Dominique Strauss-Kahn (DSK) was a former minister in various French governments and most latterly the Managing Director of the IMF. In 2011 he was involved in a sexual scandal in New York, eventually exonerated but ruined nonetheless. This story is of vital importance in understanding and making sense of our current geopolitical circumstances, important not because the event happened but because it was possible for such an event to happen, and that there are people with the power to make it happen.
The conspiracy theorists should have had a field day with this one, and all indications are that they would have been correct. 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 were either not addressed or were riddled with implausible explanations.
This episode began on May 14, 2011, at the Sofitel Hotel in NYC. Around noon, a hotel maid, Nafissatou Diallo, a 35-year-old immigrant from Guinea, entered DSK's room to clean it. Initial reports were that the man emerged naked from the bathroom and sexually assaulted the maid who eventually broke free and notified the authorities. In the meantime, DSK checked out of the hotel and left for the airport to take a flight to Germany. The NYC police took him off the plane, arrested and charged him with seven criminal acts that included four felony charges of attempted rape and sexual abuse, plus misdemeanor offences including unlawful imprisonment. (1) DSK was denied bail on the grounds of being a flight risk, and was incarcerated at Rikers Island. The following day, he was offered bail on condition that he resign his position as Managing Director of the IMF; he agreed a day later and was released into house arrest pending a hearing.
On 19 May, DSK was indicted by a grand jury on all seven charges, and ordered to stand trial. He was required to post a $1 million cash bail, wear an electronic monitoring device, surrender all his passports, and hire armed guards to ensure he didn't violate his house arrest. He was also required to post a $5 million bond. (2)
The prosecution's case began to fall apart almost immediately, progressively disintegrated over the following six weeks, and by July 1 prosecutors told the judge that they had "reassessed the strength of their case in the light of the housekeeper's diminished credibility", and sent a letter to DSK's lawyers admitting serious inconsistencies in the maid's tale. (3)(4) Also on July 1, DSK was freed from house arrest and had his bail dropped because the circumstances of the case had "changed substantially". (5) However, further hearings were still necessary to determine the extent of the charges to be prosecuted, with the next hearing date set for July 18, an important date as we will see. These hearings lingered until August 23 when all charges against DSK were finally dropped and he was free to return home to France. (6) (7) (8)
However, the man's problems weren't over. Almost immediately upon his return to France, a young woman named Tristane Bannon attempted to file charges against DSK for an "attempted rape" that had occurred some 9 years earlier. In October, after much media publicity, the French prosecutors dropped the investigation from a lack of evidence. (9) (10) But a few months later, in March 2012, French prosecutors announced another investigation on DSK about his "possible connection" to a gang rape that supposedly occurred in Washington, D.C. At about the same time, authorities began yet another investigation in France, this time with allegations about his supposed involvement in hiring prostitutes for sex parties at hotels in Lille, Paris and Washington. (11) (12)
By October of 2012, prosecutors announced that they were discontinuing the investigation of the gang rape allegations, (12) but troubles remained. Amid a continuing media frenzy, in July of 2013 French prosecutors announced that DSK was to stand trial on allegations of "aggravated pimping" at the Carlton hotel in Lille. (13) The accusations were that orgies had been held at this hotel and DSK had been instrumental in hiring prostitutes for the events. This court case dragged on for two years, the French media providing weekly details with very specific references to DSK and his conduct, some claiming "he had sex with every girl in the room". (14) DSK was acquitted of all these charges in June of 2015. (15)
Still more. While the French media were hyperventilating over the juicy details of DSK's real or imagined sexual exploits, Able Ferrara produced a feature film titled "Welcome to New York", starring Gérard Depardieu as DSK and Jacqueline Bisset as his wife Anne Sinclair. (16) The film was built around the story in the Sofitel hotel and apparently "portrayed both characters in an unforgiving light". Ms. Sinclair, who is by all accounts a thoroughly lovely person, said the film was "disgusting", and DSK sued the film's producers for libel. Then still more. In 2020, there was a Netflix "documentary" titled "Room 2806: The Accusation", based on the Sofitel event and the other alleged accusations against DSK. (17)
By this time, after months of unfavorable exposure in the US and nearly four years of the same in France, it could be truly said that Strauss-Kahn's political, public, and social careers were at an end. After years of publicity, investigations and trials, DSK had been acquitted on all charges in all countries. It appears there never was sufficient evidence to support any of the allegations made against him, but the man would never again hold any international positions and was by this time much too toxic to ever re-enter French politics. DSK has since remarried and is doing "financial consulting" and giving speeches. The end. Well, almost the end.
The Handmaid's Tale - a Futuristic Dystopian Novel (with due apologies to Margaret Atwood)
According to her claims to the police and her testimony at the Grand Jury hearing, and according to the New York Times, the New York Post, the New York Daily News, the Wall Street Journal and many others:
The maid inserted her card-key, opened the door, and called aloud several times to learn if the room were occupied. Receiving no response, she entered and began her tasks. Then, "the married Strauss-Kahn" emerged naked from the bathroom, chased the maid around his suite, "locked the door" so she couldn't escape, then dragged her into a bathroom and "engaged in a criminal sexual act". There was much confusion as to whether the criminal sexual act was anal, oral, or none of the above. However, while chasing and dragging her around the suite, DSK was apparently yelling "Don't you know who I am? Don't you know who I am?" When the maid begged the man to desist on grounds she could lose her job, DSK comforted her by saying "Oh, baby, don't worry baby. You won't lose your job". There was also confusion as to injuries incurred by both parties, the maid apparently suffering "a torn shoulder ligament" in her struggles, while DSK was reported to have suffered severe bruises on his back when the maid forcefully shoved him into some furniture.
The maid then fled the man's suite and cowered in fear in a hallway until a maintenance supervisor discovered her, after which they notified hotel security who performed an investigation, confirmed the torn pantyhose, discovered DSK's DNA and semen on the walls and carpet, and eventually notified the police. In the meantime, DSK had dressed, packed his things, checked out of the hotel, and took a taxi to the airport in an attempt to flee the country.
But justice never sleeps. It seems that in his haste to flee the country DSK left behind one of his mobile phones. Taking a great risk, being as guilty as he was, he nevertheless called the hotel to ask if the phone had been left in his room; after some discussion, the hotel staff called him to say they had indeed found his phone and would deliver it to the airport. The NYPD then escorted DSK off the plane as the doors were closing for departure, and arrested him. You know the rest, except that none of "the rest" was as it appeared to be.
