-pious extortionist hooker with a drug-dealer boyfriend) is raped (or maybe not), waits for a long period, takes the time to clean at least two rooms (on the basis that her supervisor will soon be coming along anyway), and then asks a question as stupid as that one?
The woman certainly had experience in claiming rapes before (and apparently considerable training in acting) - all of which she later recanted as false - but we're expected to believe she is so innocent in the ways of the world, so naive, and so stupid, as to ask if hotel guests "can do anything they want to us".
It strains credulity to think an internationally respected financial leader would hurl himself naked from his hotel bathroom onto a maid who happened to be cleaning his room then force her to perform oral sex on him. It's all made to sound like the actions of a psychopath more than a lustful Frenchman. These claims lend credence to the possibility this may have been something arranged rather than organic.
We are told that the maid tried to escape but that DSK "locked the door" to prevent her from leaving. Anyone who has ever left his (or her) home town can tell you that hotel rooms do not lock from the inside.
We have a report that the maid entered DSK's room at 12:06 and that DSK checked out of the hotel at 12:28. I have done this many times, and I can tell you that 22 minutes is just not sufficient time for a drawn-out, naked (if you'll forgive me), sexual assault.
I mean, I have to chase the woman around the suite, up and down the hallway, stop to "lock the door", then catch and commit various acts of assault with a friendly weapon. Then I have to brush my teeth, get dressed, fluff my poufe, gather up my stuff, walk down the corridor to the elevator, take the elevator down to the lobby, and then wait in line to check out.
If the woman had sustained inuries - including a "torn shoulder ligament" as authorities claimed, how would she then go to clean another room, and then return to clean DSK's suite? If the woman had been raped and injured, why wouldn't she would seek help and medical attention immediately?
Without actually making the claim, the NYT and other US media stories led us to believe that Mr. Strauss-Kahn attacked this woman, then fled to the airport in a panic, evidenced by his leaving behind a mobile phone and "other valuables", and the authorities apprehended him during the last seconds before his plane left the country.
But DSK didn't flee from his room. On the contrary, we have a witness account from a woman who used the elevator with him who explained that she found him pleasantly calm. He checked out without anybody finding anything wrong, took a cab to a restaurant where he had lunch with his daughter and then went to the airport to take a flight with a ticket that had been bought a few days before. As for the cell phone, he has several of them and he first called the restaurant to see whether he left it there and then the hotel.
The NYT did a good job of leading us to believe DSK was arrested on, and then removed from, the airplane, just as the doors were closing for departure. But that description was also a bald lie. The truth is that he called the hotel looking for his lost telephone and told them where he was. The NYPD then tricked him into deplaning to recover his lost phone, and then arrested him.
It would seem absurd for a man who can hire young models or woo women from higher brackets, to forcibly rape an unattractive maid from West Africa, then have a leisurely lunch with his daughter and finally get caught only because he himself gave away his whereabouts in multiple calls so as to recover his mobile phone.
The way in which he left the Air France plane (tricked by the NYPD) to recover the phone was a strong indication of a lack of guilt since he was technically on French territory and could have stayed on the plane. If he were concerned, he could have asked a stewardess to get his mobile phone for him or the detectives to deliver it to the steward. All of his behavior suggests the acts of an innocent man. Add the political dimension and naturally foul play comes to mind.
Why would NYPD detectives and prosecutors be so irresponsible as to set out, deliberately and apparently vengefully, to destroy the career of the second most relevant person in France after a three hour investigation, based solely on the word of a single immigrant woman who was already known as a hotel prostitute? There would seem to be no question they were acting on orders. Otherwise, they would have reasonably made a complete investigation and then arrested DSK on his return to the US. He would have to return, since the IMF offices are in Washington.
