IMF chief pulled off plane in NY on rape charges

posted at 9:30 am on May 16, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

The story is as salacious as it is puzzling.  New York police marched Dominique Strauss-Kahn off of an airplane yesterday to face charges of rape after an alleged sexual attack on a maid earlier in the day.  By nighttime, the arrest of the head of the International Monetary Fund had people wondering whether Greece would melt down, and whether the IMF could remain in Western hands — as well as what kind of Socialists stay in $3000-per-night hotel suites:

The French political bigshot who heads the International Monetary Fund was arrested for allegedly sodomizing a Manhattan hotel maid today — hauled off an Air France flight just moments before takeoff from Kennedy Airport, police said.

Three Port Authority detectives pulled Dominique Strauss-Kahn from the plane’s first-class cabin just two minutes before it was due to depart for Paris, according to police sources said.

Strauss-Kahn, 62 — who was expected to challenge Nicholas Sarkozy in the 2012 French presidential election — was turned over to NYPD officers and brought to the Special Victims Unit’s uptown squadroom.

The Post has the lurid details, but it’s hardly the first time Strauss-Kahn has embarrassed the IMF.  Three years ago, he admitted to sleeping with a subordinate, a peccadillo that should have pushed the IMF to can him then.  It won’t get any better for the IMF, either, as another woman in France may file a complaint about an alleged attack that occurred several years ago.

Strauss-Kahn’s lawyers have leaked that they’re looking for an alibi, insisting that the suspect wasn’t even in the hotel at the time.  That will be difficult to sell, since the victim picked Strauss-Kahn out of a lineup:

Dominique Strauss-Kahn, a married father of four whose reputation with women earned him the nickname “the great seducer,” faced arraignment Monday on charges of attempted rape and criminal sexual contact in the alleged attack on a maid who went into his penthouse suite at a hotel near Times Square to clean it.

Strauss-Kahn was taken into custody on Saturday and spent more than 24 hours inside a Harlem precinct, where police say the maid identified him from a lineup, then headed to a hospital for a “forensic examination” requested by prosecutors to obtain more evidence in the case, defense lawyer William Taylor said. He was taken to a Manhattan court early Monday.

If they argue for a case of mistaken identity and then DNA connects Strauss-Kahn to the victim, that’s going to put the defense in a rather tight box.

His fellow Socialists in France are defending him, at least for now:

Fellow Socialists increasingly defended Strauss-Kahn, citing contradictions in the investigation, and pledged to stick to the campaign calendar.

“His close friends cannot believe that he is guilty,” said Socialist politician and friend Jean Christophe Cambadelis.

Perhaps, but the Economist can’t believe he’s a Socialist, either — not with those hotel bills:

Just note that the New York Times states that he was staying in a $3,000 a night suite and was taking a first class flight to Paris. This is the IMF, the body that imposes austerity on indebted countries and is funded by global taxpayers. And this was the likely leading socialist candidate for the French presidency.

John Hinderaker at Power Line notes that Socialism ain’t what it used to be:

$3,000 a night–not for a family or an entourage, but for a single socialist! Not bad. … Obviously socialists have reconciled themselves to bourgeois comforts like first-class air travel. Any time you want, for free.

The Washington Post looks at the impact of the arrest on Europe and the global economy, and it doesn’t look promising.  The $155 billion loan to Greece hasn’t solved the nation’s debt crisis, and Strauss-Kahn was about to go back to Europe for more cash to rescue Athens.  Now, there may be no one to convince Europe to salvage its investment in Greece at all:

Strauss-Kahn’s absence may be felt most immediately in the IMF’s work with the European Union to prevent the debt crisis engulfing several countries from getting out of hand.

His arrest “comes at just the worst possible time for Europe,” said Eswar Prasad, an international economics professor at Cornell University. “As the world economy stumbles its way to recovery, this could be a pretty serious blow that sets things back.”

A $155 billion loan provided to Greece in spring 2010 is proving insufficient to keep the country out of insolvency. Strauss-Kahn had been considering modifying the terms of the loan to lighten the load on Greece while discussing the potential of a new $85 billion loan to Greece with the European Union.