Some Chinks in the Armor
Ancillary Hotel Services, Turn-Downs Included
At the outset of this event, before all the wagons had been properly circled, the hotel security staff and the NYPD independently confirmed to DSK's lawyers that the woman was known to act as a prostitute 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 them and a hotel representative said, "We have no knowledge about that".
The Crime Scene: DNA "linked to Maid"
The first rule of criminal investigations is that you don't contaminate the crime scene. Yet the maid returned to clean the room, no doubt doing so immaculately as is the standard with Accor Hotels everywhere. And she wasn't the only one. Syed Haque, a room service employee, came to pick up the breakfast dishes which had already been collected several hours prior. Renata Markozani, the head of housekeeping, entered the room to examine the situation, and also Brian Yearwood, the hotel’s chief engineer, with no explanation as to his purpose. Then the hotel security staff who, with little or no training in criminal investigations, went to the room to perform such. Between all of these, any evidence actually existing would have been either contaminated, destroyed - or planted.
It should be noted that anyone with access to a hotel guest's clothing, toiletry, bedding, linen or laundry, has access to everything necessary to spread that guest's DNA (possibly including sperm and other body secretions) on any surface or clothing anywhere. In this context, it is not irrelevant that DSK apparently had a woman spend the night with him in that room. The simple fact is that nothing found in that room later by police investigators could possibly have qualified as "evidence" of the crime in question.
The mass media flooded the nation with news that DSK's DNA had been found (almost) everywhere, linking it to 'the maid' without noting the method of linkage. (18) (19) (20)The New York Times was there first, citing "a person briefed in the matter", stating DSK's DNA and semen were found on the maid, on her clothing, on the walls, on the carpet, and perhaps on the ceiling. After this information had been duly digested by the public, the police and prosecutors stated that no such evidence had actually been obtained or released. "A prominent US defense lawyer claimed that there was substantial doubt . . . [about] the so-called DNA evidence and the match . . . since accurate DNA testing normally takes several weeks." However, the DNA linked to the maid was headline material, the denials not so much. The Wall Street Journal reported that DSK's DNA sample and semen were found on the woman's shirt, quoting "sources close to the investigation" and citing "law enforcement officials" who immediately stated they had never said any such thing. (21)
In fact, there was never actual confirmation of any of this, and the investigators claimed to have found no traces of semen in the sink where the maid claimed it had been spit. The NYPD and the prosecutors simply let media speculation run wild and did nothing to combat it. All of the claims were based on leaked rumors.
Hotel security officers "conducted an investigation" and claimed to have found semen on the floor and wall. They then called the police, setting off the chain of events that led to the arrest at the airport. We are to believe that the mall-cop wannabes comprising hotel security were competent to perform a criminal investigation, and equipped and able to perform lab tests.
The Perpetrator Flees, Leaving Behind 'Valuable Items"
The US media, led by the NYT, led us to believe that DSK attacked this woman, then fled to the airport in a panic, evidenced by his leaving behind a mobile phone and "other valuables", the authorities apprehending him during the last seconds before his "fleeing the country". But DSK didn't flee; on the contrary, we have a witness account from a woman who used the elevator with him who said that she found him pleasantly calm. He waited patiently in line and checked out without anybody noticing 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 purchased days earlier. DSK was leaving the US for Germany where he had an arranged appointment with Angela Merkel. And, for the record, nothing was "left behind" including "other valuables". What did happen was that one of his mobile phones was lifted from his room.
The NYT led 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 a bald lie. The truth was that the hotel, on instruction, called DSK to tell them they had found his missing phone. Apparently, it was the police who then called to tell him that his phone was at the gate desk, and asked him to exit from the plane to retrieve it. When he deplaned, he was arrested. Leaving the Air France plane to recover the phone was a strong indication of a lack of guilt since while on the aircraft he was technically on French sovereign territory and could not have been taken into custody. 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.
The NYT seemed eager to leave the impression that DSK left the hotel in a panic, overcome with fear and anxiety, and was in a headlong rush to flee the country. We have this almost certainly fictitious account: "A guest at the hotel, . . . said the livery driver who drove Mr. Strauss-Kahn to Kennedy Airport was also his driver on Saturday night. “He said Strauss-Kahn was in a huge hurry, . . . He wanted to leave as soon as possible. He looked upset and stressed.” (22) The BBC claimed this "was not the first time Mr. Strauss-Kahn had been involved in such an incident" (even though it was the first time), and further that "he had been arrested attempting to flee the country", which of course was not true. (23)
The Mysterious Telephone Call
"Investigators with the Manhattan district attorney’s office learned that the woman made a recorded call to a prison inmate on May 15, the day after DSK's arrest, with words to the effect of, "Don’t worry, this guy has a lot of money. I know what I’m doing". (24) This would seem to confirm claims by DSK's lawyers that the encounter (if indeed there had been an encounter) was consensual and that the woman was attempting extortion. The woman later claimed her words had been "mistranslated". In a 3-hour interview with Newsweek, the woman said she hopes God punishes him. "We are poor, but we are good," she said. "I don't think about money." (25) Diallo’s lawyer said she mentioned Strauss-Kahn’s money in the telephone call only to say that her alleged attacker was influential. (26)
More interesting was that the authorities required a full 6 weeks to translate the conversation because, according to them, it was in a "unique dialect of Fulani," a language from the woman’s native country, Guinea. But there are no 'unique dialects' of the language, Fulani being one of the three major West African languages and extremely common, with the NYC area having more than 100,000 Fulani speakers. Moreover, the courts knew this, the police knew it, and local interpreting agencies claimed they had many occasions to provide Fulani interpreters, often on a daily basis. The New York Times was one of the principal promoters of this falsehood (and of many more). It is obvious the authorities lied about needing 6 weeks to arrange the translation, and it is just as obvious that they withheld the information until DSK was out of the running for the French Presidential Primaries.
The Money and the Phones
One of the threads running through the media presentations was that the prosecutors discovered flaws in the woman's testimony and evidence of criminal activity, immediately notifying DSK's lawyers. The NYTparticularly pushed this narrative, stating "Still, it was the prosecutor’s investigators who found the information about the woman." (27) Their claim appeared to have been almost entirely untrue. 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, and which eventually exonerated DSK. Such investigations are rarely if ever done by police to help a defendant who has already been indicted.