Strauss-Kahn was arrested on May 14 and taken to a police station for questioning. Early May 15 he was charged and imprisoned on Riker's Island. On May 20, he was indicted by the grand jury, by which time the authorities already knew about the phone call and would have had it translated. It would seem the authorities simply tried to add a measure of plausible deniability to suspicions as to why they claim to have waited seven weeks to translate the conversation.
The woman's conversation with her incarcerated friend about how best profit from her accusation took place and was recorded the day after Mr. Strauss-Kahn's arrest. Why then he was denied bail during his first hearing, sent to jail, put on suicide watch only to be granted bail later with very strict terms? He was not fleeing the country; he had a scheduled appointment with Angela Merkel the following Sunday.
The US media gladly lynched Mr. Strauss-Kahn, feminists demonstrated back and forth in front of the court all these weeks, while the police and prosecutors knew their case was built on lies. Then suddenly the prosecutors remembered those inconvenient lies upon which they built their case! Well, your honor, you know, we have such a work overload, with all those IMF bosses jumping maids at their hotels...
If we accept the authorities' version of events, we are expected to believe that the case unravelled all on one day. But that clearly is not true. We have the claim that the recorded prison conversation wasn't translated for six weeks, but all of the other evidence collapsed slowly during that time. Why did the authorities conceal all that disintegrating exculpatory evidence until the US had time to install Christine Lagarde as the new head of the IMF?
Why did the prosecutor's office demand DSKs IMF resignation as a condition for bail, then wait seven full weeks after the event until after his successor was appointed, to reveal that they had multiple serious doubts about their case from the very first week?
The only sensible answer is that the US needed time to confirm Ms. Lagarde's appointment, to ensure that Strauss-Kahn was out of the IMF, before destroying their own case.
In all mysteries where the facts are unclear and actions unexplained by reason, where there is hype and hyperbole, where wild claims are distributed like snowflakes, when nobody seems especially trustworthy, there are three procedures to follow:
1. Sequere pecuniam: Follow the Money: From where and to where?
2. Cui bono: Who benefits from this?
3. Cui prodest: Who advances because of this?
In this case, we want to follow the money but we can't. It's a bit of a surprise that we've been given reams of information right down to trivial and unimportant details, including the fact that the woman in question had received US$100,000 deposited into five different bank accounts with five different banks, in five different states. But then, silence.
We're led to believe, by snide suggestion only, that the money source may have been related to drug-dealing, but it apparently wasn't even enough of an issue for the media to question it. And while we read snide suggestions in the media that her boyfriend was in prison for drug-dealing, there was never any confirmation of that. We're led to believe the money had been evenly deposited over two or more years, but there was never any confirmation or denial of that, either.
The NYPD, the prosecutor, the CIA, everyone, was again just letting the media speculate publicly. The entire story, based only on speculation and a complete absence of facts, has the look and feel of giving the gullible public just enough information to come to the wrong conclusion.
So where did the money come from? We will never know. Most likely, it was a reward payment for her part in the setup of DSK; the simple fact that the media refuse to touch this part of the story makes it highly suspicious and the conclusion almost certain.
We're also told that the woman had at least 3 mobile phones with three different phone companies - while lying and saying she had only one phone - and was spending over $500 every month on calls.
On calls to whom? As a reporter, that's the first question I would ask. Three different phones with three different companies, and hundreds of dollars in charges? On a maid's salary? And the snoopy media who reported every other trivial and grisly detail, aren't even interested to know who she was calling? You're putting me on, right?
As to who benefits, and who progresses, we discuss those questions below.
In two separate interviews with assistant district attorneys assigned to the case, the complainant stated that she had been the victim of a gang rape in the past in her native country and provided details of the attack. During both of these interviews, the victim cried and appeared to be markedly distraught when recounting the incident. In subsequent interviews, she admitted that the gang rape had never occurred. Instead, she stated that she had lied about its occurrence and fabricated the details.
The woman told 37 substantial lies but, according to her lawyer, “She made some mistakes here, but that doesn't mean she is not a rape victim.” Mistakes?