He was slated to meet with Europe’s finance ministers in Brussels on Monday to weigh the further aid to Greece and work through details of an IMF-backed bailout of Portugal. The organization said IMF Deputy Managing Director Nemat Shafik, who oversees the group’s work in various European Union countries, will attend instead.

The nations of the EU may want to keep the IMF at arm’s length for a while, so don’t expect an enthusiastic rush to push more funds through it when Shafik makes his bid.  The next head of the IMF may pay less attention to European concerns, too:

The IMF on Sunday named Strauss-Kahn’s second-in-command, former banker John Lipsky, as his replacement. But Lipsky was planning to step down at the end of the summer, and while a European has long led the IMF, countries such as China and India are considering nominating one of their own for the top spot. That could also have wide ramifications for the organization, whose emerging market members have complained that it shows more generous treatment toward European countries than those in the developing world.

Traditionally, an American leads the World Bank and a European leads the IMF.  If Europe loses the IMF position, they may get even less enthusiastic about contributing to its projects than they will be now with Greece.

It’s impossible to predict what will happen next, but one question will have to get resolved soon.  Strauss-Kahn’s lawyers claim that he has diplomatic immunity as part of his IMF portfolio, while New York police beg to differ.  That question will have to ultimately be resolved by the White House, which will have the unpleasant task of deciding between potentially angering France (although probably not Nicolas Sarkozy) by prosecuting him just when France has taken the lead on Libya and to a lesser extent on Eurozone bailouts, or letting a potential rapist walk free.  If Strauss-Kahn’s defense pushes hard on the immunity claim (which is probably not valid), though, it’s going to make him look guilty as hell, and the political damage in Europe from denying the claim will probably be significantly reduced.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Picture in your mind’s eye…Barry in bright gold parachute pants…

“It’s Obama Time. You can’t touch this.”

coldwarrior on April 25, 2013 at 2:03 PM

That is how it has worked for 225 years,” said Gershengorn, referring to the ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1788.

Yes, my first thought is that the American Bolsheviks have them some love for the Constitution.

Yup, my first thought.

Hate, doesn’t describe my feelings, enough.

OhEssYouCowboys on April 25, 2013 at 2:03 PM

According to our trolls, we shouldn’t object to universal background checks for guns if we have nothing to hide.

In that vein, what is Obama trying to hide?

Liam on April 25, 2013 at 2:05 PM

Oh give it up already. They know you have no real power and are just toying with you.

there is definitely such a thing as abusing executive privilege, and how.

Barry is upset that CONgress is abusing him by questioning and protesting his rightful use of executive privilege.

After all, he’s the Executive, and he has privilege….self granted, mind you, but privilege, never the less. And not to be challenged!

hawkeye54 on April 25, 2013 at 2:06 PM

Impeach.

Midas on April 25, 2013 at 2:07 PM

In that vein, what is Obama trying to hide?

Liam on April 25, 2013 at 2:05 PM

Holder forgot to do background checks on the Sinaloa cartel?

coldwarrior on April 25, 2013 at 2:08 PM

Oh great, another ________ hearing. Didn’t we have one before Obama became a 2 term president?
 
HotAirLib on April 24, 2013 at 3:52 PM

 

Insert appropriate “Modern Voter” topic here. Suggestions include:
 
Terrorism
 
Benghazi
 
Fast and Furious
 
Budget
 
Employment
 
Annual nationwide gun death toll of urban black children vs. rare and isolated mass-shootings of whites
 
etc.

rogerb on April 25, 2013 at 2:10 PM

rogerb on April 25, 2013 at 2:11 PM

bho and his whole administration does NOT give a flying flit about the law/constitution/congress/courts! The whole lying anti-American bunch will do as they dang well please and NOT one person will do a thing about it, as it seems so far? How many times has bho/team just ignored the judges/court orders?

I detest with all my heart them.
L

letget on April 25, 2013 at 2:17 PM

The Department of Justice argued that the court should really just decline to decide on the case because it might give a hint to the low info crowd.

docflash on April 25, 2013 at 2:18 PM

Yeah, I saw this report on Good Morning America this morning. /

crrr6 on April 25, 2013 at 2:19 PM

In that vein, what is Obama trying to hide?