The first discovery made by the private investigators was that someone had opened five different bank accounts in the woman's name, with five different banks, in five different states (Arizona, Georgia, New York, Pennsylvania, and one unidentified) (28) and had deposited US$20,000 in each one. Standard CIA practice for payoffs.(29) (30) (31) Given that the woman's 'friend' was in prison for minor drug offenses, the US media, led by theNYT at full volume, tried to relate the payments partially to her friend's drug dealing, but the depositors were never identified, another sure sign of a CIA payoff. This apparently wasn't enough of an issue for the media to question. We will never know where the money came from, but the simple fact that the media refused to touch this part of the story makes the conclusion almost certain. The NYT made a small concession to reality, stating there had been "unusual activity in her bank accounts". (32)
The private investigators also discovered that the woman had at least 3 mobile phones with three different phone companies and was spending over $500 every month on calls. On a maid's salary? On calls to whom? As a reporter, that's the first question I would ask. Another almost sure sign of CIA involvement. The media reported every other trivial detail but weren't interested in this one.
The maid's account and the prosecution's case began to unravel in many other directions at the same time. The maid initially told investigators she had hidden after the attack until she saw her alleged attacker leave, after which she reported the assault to a supervisor. But the hotel's card key register proved that she first mysteriously entered another room for a few minutes, then cleaned a nearby room, then returned to the room in which the alleged attack took place, cleaned it, then spoke to supervisors. (33) There is another curiosity here: the maid's cleaning assignments until that day had always involved rooms scattered on various floors, but on this day was given the 28th floor exclusively, so there would be no other hotel staff on that floor that day. The story was that she assumed duties of a colleague on leave, but the lawyers believed this was a method to give her access to DSK "for some nefarious reason."
According to the card key records, the maid entered another room adjacent to that of DSK three times prior to entering his room, and again immediately when leaving his room after the alleged assault occurred. This information was omitted from her police reports and her Grand Jury testimony. The hotel refused to identify the (probably CIA) occupant of that room. All indications are that she was reporting to her handlers for last-minute instructions, then reporting her success afterward. The media omitted the fact of the second hotel employee entering the room while the maid was still there. This appears to be when DSK's mobile phone went missing.
Edward Jay Epstein wrote an excellent article that was published in the NYT's Review of Books. (34) The full version is available here on the Financial Times; (35) I urge you to read it; it contains scores of questionable details, excellently-researched and documented, that cast a very dirty light on everything that occurred. Also, an article in the Business Insider (36) is excellent, asking "So is Strauss-Kahn the target of some form of political plot? Even if the alleged victim isn’t a witting part of a honey trap, what has been released so far by the New York police looks like railroad job, with a rush to discredit the target for the rest of his life. Even the latest pictures are designed to make the Frenchman look guilty?" The Guardian(37) and Forbes(38) also have excellent articles that identify the inconsistencies. And two others you may care to read. (39) (40)
A Few More Inconsistencies
The woman's account is riddled with inconsistent statements. She told the grand jury in sworn testimony that she left the room, waited in the corridor until DSK left and then reported the incident, and only when confronted with electronic card key evidence, did she admit she cleaned another room and then returned to the scene of the crime before reporting the incident. She told investigators that she fled the room as soon as she could, but she told the rape counselor at the hospital that she waited in the room for DSK to get dressed. Why would she do that, after having been raped? She claimed in testimony that the two never spoke, then told ABC-TV anchor Robin Roberts that they spoke at some length. In fact, she had three completely different versions of the events that transpired and of her activity following.
If the woman had sustained injuries - including a "torn shoulder ligament" as authorities claimed, how would she then proceed to clean rooms? If the woman had been raped and injured, why wouldn't she would seek help and medical attention immediately? A "torn ligament" would be painful and require immediate treatment.
There was much more. It was discovered that the woman had "had practice at this kind of storytelling before". "Further investigation revealed that the [maid] had lied on her 2004 asylum claim about being gang-raped in her home country of Guinea. More damaging still, she had rehearsed the narrative of lies for asylum so often, listening to them over and over on an audiotape supplied by a male accomplice, that even years later she would break down crying as she told the story—until, finally, under very tough questioning by assistant district attorneys, she admitted the asylum narrative was a fabrication." (41) Her stories were apparently so well-told that listeners would often be driven to tears as well.
"The most seasoned professionals in the office working on this case were brought to tears by this woman’s life story. I mean literally brought to tears,” says Linda Fairstein, former chief of the Sex Crimes Prosecution Unit. “She was so convincing that cops, advocates, professionals, bought the story. And then the prosecutors got to work." But with the Arizona phone call and the asylum stories as background, the more investigators examined the accuser’s story, the more anomalies began to multiply." (42) (43) (44) (45) (46) (47)
There were also questions raised about the physical possibilities of such an assault being able to take place. The maid was young with DSK in his 60s, at 5'10" much taller than DSK and more heavily-built, with one observer stating "She could have kicked the crap out of him". ". . she's a big woman, how could he have overpowered her?" (48) Many news reports from Europe claim the woman agreed (or offered) to perform oral sex, then attempted blackmail and extortion. Olivier Mazerolle, a senior political journalist at France's BFM television, claimed to have obtained details from sources in the US, and maintains this is what actually occurred. (49)
"Is it reasonable to believe that a 62-year-old man, even one as oversexed as DSK is supposed to be, would emerge naked from the bathroom of his hotel suite sexually to confront a maid whom he had never met before, and whom he did not expect? Is it reasonable to believe that stark naked and wielding no weapon he could have forced a taller, younger and more muscular woman to commit oral sex twice [in 6 minutes], and that the transaction would have resulted without some level of participation on her part? And is it believable that she didn’t offer any resistance, cry out or flee when she presumably knew where the door was, having worked in the hotel for three and one-half years?" (50)
"It strains credulity to think an internationally respected financial leader would hurl himself naked from his hotel bathroom onto a decidedly unattractive 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." It would seem absurd for a man who can hire young models or woo women from higher brackets, to forcibly rape a woman, then have a leisurely lunch with his daughter and finally get caught only because he himself gave away his whereabouts in multiple calls when trying to recover his mobile phone.