If we are to believe the authorities' new version of events, the alleged victim has committed multiple counts of perjury, tax fraud, visa and passport fraud, conspiracy to commit extortion, possible drug-related offenses, among others, but neither the police nor the media appear to have any interest in pursuing these details. Does that not seem strange?
It will be almost certain proof that this entire bizarre event was a political fraud, when we eventually realise that no action will be taken against the alleged victim for her string of alleged crimes. We can fully expect this matter of liability for her multiple crimes to die, now that the maximum damage has been done to a French political opponent of Israel's man Sarkozy and to a challenger of US control of the IMF.
Imagine just for a moment that YOU had told all those lies, engaged in what was almost certainly a conspiracy to extortion, violated your visa and immigration status and, above all, voided a superior court indictment because of perjurious testimony. And now imagine the US government, the NYPD, the State Prosecutor, and Hillary Clinton, all just forgiving you and saying, "Ah, let's just forget the whole thing." If you can, you have a great imagination.
We have a powerful French government that could have protected and defended DSK but didn't, and the even more powerful US government that could have entrapped, prosecuted and defamed him, and did.
It seems impossible that the US government would prosecute the most senior Frenchman besides Sarkozy and, according to the polls, the next president of France, without consulting with its French counterparts, who in other circumstances would have screamed like hell.
The proverbial elephant in the room should be obvious to all readers.
The arrest of DSK would have huge political and economic consequences for the world. The highest level of government, i.e., the White House, would have been immediately alerted. If DSK had been America's man (as the Hungarian Midget Sarkozy clearly is), the machinery would have swung into immediate action to kill the case.
There would have been no perp walk, no spending nights with hardened criminals at Riker's Island. And they sure as hell wouldn't have humiliated the man by putting him on a "suicide watch". Presuming, of course, it wasn't a conspiracy.
American politics is really so dirty and low, even the worst bottom feeders look high on the food chain, in comparison. This is totally disgusting.
Imagine that in a diplomatically inconvenient moment, Leon Panetta were to visit Beijing and suddenly a Chinese maid were to accuse him of rape. Or imagine that John McCain had been detained in France during the 2008 campaign for a similar reason. You can bet the US would have drafted a declaration of war, but the government of France was completely silent during all of this episode. Why?
DSK's chances of defeating Sarkovy in next year's election were substantial before this arrest. DSK was also an IMF member with very high status. Many French citizens find the NY arrest rather suspect especially in light of the upcoming French election, and DSK's influence in the IMF. Consider who replaced DSK; none other than a very hardcore pro-corporatist type, and one in the US pocket.
I'm sorry to say this, but it is truly sordid the way the Jewish-clan NYT and its media colleagues partook in such gossipy and execrable gutter journalism. It was truly sordid the way a man, supposedly presumed innocent until proven guilty, was humiliated in a way reminiscent of the European middle-ages (an auto da fe, indeed).
A former justice minister, Robert Badinter, called Mr. Strauss-Kahn’s treatment "a lynching, a murder by media." The "perp walk" in particular is a perverted and sadistic US tradition resurrected from the medieval era, and forms an inexcusable and humiliating breach of the principle of the presumption of innocence.
The French believe the Americans went out of their way to humiliate their country by the way Strauss-Kahn was treated. They will not forget. The US has humiliated a proud nation that some day may be led by a man who is now an implacable enemy. If Strauss-Kahn becomes a political force in Paris, the US will regret the day they made him do a "perp walk." Obama and his ilk are truly short-sighted.
We had the perp walk, the unshaven pervert-in-a-trench-coat photos, the "suicide watch", the grossly unreasonable bail conditions - "resign from your position at the IMF and we'll grant you bail". It was all designed to inflict the maximum possible public humiliation to forestall any chance of DSKs return to politics. Not only that, the charges will not be dropped, nor his passport returned, until after the French election primaries - which are in only a few days. The assumption is that DSK will not be able to make himself a candidate for President unless he returns to France - and there is no way the US will permit him to return until that deadline has passed.
