Misinformation and how it skews people’s views

As you are aware the case against Dominique Strauss-Kahn is about to collapse. As a result of the prosecution sharing information with the defense team, a story appeared in the New York Post that makes it look like the woman involved was in the business of being a hooker, as well as a maid at the Sofitel Hotel. This particular story is actually very devious, and it is something that had the defense team as its source. It is without doubt that the story was leaked in a further effort to discredit the woman at the centre of the case. Just like the original story, it should be treated with caution.

I have no doubt in my mind that the woman lied about some of the details. Her credibility was shot to pieces because she lied in attempt to gain asylum. Then there is the issue of the extra phones in her name, and the money deposited in her bank account. Big question here: what if her jailed boyfriend was taking advantage of her, and had given the account details to his associates without her knowledge? Yes there are a lot of holes in the story. It is also likely that she will end up being deported.

However, does that really mean that this woman was not raped? I am speculating that what she said about what took place in the room was true. The fact is that DSK has a particular reputation, and it is very unsavoury. The DSK team claims it was consensual, and yes I do believe that they planted the story with the NY Post in order to cast the woman in a very bad light. (BTW she is a very beautiful woman). The French woman Tristane Banon has initiated her own case against DSK. She stayed quiet in the first place because he mother, a member of the Socialist Left told her to STFU. This is how the man got away with his outrageous behaviour with her. The latest is that DSK lawyers are going to sue Tristane Banon, but she sees this as an opportunity for people to listen and to hear the truth about the man.

When the case erupted DSK was head of the IMF, and as a result of his arrest he resigned the post. Anyone who makes a big deal out of Christine LaGarde being the candidate of choice as the new head of the IMF needs to take a good long hard look at how it all went down, because there is simply no way that Østupid had anything to do with the matter, including the original claims of rape.

When DSK resigned the immediate front-runner was Christine LaGarde. She did not push DSK out of the role, and I must add here, that DSK was not in the race to get his job back. He was finished as head of the IMF because of his antics. I must add here that whilst he was head of the IMF he had an affair with at least one other woman. If the truth was to be told about what took place, one might find that he also pressured those women into having sex with him – in other words it was more than likely not really consensual as he claims.

Christine LaGarde was acting as the French Finance Minister and during the GFC  she was the one who did a lot of the pushing to find solutions in Europe. I need to find more information on this woman and her background. However, what I had learned is that she worked in Washington D.C. as an intern to a Republican member of Congress prior to getting a job with the law firm.  The Østupid connection to Christine LaGarde is a very long stretch, plus Østupid has more in common with DSK than with Christine Lagarde.

Another point here, and something people who are quite ignorant to the point that they believe any old stuff that is put out on the internet, and that is that the head of the IMF has always been European. When this vacancy suddenly appeared there really were only three contenders. The South African, who lives in Israel, and who has been very successful with the Israel Bank, put in his application, but the IMF stated that he was too old, citing some regulation that said the person must be under 65 years old. The other contender was from Brazil. There were no contenders from Russia or China, or the South Pacific region. I did hear noises that Australia wanted to consider one very tired uneducated hack by the name of Paul Keating (my monitor needed cleaning when I read about that suggestion), and none of the other names that were put forward actually applied for the role (probably because they could not get the backing in the first place). Christine LaGarde had the backing of the European leaders including in Germany and England (they refused to endorse the failed hack Gordon Brown), and finally she got the nod from the real hack Geithner. Obviously Agustin Carstens could not get the numbers to see the head of the IMF taken away from Europe.

I have seen some ignorant comments on various sites where people are trying to make a big deal about Christine LaGarde and where she had worked in the USA, and thus trying to draw the long bow to Østupid. However, the comments are simply full of misinformation, because, as usual, these people do not follow through with a story, until a story full of misinformation appears on their favourite site.

Now back to Dominique Strauss Kahn and the great conspiracy theory. Apparently, prior to his arrest in New York DSK was claiming that there was going to be a Sarkozy related set up regarding his sex  life. That this story erupted had nothing to do with Sarkozy. It was coincidental.  The real story was going to be the one from Tristane Banon, and perhaps another woman who had also been raped, or there had been an attempted rape. DSK knew that there were women who would be willing to bring him down, and he was trying to slime Nikolas Sarkozy in an effort to shore up his own desire to become President of France.  For this reason, I think that the New York story has to be seen as something that is not related to anything in France.

As for the alleged female victim in New York, we need to keep an open mind, but she really does lack credibility. Does this mean that a rape did not take place? I do not know how far she was lying, or why she would have picked DSK in the first place. That story about chambermaids being hookers also does not make sense. You can add to this the fact that two other staff members of the Sofitel Hotel actually told police that DSK tried to hit upon them when he arrived at the hotel, and honestly that leaves a very big element of doubt. Regardless, with the lack of credibility of the witness, there simply is too much doubt to see any conviction. The case is dead in the water unless there is better evidence that a rape took place.



Comments are closed.