In the final version of events, the alleged victim committed multiple counts of perjury, tax fraud, visa and passport fraud, conspiracy to commit extortion, possible drug-related offenses, but neither the police nor the media appear to have any interest in pursuing these details. Nor was there any interest in the five bank accounts. The woman told 37 substantial lies, mostly under oath but, according to her lawyer, "She made some mistakes here, but that doesn't mean she is not a rape victim." Mistakes? It will be almost certain proof that this entire bizarre event was a political fraud organised at the highest levels, when we realise that no action was ever taken against the woman for her string of crimes and the unexplained cash.
The Missing Blackberry
This is exceptionally curious and one of the keys to the entire entrapment process. One of DSK's mobile phones, a Blackberry that he used for IMF work and very personal calls, went missing. It seems that DSK had already packed his things, including his phones, prior to taking a shower and dressing to leave the hotel. After the encounter with the maid, he used this phone to call his daughter and confirm their lunch appointment. The maid admitted to remaining in the room at that time, and perhaps the other hotel employee was there at the same time. DSK then apparently placed the phone in his briefcase, after which it disappeared, and was never found. (51)
DSK had already been warned that his phone had been hacked. A friend working in Sarkozy's election office notified him that personal messages sent to his wife from that phone had been intercepted and read at Sarkozy’s office. The records obtained from BlackBerry show that the missing phone’s GPS circuitry was disabled at 12.51, preventing the phone from sending out signals identifying its location. It appears the phone never left the Sofitel. "Evidently unaware of what was happening at the Sofitel, he called the hotel from the taxi, asking if his phone had been found. When he was called back 13 minutes later, he told a hotel employee that he was at JFK airport. The police rushed there and, at 4:45, called him off the flight and took him into custody." (52) Blackberry could not explain how the phone had been disabled, being something requiring extreme technical knowledge.
The "Dancing Israelis"
After the maid alleged that DSK sexually harassed her, the security team called John Sheehan, the security director for Accor, the French company that owns the Sofitel. His boss has ties to Ange Mancini, who was then Sarkozy's coordinator for intelligence. Sheehan was seen on surveillance footage with an unidentified man who accompanied Diallo to the hotel security celebrating shortly before the police arrived: "The two men high-five each other, clap their hands, and do what looks like an extraordinary dance of celebration that lasts for three minutes." One of DSK's attorneys, William Taylor, who claims to have seen the footage, tells the Post, "They could have won the lottery. It seems directly related to speaking with Diallo and calling the police." (53) (54) (55)
Media Frenzy and Speculation
"When police and prosecutors convict a suspect in the media before he is even charged, it typically means that there is no evidence against him and that demonisation is serving as the substitute." Everything about this story has a stink of conspiracy, of sexual entrapment of the kind that got Julian Assange, Mordechai Vanunu and many others. Even more curious was that none of the mainstream media cared to connect the dots to see where they led.
When reviewing the accounts of this tale, I couldn't shake the feeling that the mass media, at least in the English-speaking world, had been instructed to speculate as wildly as possible and to fabricate any details they considered useful or titillating. "James Cox, law professor at Duke University, said: he was surprised that the prosecution had not done more homework on their witness before making such strong statements about the case and the strength of its witness." (56) There were many serious questions over their handling of the case, especially the notorious "perp walk", which saw DSK paraded in front of press cameras.
The media focus centered on the story of the alleged victim rather than on who was pulling the strings behind the scenes in what visibly appears to have been a political frame-up. The NYPD, the prosecutor, the CIA, were 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.
In fact, the most likely hypothesis, which is that DSK was deliberately set up, was not only totally avoided by the mainstream media, but any reader comments at the time were either not posted (NYT) or were deleted immediately after posting. There is ample evidence that the media - especially in the US - had been instructed to monitor and control all comment on this issue.
At the time, it was fascinating to watch the NYT during the three months of this episode. There was no way to avoid the conclusion that the editors were firmly controlling the reader comments on all their DSK articles. 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.
There seemed little doubt that the NYT was on the same page as the NYPD, the DA and, we must assume, the CIA and the City of London. Not only did the editors control the posts, they added some of their own, 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. 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. (57) 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 uninformed and gullible to believe anything.
The New York Times first reported that DSK had agreed to pay the maid $6 million as a settlement, attributing the news to "French media sources", (58) while the same French media sources attributed the claim to the NYT. Other media claimed that "friends of Strauss-Kahn" offered the chambermaid's impoverished family in Guinea, West Africa, a 'seven-figure' sum to convince her to drop the charges. Then almost everyone joined in with the identical claim, (59) (60) (61) even posting a (surely) fictitious photo of the maid's "family". (62) It became a circus, with DSK's lawyers stating the claims as "flatly false".
Perhaps another WHO Worldwide Pandemic
One of the more entertaining bits of the media having fun was the "evidence" suddenly surfacing from every corner that DSK was only one of perhaps thousands of such. My favorite was the UK Daily Mail's claim that maids at the New York Hilton and "in various other hotels around the U.S." were having to hide from male guests running around naked in the hotel corridors, screaming "I need sex”. (63) The newspaper helpfully suggested all hotel maids needed to wear 'panic buttons'.
The Question of Diplomatic Immunity
This was curious. As Managing Director of the IMF, DSK should have had full diplomatic immunity, not that the US would honor it, and in fact the judge in the hearing dismissed this. But it appears the IMF had the power to demand immunity for its CEO, and in fact the IMF Board had at least one meeting to discuss the matter. (64) (65) No information was released, but IMF rules stipulate an 85% agreement on all decisions and, with the US controlling 18% of the vote, we can assume the US exercised its veto and killed DSK's one chance to escape the trap. He would still have full immunity from civil suits, however. This aspect was totally ignored by all the media, and should not have been.
Rikers Island is widely-known as one of the most brutal and dangerous prisons in the world. It "has always been a place of exceptional violence", with weapons everywhere, with rival gangs ruling the cellblocks, a place notorious for the brutality of the prison guards and the deranged mental instability of most inmates, 1,000 of which are stabbed or killed each year. (66) (67) Only the dregs of society are sent there, and incarceration for a civilised person would be terrifying to say the least - which would have been the entire point of sending DSK there. The prospect of remaining there for months until trial, coupled with the slim prospects of survival, would encourage a man to comply with any conditions demanded for bail and removal - including resigning his job as MD of the IMF. DSK was sent to Rikers on May 17, presented with his options the next morning, and his official resignation processed on the following day, May 19, when he was released on bail.