Make no mistake; the intention was to permanently ruin this man and his career - to get him out of the IMF and out of French politics - to ensure he will never become the President of France.
This whole story smells like a rancid Camembert. You don't need to be a conspiracy theorist to smell something fishy here; in fact, it really takes a leap of faith to not smell the odor.
Obama and his staff may have made a strategic error by prematurely ending the political assassination of Strauss-Kahn. They left him wounded but not destroyed. The rape charade has now collapsed and Strauss-Kahn will soon return to Paris. He still has a political base. Sarkozy is the one who is now running scared; he's even being attacked on the streets.
But of course the US government is pretty much an enemy of DSK. I find it curious that nobody seems to remember that in February of this year DSK publicly called for the dissapearance of the US dollar as the means of exchange in world trade. His idea is explained in a 42 page IMF study which can actually be read on the IMF website and basically boils down to using SDRs instead of dollars as means of payment in international transactions.
The problem DSK is facing has nothing to do with French electoral law, which leaves him well enough time (way into 2012) to declare himself a candidate. But if he is to be the candidate of the Socialist Party, he must take part in the party's primary, which will be decided in October but for which nominations for the primary close on July 13th. But which, unless the rules are rewritten, may be too late for DSK; he is due to appear in court again on July 18th. Nice set up!! Whether he has to be on French soil to enter the fray will be a hotly debated subject in the next few days...
And then we have Tristane, the darling sweetie, with her lingering memory of an encounter with DSK from 9 years ago, who chooses exactly this moment to bring it to the public. With her mother's help. And this latter is also surpassingly strange; the mother comes to the defense of her daughter by "confessing" that she also had an affair with DSK 10 years ago. How this will help her daughter's case has not been made clear. At least, not to me.
Now that we know the maid lied on just about everything, we conveniently have another round of leaks, the timing of which coincides with Tristane Banon resurrecting her 9-year-old claim of unwanted attention from DSK, upgrading it to the status of "attempted rape" - evidenced by his apparently attempting to unbutton her bra.
This begins to look very much like a desperate attempt to reverse the course of DSK's early release. Banon's case is so weak (and 9 years too late) that there is no chance for it to lead anywhere, but it will help to ensure the US, Israel and Sarkozy can keep DSK out of the Presidential Palace.
Mrs Banon works for atlantico.fr, a pro-Sarkozy website which is co-founded by Arnaud Dassier, the man behind Sarkozy's web campaign of 2007, and the man who started the smear campaign against DSK a few weeks before May 15th. One can ask oneself: 9 years after the alleged assault, what can a woman without much resource, and close to "prescription" , expect to win in court?
This change of mind appears when polls show that DSK is still popular enough in France to be dangerous to Sarkozy (60% of the French want him back in the presidential race). Such a move can only serve to gain time, adding to the character assassination, and nothing else. DSK has immediately filed a charge for defamation.
Of perhaps most interest is Banon's immediate claim that "politics played no part" in her decision to air this old issue again, and assuring everyone that "I was not approached by the Right" to fire another torpedo into DSKs political career.
As a further development, Tristine Banon has François Hollande, the other socialist candidate who is the highest in polls, irritated by Banon's opportunism, saying that the time to have complained was 9 years ago. Hollande accuses Banon of wanting the benefit of media attention since she is unemployed.
Moreover, both the US and Israel wanted Christine Lagarde as the new IMF head. She is a hard-headed "corporatist" member of the Bilderberg Group and in favor of the new US "world order" intended to preserve US hegemony worldwide. Strauss-Kahn would not cooperate and, without the IMF onside, the Bilderberg plans could not proceed.|
In France, Sarkozy desperately wanted to remove Strauss-Kahn from Presidential contention because he (Sarkozy) would almost certainly lose.
