Thursday, May 19, 2011

The End of Omertà

Two témoignages.


Cincinna said...

Maybe more women will come forward now that DSK has been indicted by a NY Grand Jury. That means they found enough evidence to find that a crime has been committed, and by a preponderance of the evidence, they believe the evidence warrants that he be charged with the crimes

the fly in the web said...

A tragedy if the public response to the elite's support for DSK is to give support to the Front National....but possible.

MYOS said...

Have you heard Harlem Désir? He told Sarkozy "to intervene".
If I were Martine Aubry, I'd tell him to shut up immediately. There's nothing that'll anger the DA more than attempts at securing special treatment and making a backroom deal to save "the great man".
And whenever Sarkozy takes on such quests, he puts his foot in his mouth, waves his arms, and ends up being counterproductive (e.g., Florrence Cassez)

MYOS said...

Rue89 rounded up the interviews that so incensed Meshplate, Kirk, and me (plus countless lurkers and others, I'm sure).

MYOS said...

Jean Quatremer, who was put in the stocks for mentioning DSk's "tendencies" and his "inappropriate gestures", has written a column. Apparently it'll be in English for the Financial Times.édias-français-et-le-tabou-de-la-vie-privée-des-politiques-.html

meshplate said...

Thank you Myos. I saw that ru89 piece, but I thought better of linking to it because it seems a consensus has formed at French Politics that it's psychologically understandable (is that the same as excusable?) that there should be such reactions: very prominent people on the left attacking the victim, asserting the certain existence of the a plot, claiming that "accusatory" US justice and police trample by its very nature on the human rights of DSK. My favorite is J Lang: "nobody died" e.g. so what's all the fuss about? Just wait 'till the trial gets underway. The only shot the DSK defense team has is to attack the victim, with the cheering approval from the sidelines of the "intelligentsia" on the left. Let's not forget that during the Polanski flap, Finkielkraut in effect said that the director's 13 victim deserved what she got since she was looking for it ( In the end, I suppose we shouldn't let this get out of proportion but if the left is like this it's really upsetting. What hope is there?

On that last note, I note that dearest Annie Sinclair has rented a place for $200,000 a month on East 65th St to keep DSK in the style to which he now accustomed during the trial in addition to putting up 1 million in cash and attaching another 5 million in a guarantees. Why the hell doesn't she come clean with what she know and stop enabling this guy? Love is blind is no excuse now. And in any case how can she love a guy whose goal has been to cheat on her every waking day?

bernard said...

Me think everybody should calm down. Everyone is commenting on the "facts" that the press is reporting. We do not have the facts that the accusation has and we do not have the facts that the defense has.

Over the past few days, several "facts" that the press reported turned out to be less than facts. The brother is not the brother. The maid did not enter alone, there was another worker inside when she entered. Then there is the changing timing according to the "facts" of the press. Visibly, everyone should be a hell of a lot more careful before swallowing line and hook whatever a journalist cites as fact. Wait until the trial before condemning or absolving.

As for the grand jury indictment, sure they believe there is a case. By the way, as I understand it, anyone who goes to trial for an alleged crime was first indicted by a grand jury. And yet a substantial number get acquitted at trial. So this argument that surely he must be guilty if the grand jury indicted him is among the more ridiculous statements I've heard in my life. Let us all wait and see what happens at trial, either way.


you appear to believe that Finkelkraut is an intellectual of the left. There are precious few in France who would argue along that line. Check your facts. Change your view when the facts don't fit.

As for giving advice to Anne Sinclair, i'd suggest "don't critize what you can't understand" as the singer said so long ago.

meshplate said...

@Bernard. Granted the abject Finkielkraut is not a man of the left, he is a reactionary (did he start on the left and turn into an old reactionary?). But on the Polanski affair he did make common cause with others on the left (BHL, Mitterand) to defend him.

I hope you don't think I was making the grand-jury-has-indicited-therefore-he's-guilty-argument. Who has?

But if there is an indictment, and one risks being convicted of crimes, it is sure there a doubt that the accused's innocence will survive the trial. On the other hand, with the legal team that DSK has put together with his apparently unlimited funds, he's got a better chance than most anyone of getting off. Everyone is equal before the law, he's just less equal than others. Remember OJ.

As far as Anne Sinclair goes, it's all too understandable. She is preserving very same compact of silence that enabled DSK to hang himself in the first place. They're thick as thieves.

Louis said...

On an aside: what is Azouz Begag up to nowadays? A good man, and to me a good politican lost in the wrong crew.

Sorry to highjack the comments for that. There is little to say on the "affaire" that has not been already said. Hard times for everybody: the victim's life is shattered, whatever happened; DSk's life is shattered no matter what happened; the PS looks (still...) like a pool of hapless sharks; the press and most of the French political/intellectual class look like they badly lost control over their moral compass and their own prejudices. Marine Le Pen "compte les points", and everybody crawls forward to 2012.

MYOS said...