Persons of Interest
In order to properly connect the dots, we need to identify some of the main players and their relations to each other.
Frank G. Wisner Sr.
Frank Wisner has been described as a "master diplomat" (Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under Dean Acheson) and also a "master spy", (America's least-known but most famous spy). He was none of those things. Wisner was a criminally-insane Jewish psychopath, (68) the co-founder of the CIA and the designer and operator of Operation Gladio in Europe (69) which he ran together with Allen Dulles (then head of the CIA), and which was one of the bloodiest terror programs ever inflicted on the world. He was largely responsible for the American coup that removed Mohammed Mossadegh as Prime Minister in Iran in 1953, and also primarily responsible for the overthrow of Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán in Guatemala in 1954, one of the dirtiest, bloodiest, and most unjust of such US government atrocities.
Frank G. Wisner Jr.
Young Frank, also seconded into the US Foreign Service, was an American Ambassador to several countries as well as Under Secretary of State for International Security Affairs under Bill Clinton. He also served as Deputy Executive Secretary of the Department of State under Cyrus Vance. Wisner Jr. was heavily involved in the tragedy in Yugoslavia and primarily behind the push for the independence of Kosovo to help Madeline Albright and George Soros "take over" the communications infrastructure there (an $800 million gift). However, Wisner Jr. is best known for his financial crimes for which the term "unscrupulous" would be something of an understatement. Wisner was part of the inner circle at Enron whose financial manipulations ruined countless thousands of investors, and he was the Vice-Chairman of AIG when its share prices collapsed by 95%, prior to the Khazar-dictated taxpayer bailout. (70)
Pál (Paul) Sarközy de Nagy-Bocsa
This man, a Greek-Hungarian Jew, was the father of Nicolas Sarkozy who became the President of France. Paul married several times, Nicholas resulting from the first marriage with Andrée Mallah. His father and birth mother both abandoned Nicholas and he was taken in by Paul's third wife Christine de Ganay after her divorce with Paul. Christine de Ganay subsequently married Frank Wisner Jr, who more or less raised Nicholas and taught him everything he knew (at least all the dirty parts of American and French politics and finance). "It was [Wisner] who introduced then-teenage Sarkozy to CIA insiders and facilitated his entry into French political circles", and one of Wisner's sons was Sarkozy's campaign manager.
Cyrus Vance Sr.
Cyrus Roberts Vance Sr. was an American lawyer and Secretary of State under President Jimmy Carter. He was also Deputy Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Army, and General Counsel of the Department of Defense.
Cyrus Vance Jr.
This is where things become interesting. Cyrus Vance was the Manhattan District Attorney, conveniently appointed just in time to handle the three most notorious sexual scandal cases in recent memory (all involving Jews): Jeffrey Epstein, Harvey Weinstein, and Dominique Strauss-Kahn. In the case of Jeffrey Epstein, Vance's office argued in court for dismissal of charges and his removal from a sex offender's list, claiming "there are no real victims here." (71) Vance would later argue that his "assistant DA" made these court representations without his knowledge. We are to believe that in the most spectacular sexual abuse and sexual-entrapment scheme ever recorded, and certainly the biggest case in his career, Vance had no idea what his own assistant was proposing in court. It was Vance (in an arranged plea bargain) who managed to free Epstein from a life sentence and give him only 13 months in prison where he was allowed out during the day (to look after business) and only slept in the prison at night.
Does anyone recall Epstein being given a ‘perp walk’? Was he incarcerated at Rikers Island? Did he have to post millions in bail, wear a bracelet and have to hire armed guards at his own expense ($240,000 per month for DSK)? Was Jeffrey Epstein denied bail because he was a flight risk? No.
Something similar occurred with Harvey Weinstein, with Vance declining to prosecute the Hollywood producer in spite of the huge amount of evidence against him. But it wasn't all bad. Vance did manage to obtain a sentence of 428 years against another serial rapist who had the misfortune of not having been born Jewish.
Let's review some connections. Nicholas Sarkozy, our Jewish-Hungarian midget, was raised by the Jew Frank Wisner who worked for Cyrus Vance Sr., and who introduced Sarkozy to the (Jewish-created) CIA and to US and French politics. Sarkozy and Cyrus Vance Jr. were of the same age (one year apart) and certainly knew each other well since their fathers worked together and their families socialised together. And who was appointed as the lead prosecutor against DSK? Cyrus Vance Jr. In what was clearly one of the most egregious set-ups in recent memory, Vance was later loudly applauded by the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and other US media, as well as by multiple government officials for "acting with integrity" in a case where a poor woman made "a credible accusation against a very powerful man".
Sarkozy and Mossad
Nicholas Sarkozy was confirmed as a Mossad agent, the details revealed in articles by Le Figaro, an influential French daily, providing evidence of Sarkozy having been recruited as an Israeli spy, "one of the thousands of Jewish citizens of countries other than Israel who cooperate with the Mossad". This information was apparently given to the French police in detail prior to Sarkozy's election as president, but suppressed until the scandal emerged. "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, but in fact an attempt to deal with the fallout.
According to media reports, the French police were investigating documents concerning Sarkozy's alleged espionage activities against France on behalf of Mossad, which Le Figaro claimed dated as far back as 1983, which was when Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin recruited the "young and promising" Sarkozy as part of the ordered infiltration of the French ruling Gaullist Party.
Tristane Banon, a 32-year-old journalist, claimed that DSK sexually assaulted and tried to rape her a decade earlier. She is "the daughter of one of Strauss-Kahn's discarded mistresses and the goddaughter of his second wife." (72) This woman, with her lingering memory of an encounter with DSK from 9 years prior, choose the correct moment to bring it to the public. And this latter is also surpassingly strange; the mother came to the defense of her daughter by "confessing" that she also had an affair with DSK at around the same time. How this would help her daughter's case was not made clear. At least, not to me.