One indication that DSK’s political enemies are implicated is the fact, made public by the French press, that Sarkozy’s political team in France knew about DSK’s arrest before the NY police announced it. No one has attempted to explain how the French media knew (and had time to report) that Strauss-Kahn had been arrested before the actual arrest occurred.
"The prosecutor, a politically ambitious Cyrus Vance, is going for a misdemeanor plea from DSK to save the prosecutor’s face from injudiciously being drawn into an extortion/reputation-destroying plot against the man who French polls indicated was the public’s favorite in the upcoming French presidential election in which President Sarkozy, Washington’s puppet, is seeking reelection."
And the Jews and Zionists in Israel wanted to maintain Sarkozy in power because he would do his master's bidding to ensure the protection of Israel's genocidal practices and the status of French Jews, while containing the anti-Israel sentiment in France.
Israel's government and French Jews and Zionists were among Sarkozy's strongest electoral support. We can refer to Israel's conceited triumphalism with which they greeted his election: "we are persuaded that the new president will continue eradicating anti-Israeli resistance".
We will probably never know who originally thought the scheme up, nor the likely part played by Sarkozy’s operatives and their US and Jewish allies.
Sarkozy has now been confirmed as a Mossad agent, the details revealed to the public by Le Figaro.
The influential French daily last week revealed that the French leader is an Israeli intelligence agent, one of the thousands of Jewish citizens of countries other than Israel who cooperate with the Mossad. Information given to the French police before the last presidential election but somehow kept secret until now, revealed that Sarkozy had been recruited as an Israeli spy.
This was so important an issue that within 24 hours after Le Figaro's exposé, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was on a state visit to France - ostensibly to discuss Iran's nuclear agenda and the Palestinian question.
The French police are currently investigating documents concerning Sarkozy's alleged espionage activities on behalf of Mossad, which Le Figaro claims dated as far back as 1983. In 1978, Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin ordered the infiltration of the French ruling Gaullist Party, Union pour un Mouvement Populaire. In 1983, they recruited the "young and promising" Sarkozy.
Nicolas Sarkozy's step-father, Frank G. Wisner II, a prominent CIA official served as Deputy Executive Secretary of State under the helm of Cyrus Vance Senior, father of District Attorney Cyrus Vance Junior. The Vance and Wisner families had close personal ties. In turn Nicolas Sarkozy had close family ties with his step-father Frank Wisner, and these families were involved in his election campaign, as were many other Jewish (Zionist, Israeli) interests.
Frank G. Wisner II was the son of one of America's most notorious spies, the late Frank Gardiner Wisner (1909-1965), the mastermind behind the CIA sponsored coup which toppled the democratic government of Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran in 1953. Wisner Jr. is also a trustee of the Rockefeller Brothers Trust.
Ray Kelly, the head of the NYPD, knows Sarkozy very well. He was decorated Chevalier de la Legion d'Honneur by Sarkozy himself, and they have had many meetings and personal relations since then. Also, how does one explain that Mr. Kelly knows one of the "brothers" of the accuser whom he used as a reference to proclaim her good morality?
The top management of the ACCOR Hotel group has close ties to Claude Gueant, the current minister of interior of Sarkozy and his closest advisor. There is a debate when the hotel management directly informed L'Elysée of the arrest. But it's pretty easy to imagine a plot when the hotel management knows exactly the habits of DSK, and his day and time of departure.
The director of security of the hotel is a former agent of DGSE (former name of the french secret services), under Bernard Squarcini, who has worked under Sarkozy when he was himself minister of Interior.
The NYC Hotel Manager called the Elysée, France's Presidential Palace, over an hour before he told the Press. The French Media knew that DSK was going to be arrested before the arrest actually took place.
The first person in France to announce the arrest was Jonathan Pinet (a campaigner for UMP, Sarkozy's party), who apparently twitted the info at the time DSK was in the taxi to meet his daughter for lunch. And he apparently made other posts 16h29 (French time) i.e. 14 only minutes after the arrest itself.