I don't think Cambadélis is representative. The PS seems to have realized, overall, that things aren't looking good.
And both Aubry and Royal made very dignified, if shocked, comments, on Sunday (as they were still in shock) and on Tuesday (a bit more analytical, a thought for the plaintiff from Royal.)
At the same time, nothing excuses Lang and co.
Yesterday, Valls got all red in the face about it but they were talking too fast for me to understand what about.
A Figaro columnist kept bringing up how Marianne had said Sarkozy was mad whereas they'd never had a cover about DSK being a sex maniac; hence it was all the liberal press' fault. That was surrealistic.
They're playing the blame game.

BTW two women were invited to yesterday's program but they were barely permitted to talk.
Hélène Jouan, Redactor-in-chief at France Inter,did manage to say that French politicians had been so "lourd" (pressing? Guessing from context it's not "heavy") that she'd considered looking for another job. "Pressures" her British colleague agreed with. :s

And of course some flirting must be going on: I am able to quote, off-hand (thanks to my friends who told me all about it - i.e., it's no secret), François Hollande, Arnaud Montebourg (although Audrey Pulvar's been sacked for it, unlike Hollande!), Jean-Louis Borloo. Apparently there are quite some more.

I was shocked by the fact Pujadas kept asking the men for their *analysis* and the women for their *personal experience* (which they were barely able to speak about since the men kept hijacking the "debate").
This in a debate involving women's dignity, where only 2 women were invited in the first place.

meshplate said...

I was gratified to find this comment amongst other post to today's Libé article "Au tribunal de Manhattan, DSK libéré sous caution":

"C’est à un véritable « Festen » planétaire que nous assistons en ce moment (en référence au film de Winternberg)… Avec DSK dans le rôle de l’abuseur, et la famille socialiste qui, parce que les faits relatés ne collent pas avec l’image qu’ils se font de ce « père », parce que ça les met en cause sur ce qu’ils ont préféré ne pas voir, nient violemment la parole de l’abusé, occultent même quasiment son existence, ainsi que l’a fait Badinter hier soit à l’émission de FR2 (lorsqu’on lui a évoqué cette victime, il a éludé en parlant des victimes en général, comme si celle-ci n’existait pas)… Comme toute réalité perçue par une subjectivité, l’image que nous nous faisons de nos proches est pourtant une construction susceptible à tous moments d’être démentie par les faits. Bien sûr, nous pouvons comprendre leur angoisse et leur impossibilité à croire à la culpabilité de leur ami, mais nous ne pouvons par contre accepter qu’ils imposent à la planète toute entière ce spectacle pitoyable : celui de responsables politiques (car c’est cela qu’ils sont aussi, pas seulement des amis de DSK) qui transforment la présomption d’innocence d’un accusé en présomption de culpabilité de sa victime présumée. Qui refusent, avec une violence surréaliste, qu’on parle de l’hypothèse de la culpabilité de DSK. Car tout de même, vu les lourdes charges qui pèsent sur lui, il n’est tout de même pas interdit d’envisager cette hypothèse, même si c’est douloureux, impensable, même s’il faut bien évidemment l’assortir de multiples précautions. On peut comprendre la violence que ça représente pour une « famille » d’imaginer l’un des siens en violeur, mais précisément pour cette raison, et parce qu’on ne peut être juge et partie, ne vaudrait-il mieux pas que cette famille s’abstiennent de s’exprimer en public comme le font certains avec la plus grande sagesse (comme Jospin ou Fabius par exemple) ? Car le spectacle planétaire que donne cette famille dans le déni, avec tous les dérapages verbaux, le manque de respect dû à la présumée victime, la minimisation du crime qui est reproché à DSK, tout cela est pitoyable pour l’image de la France dans le monde, pour l’image de la classe politique en France, pour l’image de la gauche. Que dire enfin de ce cri de joie indécent poussé par ces mêmes amis, prétendument socialistes, au spectacle d’un accusé qui ne doit sa libération qu’à l’immense richesse de sa femme, qui s’extasient sur le bon-sens de la justice américaine après l’avoir vilipendé quand elle décidait le contraire, sans un mot pour l’injustice criante que ça représente, sans un mot pour ceux qui, dans le même cas que lui, mais sans moyens, seraient restés sous les barreaux ? Qu’ils se réjouissent à titre personnel pour leur ami est une chose… Qu’ils étalent leur joie publiquement et présentent cette décision comme la plus juste et la plus vertueuse, en est une autre… Combien d’entre eux se sont battus pour qu’en France, la détention préventive ne soit plus la règle ? Qui aujourd’hui en France, de battrait pour relâcher un présumé violeur ?
Ces réactions indécentes révèlent la façon dont cette oligarchie s’est complètement éloignée des principes qu’elle défend, estimant que les siens doivent échapper au sort du commun des mortels, ne pouvant concevoir qu’en son sein, il y ait aussi des brebis galeuses…"

MYOS said...

Daniel Schneiderman saw the same debate I saw!
(I mean, with the same eye...)