Her case was so weak (and 9 years too late) that there was no chance for it to lead anywhere, but it would help to keep DSK out of the Presidential Palace. Mrs. Banon worked for atlantico.fr, a pro-Sarkozy website which was 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. Of interest is Banon's claim that "politics played no part" in her decision to air this old issue again, that she "was not approached by the Right" to fire another torpedo into DSKs political career. (73) (74)
Christine Lagarde is a Jew. (75) Both the City of London and Israel wanted her as the new IMF head, which was why she had beforehand declared her availability and "eagerness to serve". Lagarde was a hard-headed "corporatist" member of the Bilderberg Group and the WEF, and definitely in favor of the new world order intended to preserve Khazarian Jewish hegemony worldwide. The IMF Executive Board issued a press release on June 28 2011, confirming her appointment as IMF Managing Director. (76) (77) The report from the prosecutor was released to the media June 29, and presented to the court on July 1. Lagarde’s succession to the IMF occurred a few days prior to a New York Court ruling which completely exonerated Dominique Strauss Khan on the basis of lack of evidence. It apparently wasn’t of concern that Lagarde was under criminal investigation at the time for an illegal application of some $400 million in funds.
French Media Reports: Who Told Who What When?
One indication that DSK’s political enemies were implicated is the fact, made public by the French press, that Sarkozy’s political team in France knew about DSK’s arrest not only before the NYC police announced it, but before the actual arrest had occurred. In fact, Sarkozy's office and the French media reported DSK's arrest while he would still have been in a taxi on the way to the airport. No one has attempted to explain this. The evidence is that the NYC Hotel Manager called France's Presidential Palace over an hour before the news was released in NYC, which is how 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 Sarkozy's party, who apparently tweeted the info at the time DSK was in the taxi to meet his daughter for lunch. And he apparently made other posts only minutes after the arrest itself. Shortly after, Arnaud Dassier, Sarkozy's campaign director, was also commenting on the event, 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 NYC Sofitel hotel. How would anyone at the Sofitel know whether or when an arrest was made? Why would the NYPD report to the Sofitel, and why was all this information crossing the Atlantic in real time?
More interesting, Xavier Graff, the duty officer at Accor in Paris, sent e-mails several weeks after DSK’s arrest claiming full credit for “bringing down” the IMF chief. (78) Also worthy of note is that the top management of the ACCOR Hotel group in France was known to have close ties to Claude Gueant, Sarkozy's closest advisor and his Minister of the Interior. The hotel's Director of Security was a former agent of DGSE (French CIA), who had worked under Sarkozy personally. And finally, Ray Kelly, the head of the NYPD, had been decorated "Chevalier de la Legion d'Honneur" by Sarkozy himself, the two men having had a close personal relationship with much contact since that time.
The French Presidential Election
DSK survived the first assault (in the US) because the widespread public feeling in France was that it was clearly a staged event, a "set-up", and still leaving him as the favorite and with a strong political base. Thus, he was wounded but not destroyed, so the charade proceeded to Plan B, with accusations of rape or attempted rape, and of arranging the hire of prostitutes for orgies. Just as in the US, all charges were eventually dropped because there had never been any supporting evidence for those allegations, but the court cases continued until the man's name had been sufficiently blackened that his political career descended to ground zero.
Ruining DSK would not have raised Sarkozy's standing in the polls; he was still widely disliked and considered "crazy". But this would have removed his most dangerous opponent, leaving no one else with sufficient public status to challenge him. So, one clear purpose of the entire event was to ensure Sarkozy's re-election by destroying his only credible opponent. Sarkozy was definitely running scared; not only being attacked on the streets in France, but in a then-recent appearance in Algeria the crowds were all yelling "Get out! F*** off, Sarkozy".
A former justice minister, Robert Badinter, called DSK’s treatment "a lynching, a murder by media." The "perp walk", the unshaven pervert-in-a-trench-coat photos, 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. Besides that, we had the "suicide watch", the grossly unreasonable bail conditions that included from the first day his resignation from the IMF.
It was all designed to inflict the maximum possible public humiliation to forestall any chance of DSK's return to politics. Also, the charges were not dropped, nor his passport returned, until after the French election primaries. To represent the Socialist Party and be their leader, he would have had to have been in France for the primaries which closed on July 13. However, his court date was set for July 18. This was not a mere unfortunate coincidence.
You don't need to be a conspiracy theorist to smell something fishy here; in fact, it requires a leap of faith to not smell the odor. The proverbial elephant in the room should be obvious to all readers. 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 desperation on the part of Israel and the City of London to remove Strauss-Kahn from French Presidential contention in order to preserve Sarkozy - their "man in Paris". The Jews and Zionists in Israel were desperate to maintain Sarkozy in power because he would ensure the protection of Israel's 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 Sarkozy's election: "we are persuaded that the new president will continue eradicating anti-Israeli resistance".
"The arrest of [DSK] 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 . . . to speed up his replacement as Managing Director of the IMF."
The IMF and the Dollar
As head of the IMF, DSK was far from a saint in dealing with indebted countries. It was he who oversaw the destruction and permanent colonisation of Greece - an enormous sovereign disaster of which too few people seem aware. And in this, he was definitely following the instructions and template of the Khazarian mafia in the City of London. If you don't know the details, you may care to read this: Humanity at the Crossroads. (79) You need reference only the brief paragraphs on Greece.
One of the circumstances that many considered a precipitating cause of DSK's removal, was his conviction of the need for a new world currency, suggesting that SDRs be used much more broadly instead of the US dollar for international trade and payments, (80) leading to a prevailing theory that the US$ be removed. Thierry Meyssan wrote a scholarly article on this, (81) and Mike Whitney wrote an opinion piece claiming "Dominique Strauss-Kahn Was Trying to Torpedo the Dollar." (82)
But DSK was in no way arguing for the elimination of the US$ in international settlements as for the creation of more stability since poor nations were easily whipsawed by borrowing in US$ at low rates then subjected to bankruptcy when rates rose. It's true this wouldn't have earned him many friends since the bankruptcies were part of the plan. But in any case, no changes to the world system could have been made without the cooperation of the US. It doesn't seem widely-known, but changes to IMF protocols require an 85% approval vote while the US controls 17% of the votes - giving the US a de facto veto on everything.
A larger part of the problem was that the IMF (under DSK) was pushing hard for other nations like China and Russia to obtain a larger and more realistic representation at the IMF. DSK tried to push through reforms that would have considerably increased the share of emerging countries, and that would have produced enemies in all the entrenched Western countries who would be loath to surrender their financial power over the rest of the world.