Less than 15 minutes later, Arnaud Dassier (Sarkozy's campaign director) was also commenting on the event. That's sooner than any journalist in the US.
Confronted with this strange coincidence, he said he got the information from a friend who knew someone working in the Sofitel hotel. The friend who leaked the information was never identified and no further investigation was apparently made.
In addition to the housekeeper's various versions of the encounter, there are several versions of the NYT's reporting of the facts. On July 6, the NYT praises Cyrus Vance, the DA, for informing the court about what is claimed to be the results of an investigation conducted by the DA's office which found criminal behavior in the plaintiff's background.
But an earlier NYT article revealed that DSK's legal team hired a private investigation company, Guidepost Solutions, which uncovered the claimant's criminal background and reported that to the DA's office. I believe that the private investigators, working for DSK, are the real source of the information which supports DSK. Such investigations are rarely if ever done by public authorities in an effort to help a defendant who has already been indicted.
Many are now beginning to pillory Cyrus Vance, but the underlying truth may be a bit different than we imagine. If this is indeed a setup meant to destroy DSK, to remove him from the IMF and to ensure he will never become the President of France, Kelly (NYPD) and Vance (DA) would not have been making these decisions. They would have been obeying firm instructions from above - a true "search and destroy" mission.
That's one of the puzzling features of this case. Cyrus Vance (and his father) had many highly-placed friends in the US houses of power. It's difficult to imagine they wouldn't forsee the storm directed at him when he revealed the flaws in the case. His admissions would almost certainly be considered a sign of incompetence. But it is difficult also to imagine the powers would set him up and let him hang out to dry this way. People are calling for his head; if he has no further tricks up his sleeve, he may be toast.
"The arrest of IMF Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn has all the appearances of a frame-up ordered by powerful members of the financial establishment, in liaison with France's Nicolas Sarkozy, whose presidency has served the interests of the US and Israel at the expense of those of France and the European Union. Immediately following Strauss Kahn's arrest, pressures were exerted by Washington to speed up his replacement as Managing Director of the IMF."
DSk confronted the Washington-Wall Street Consensus and pushed for reforms within the IMF, which challenged America's overriding role within the organization. The removal of Strauss-Kahn serves to strengthen US world hegemony and US control over the IMF, to say nothing of maintaining the dollar as the world's reserve currency.
There appears to be little question that one of two pillars of Strauss-Kahn's demise was a perceived necessary "regime change" at the IMF. The other would appear to be Israel's desperation to remove Strauss-Kahn from French Presidential contention, in order to preserve Sarkozy - their "man in Paris".
According to the UK Telegraph: "Dominique Strauss-Kahn, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, has called for a new world currency that would challenge the dominance of the dollar and protect against future financial instability...
Strauss-Kahn quickly found himself in the compnay of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi. Saddam's refusal to accept US dollars and his shift to the Euro is almost certainly the reason Iraq was invaded. Saddam was hanged, and the dollar was restored to power. Gaddafi made the same mistake when he recommended nationalising the Libyan oil industry and initiated a movement to refuse the further use of the US dollar.
According to CNN Money: "The International Monetary Fund issued a report Thursday on a possible replacement for the dollar as the world's reserve currency."
Well, the new financial World Order may be a bit safer for the moment, now that Christine Lagarde is firmly placed in position at the IMF. At least, until she winds up in prison for corruption, bribery and fraud, for which crimes she is now under investigation by French authorities. What a tangled web we weave . . .
But, as Canada's Globe & Mail pointed out, "By the end of the day, it was clear that someone’s political prospects had been seriously damaged. Just not those of Mr. Strauss-Kahn, 62, who might conceivably still eye the Élysée, the French presidential palace.
One day, he was an alleged rapist; the next, a plausible victim of American perfidy. And that, in the political alchemy of France, may be enough to turn Dominique Strauss-Kahn from political pariah into electoral gold. Never has a political career fallen so fast and so far, and then immediately rebounded with such stunning speed and symmetry, as that of Mr. Strauss-Kahn."