But much worse than this, DSK was strongly recommending that nations abandon much of their income tax regime and draw their revenue from inheritance taxes on the extremely wealthy. A suggestion like this to the same nations that house the Rothschilds, Sassoons, Warburgs and Sebag-Montefioris would be equivalent to a declaration of war. Almost as bad, DSK was also on record as stating that the FED's excessively loose monetary policies (directed from the City of London) were responsible for the massive transfers of wealth to the top 1% in each economic cycle. He stated flatly that it was the FED's excess liquidity that causes the sharp rises in inequality "because that liquidity does not fall into every pocket".
And worse again, he also stated that the nationalisation of infrastructure, land, and even corporate interests, were "indispensable" for "national independence". In his words, "The exhaustion of the traditional tools of social democracy, notably redistribution, has led us to redefine a new socialism . . . That rests on the correction of innate market inequalities at root. That leads to a society which permits each person to develop their talents independently of their social conditions at birth. That’s a new humanism which I think we need."
Suggesting socialism, inheritance confiscations, nationalisations and wealth redistribution to the Satanist trillionaire capitalists who are at the pinnacle of world financial power, is not a way to win friends. Nor is any suggestion of "humanism". I suspect this latter point alone would have caused his demise, since the template of the Khazar Jews for the past 100 years has been to push small countries into unpayable debt traps and then confiscate all the nation's infrastructure, arable land, and water aquifers in lieu of cash payment. In these three items, I believe DSK signed his own death warrant three times. (83) (84) One of his allies said: "Everyone knows that his weakness is seducing women. That's how they got to him. . . the aim was to "decapitate the IMF".
This is perhaps an aside, but where do you suppose the World Bank and IMF obtain their trillions to lend to undeveloped nations? They are not banks that have deposits to lend. The money comes from the Jewish financiers in the City of London, and it is they who direct the terms and who push for unrepayable loans, and it is they who confiscate the infrastructure and land. (85) This is so true that the Rothschilds recently established a new "bank" just to control all their holdings of arable land that has been confiscated from poor countries. In case you don't know, the Jewish-controlled government of Ukraine, the "breadbasket of Europe", amended its laws to permit huge swaths of the world's most fertile soil to disappear forever into this Khazarian abyss.
Epilogue: Who Did This?
One fact I didn't mention above is that DSK had been warned by friends in various positions that he would become the victim of a plot using some form of sexual entrapment. Also, the French media revealed from an interview with DSK's wife that he had said to her several months prior, "They are out to get me". Who were "they"? Certainly not the NYPD, who had neither cause nor leverage.
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, based solely on the word of a woman who was already known as a hotel prostitute? In a real world, they could have 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.
Nor could it have been the US State Department. The head of the World Bank is traditionally selected by the Jewish handlers of the US government, while the head of the IMF is traditionally filled by the Jewish financiers in Europe. Thus, the US administration also had no leverage, even if they felt they had cause.
It could not have been Nicholas Sarkozy and his election team. They might well have had considerable "cause", but Sarkozy didn't have the power to engineer something this vast, especially in the US where it required intense cooperation from the police, the prosecutors, the courts, the media - and the silence of the US government. Sarkozy's team was clearly kept informed, on what would appear to be nearly a minute-by-minute basis, but they weren't the engineers. There is no way the US government would give a (disliked) European politician the freedom and power to commit such an immense theatrical crime on US soil, merely to assist his own re-election. Nor would they permit him to use their police, courts and prosecutors to fraudulently force a rival's resignation from an unrelated UN position.
If the US were concerned that DSK was trying to torpedo the dollar, it is conceivable the White House might have sent someone to the NYPD to say, "This guy is causing us trouble; give him a hard time". But even the President of the United States hasn’t the power to approach the NYPD and the courts and instruct them to launch a trap based entirely on fraudulent charges and faked evidence to destroy the head of the IMF and force his removal. The President doesn't have the power to engineer something that hugely illegal which would require participation from so many parties, including the obvious payment to the "victim" for her fraudulent testimony. Such a thing would be unprecedented and would leak. The US administration might well attempt to profit from such an event already in progress, but would never dare to plan and execute something of this nature.
The only people with the power to do this, to plan and execute all the portions of the US side of this theatrical performance, and to obtain the necessary silence from all participants, are the alphabet agencies. The (Khazar-controlled) CIA has the power to say, "This is a matter of the utmost national security. You will comply with our instructions in all details and, if you dare ever breathe a word of this, you will most likely disappear and your family along with you." The CIA could enforce obedience from the NYPD, the hotel, the prosecutor's office, the judges and the courts, the phone companies, the airport authorities, and could easily arrange the multiple bank accounts and mobile phones. They are skilled at creating and planting evidence, and they have the power to control media information and disinformation. That's what they do, and their authority is more or less absolute.
This is an aside, but an important one. In an interview with the wife of Lee Harvey Oswald (JFK's alleged assassin), she was quoted as saying, "The answer to the Kennedy assassination lies with the [Rothschild-controlled] Federal Reserve. It is wrong to blame it on only James Jesus Angleton and the CIA, per se. They are all fingers on the same hand. The people who control the money are above the CIA."
The question then remains, from whom were the CIA taking their instruction? It would not have been from the US administration, and certainly not from Sarkozy's election team. Who was it, who was "out to get" DSK? The answers to all the questions trace to the Jewish bankers in the City of London, the master to whom both Israel's Mossad and the CIA ultimately report, and these are the people who, for their own reasons, wanted a final extermination of DSK, to utterly ruin the man for his disobedience, and remove him forever as a potential nuisance. DSK was released on bail (from Rikers Island) only on condition that he resign his position as MD of the IMF. This wasn't the NYPD's idea, nor the position of the US government. This could have emanated only from the Khazarian mafia in the City of London. It was they who wanted DSK removed from office.
It is not the intention of this essay to exonerate DSK or to dismiss his behavior as irrelevant or trivial. The man was widely known to have "a serious problem" with women. Reports were that his first act on entering a room was to carefully assess the seduction potential. Indeed, his sexual proclivities would seem to have crossed the line into pathology. During the court hearings in France, a 30-year-old prostitute named Florence said she took part in 11 orgies over several years where DSK was in attendance, and testified that "At these evenings, DSK had sex with every girl in the room." I didn't dwell on this in the body of the essay because my purpose was to illuminate the machinations that exist behind the scenes in our clean world of righteousness, democracy and rule of law.