A reader posted this comment: "Let's say there is no DNA evidence. Are we to make a point of electing people with extramarital affairs into office or positions of power?"
This is not about electing people with exaggerated sex drives. It's about electing people who are so morally deformed that they will set up and destroy an innocent man who interferes with their lust for world power. It's about the US, Israeli, UK and other Right-Wing media engaging in sordid journalism that is based on opinion, driven by ideology, unconcerned with responsibility, and frighteningly unencumbered by respect for truth.
It isn't about Clinton denying an affair. It's about George Bush telling us, "God told me to invade Iraq" - and here are 40 different lies I want you to believe, so that you think it's a good idea to invade an innocent country and kill everybody so we have the oil."
It's about Hillary Clinton telling us Khaddafi is issuing Viagra to his soldiers so they can rape more women, and we have rebel soldiers displaying store-new packages of Viagra supposedly taken from totally burnt-out tanks.
It's about the woman whom Hillary and the NYT claimed to have done a survey (during a war) of Libyan women. 1,300 questionnaires sent out, 1,200 returned, and all 1,200 women claim they'd been raped. When Human Rights Watch and the International Red Cross tracked down this woman and asked to meet some of these 1,200 "raped women" .... well, unfortunately she'd "lost touch" with all of them. After all, there's a war on.
It's about Operation NorthWoods, where the CIA tried to convince Kennedy that they should fill an airliner full of university students, send it off-course over Cuba, shoot it down, blame the Cubans, and have an excuse to invade. Kennedy refused, and the CIA and military were, by all accounts, so angry that Kennedy was afraid of a military coup.
It's about Reagan totally destroying Nicaragua, telling hundreds of unbelievable, unconscionable lies in the process, and the US media (NYT especially) all on side. The Economist, too. It's about Hillary Clinton being mad at Canada and claiming all the 9/11 terrorists had Canadian passports and received their training in Canada.
It's about electing people who think it's ok to have secret prisons all over the world where you torture people to death. It's about all US administrations and the huge military in a desperate rush to control the entire world, and willing to do anything - anything - to make that happen.
It's about Sarkozy (Mossad agent, Hungarian midget and American contract killer in Libya), and Israel and Mossad willing to do whatever is necessary to keep him in power in France - including helping to destroy the one man that would maybe easily beat him.
It's true DSKs weakness for women is a fault that was taken advantage of. It's sad, and in that sense he has himself to blame - just as Julian Assange did. But forget the sex. Forget the woman. Forget her lies and stories. Those are not the issues.
The issue with DSK is not about "rich man, poor woman" nor about "he said, she said". It's about how the US government, the CIA, Israel, Mossad, the Bilderberg Group and their puppets and poodles, are setting the stage for their New World Order. And it's about what happens to you if you refuse to go along or become obstructive.
Countries like Iran, Iraq, Libya, Cuba, Venezuela and many more, are not invaded or have their governments overthrown because they are hated by their people. It happens because they will not embrace the US and Israel who have a vision of the world these people do not share.
Here are some further articles that are worth reading. Together, they shed much light on this bizarre episode.
Regime Change at the IMF: The Frame-Up of Dominique Strauss-Kahn? (Global Research) Read Here
政权更替在国际货币基金组织：框架，对斯特劳斯卡恩吗？ (Global Research) Read Here
Was Dominique Strauss-Kahn Trying to Torpedo the Dollar? (Global Research) Read Here
IMF Regime Change: With Christine Lagarde, US Corporations Enter the French Government (Global Research) Read Here
Sarkozy accused of working for Israeli intelligence (Global Research) Read Here
Letter from prosecutors on the accuser of Strauss-Kahn (Globe & Mail) Read Here
Police deny leaking Strauss-Kahn DNA report )Al Jazeera Read Here