It is easy, and perhaps justified, to feel no sympathy for DSK, especially given that he had received prior warnings of precisely such a circumstance and his obvious full awareness that "they" were out "to get him". That would normally compel extreme caution but, perhaps after decades of such behavior apparently exercised with impunity, the man felt invincible. We can easily conclude he was hardly blameless for his own downfall and might even feel he got what he deserved. But again, my purpose was to expose the powers behind the throne.
There is another item here that I reserved to the end because I haven't yet been able to positively document it, this being an obscure media report some time after the dust had settled where the maid "confessed she had been obliged to tell that story as if it were true. She had been threatened by the authorities to be immediately thrown out of the country" and deported back to Guinea if she refused. I raise this here because, if true, this fills in all the gaps and makes every part of the tale consistent. In support of this, you may recall that One of the girls who was 'raped' by Julian Assange said that she was also coerced by the authorities to make her claims. This was the same girl who, immediately after filing her charges against Assange, boarded the next plane home to Israel.
Supporting evidence for this is circumstantial, but powerful and actually quite obvious if we think about it. One of the two items that made little sense was that the plotters of this escapade seemed to have selected the least attractive maid in all of NYC, not the most logical choice for a 'honey trap'. The other item was the apparent (and seemingly deliberate) unraveling of the prosecution's case from the first day.
I draw your attention to the claims in the media that, "under very tough questioning by assistant district attorneys, she admitted the asylum narrative was a fabrication". If you think about it, there was no sensible reason for the woman's tales on her asylum application to have surfaced for this event. This was years prior and irrelevant in total to anything that was happening. Why bring it all up then, and suddenly reveal it to have been fabricated? Surely the immigration authorities weren't involved in the maid's claims of DSK attacking her. How would Cyrus Vance even know those details from a totally different government agency so many years back? And what cause would he have to be suspicious? Plus, it was none of his business. The media reports said that "after brutal questioning" by "the prosecution" (Vance's DA office), the woman admitted those were all lies. THE PROSECUTION? The prosecution was interested in her evidence about DSK, not about details of her immigration that were long in the past. Why would the prosecutors dig into her history to that extent, at that time? The defense might have wanted to do it, but surely not the prosecution.
From the onset, I couldn't shake the feeling that the prosecutors must have already known the whole story of the woman, including her false asylum application, her declaring a friend's child as a dependent on her tax returns, and many other criminal matters, that they knew the case would fall apart and that they were stage-managing its disintegration. They didn't need a conviction. They needed DSK's resignation from the IMF, and to keep him in custody long enough for the French Presidential primaries to expire. A simple accusation to justify charges and temporary incarceration would suffice. No matter if it all fell apart later.
One thing I noticed in all the media reports were vague "admissions" from DSK and his lawyers that the encounter was "consensual", but these 'admissions' were not quotes nor directly attributable to either DSK or his lawyers. They were merely undocumented claims made by the media. There was never actually any evidence presented to support these admissions and, while the woman and her lawyer were often directly quoted, neither DSK nor his lawyers had that privilege. All comments attributed to them were second- or third-hand. In other words, there may actually have been no sexual encounter at all.
A theory that actually fits all the facts is that the woman was selected BECAUSE her past made her vulnerable to deportation and she was thus easily conscripted. It is entirely possible they grabbed this woman because they already knew her past falsehoods and had the leverage over her to make her participate, paid her well, and just let the case unfold without any sexual encounter being necessary or taking place. The woman's physical attraction is then irrelevant. The accusations and charges alone would produce the necessary results, and they could then progressively collapse their own case. Mission accomplished, and nobody would ever suspect anything. The collapse of the case would be blamed on the DA's incompetence - as it actually was - and we would all be looking for the answers in precisely the wrong direction.
One person wrote me to say, "The minor inconsistencies and implausibilities in the account seem to suggest that nobody had bothered to create a solid script for the frame-up, which seems pretty odd. . . the plot would be extremely difficult and complex to set up, very likely to quickly unravel." Exactly correct. A solid script wasn't necessary because the plot was meant to unravel. Again, a conviction was not the goal; the only objective (desired and achieved) was DSK's resignation from the IMF. If DSK's lawyers hadn't discovered the 5 bank accounts and the 3 mobile phones, it would have been flawless.
DSK is a Jew, until recently one of the world's most powerful men, yet still far removed from the "inner circle" of the Khazar mafia in London. If this is what these people will so freely do to one of their own, you can imagine the rickety scaffolding on which the rest of us stand. There is no shortage of unusual and suspicious deaths of those daring to reveal inconvenient truths - or threatening to reveal them. Think of Gary Webb, Michael Hastings and Anne Heche. Think of Robert Maxwell, the Jewish media mogul (real name: Ján Ludvík Hyman Binyamin Hoch) and Mossad's 'assisted suicide' (see note 86) in helping him fall naked off his yacht in the middle of the night to drown in the Atlantic Ocean, shortly after boasting that "they can't do anything to me because I know where all the bodies are buried."
Lastly, it must not go unnoticed that the New York Times was a leader in this escapade, “setting the agenda for the nation” (87) and clearly being “a finger on the same hand” as the Khazarian mafia in the City of London. All the Western media lie to their readers and viewers, but the NYT carries a special responsibility for the power of its disinformation and misinformation practices. The day needs to come soon when the NYT is no longer respected as a source of information, but instead despised as a major link in the chain of fascism and fear that will soon bind all of us.
Mr. Romanoff’swriting has been translated into 32 languages and his articles posted on more than 150 foreign-language news and politics websites in more than 30 countries, as well as more than 100 English language platforms. Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He is one of the contributing authors to Cynthia McKinney’s new anthology ‘When China Sneezes’. (Chapt. 2 — Dealing with Demons).
(86) According to Wikipedia who always tell the truth about everything, especially everything Jewish, Maxwell's "standard practice" when he wanted to urinate was to remove all his clothing and pee over the rail of his yacht into the Mediterranean. Documented evidence of this "standard practice" is of course non-existent, but if we can't trust Wikipedia who can we trust.
(87) Propaganda and the Media — Part 3 – Establishing and Controlling the Narrative
What part will your country play in World War III?
By Larry Romanoff, May 27, 2021
The true origins of the two World Wars have been deleted from all our history books and replaced with mythology. Neither War was started (or desired) by Germany, but both at the instigation of a group of European Zionist Jews with the stated intent of the total destruction of Germany. The documentation is overwhelming and the evidence undeniable. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)