Liam on April 25, 2013 at 2:05 PM

When it comes to transparency, O’ invokes the “Me/Thee” amendment of the constitution.

antipc on April 25, 2013 at 2:20 PM

Since it isn’t an election year I guess Rinsed Preebus won’t be begging us for big contributions so the GOP, Boner, McConnell and their investigators posture, angrily condemn and then can totally wimp out on the betrayed dead like they did last time ’round.

Please, give generously to Beltway, as usual.

viking01 on April 25, 2013 at 2:21 PM

When it comes to transparency, O’ invokes the “Me/Thee” amendment of the constitution.

antipc on April 25, 2013 at 2:20 PM

Ah — the “I’m a lying asshole” clause found by emanating penumbras!

Good catch!

Liam on April 25, 2013 at 2:22 PM

When it comes to transparency, O’ invokes the “Me/Thee” amendment of the constitution.

antipc on April 25, 2013 at 2:20 PM

Ah — the “I’m a lying a$$hole” clause found by emanating penumbras!

Good catch!

Liam on April 25, 2013 at 2:23 PM

“That is how it has worked for 225 years,” said Gershengorn, referring to the ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1788.

Don’t worry, Nanny Scumberg will just “reinterpret” the Constitution.

rbj on April 25, 2013 at 2:25 PM

This whole affair has really made me wonder if Congress is just inept or impotent when it comes to fighting Obama.

Earlier Presidential scandals never drug out this long once they attracted the attention of Congress. Is Obama just a better stonewaller than past Presidents, or is our GOP just that weak?

I understand that this is yet another story that the press doesn’t want to investigate, so Issa et al aren’t benefiting from a media tailwind, but still seems like this should be moving faster.

Chris of Rights on April 25, 2013 at 2:28 PM

According to our trolls, we shouldn’t object to universal background checks for guns if we have nothing to hide.

In that vein, what is Obama trying to hide?

Liam on April 25, 2013 at 2:05 PM

What would Obama have to hide about his Guns for Gangsters Operation?

Galt2009 on April 25, 2013 at 2:29 PM

If Obama does not give up the requested documents, start impeachment proceedings. What the hell, start them anyways.

DAT60A3 on April 25, 2013 at 2:30 PM

If I’m not mistaken, lil barry said, unequivocally, that he knew nothing about F&F or the attempted coverup.

If that’s true – and we know that lil barry wouldn’t lie about it (/s/) – then how is it that HE is the one claiming executive privilege? If he wasn’t part of the “deliberative process” then the papers covered by the subpoena aren’t covered by his “privilege” at all.

Cough’em up, barry!

Solaratov on April 25, 2013 at 2:33 PM

If Obama does not give up the requested documents, start impeachment proceedings. What the hell, start them anyways.

DAT60A3 on April 25, 2013 at 2:30 PM

With all due respect, what good would it do? Even if the House impeached Obama, there aren’t 67 votes in the Senate to convict and remove him.

Resist We Much on April 25, 2013 at 2:34 PM

You gotta luv it.

We have the most transparent administration in history.
(I think I just threw up in my mouth even writing that for sarcasm.)

avagreen on April 25, 2013 at 2:34 PM

Congress is still steadily pursuing the investigation on the very dark spot on the Obama administration’s record that is Operation Fast and Furious

Yeah … sure they are. Maybe they’ll get something by March, 2143. Congress is a joke. The GOP controlled House has done exactly squat in the face of the most unbelievably anti-American criminal administration in American history (by miles – Watergate wasn’t even up to kids’ play compared to the constant trampling of the Constitution and our law that Barky and his junta have engaged in ever since the Indonesian Dog-Eating Imbecile first slimed into an office he isn’t even eligible for and is certainly not qualified for in any way, whatsoever).

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on April 25, 2013 at 2:35 PM

I know it’s off-topic, but I don’t care – it’s well worth a listen:

US Army Chorus Performs At Bush Center Dedication
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=SMgvOBjYoJU

Galt2009 on April 25, 2013 at 2:38 PM

the Department of Justice argued that the court should really just decline to decide on the case and leave the executive and legislative branches to duke it out on their own:

Great. How about the House blocks all funds for White House entertainment, presidential vacations, and cuts his kitchen staff in half if he doesn’t turn over the documents?

Socratease on April 25, 2013 at 2:41 PM

Resist We Much on April 25, 2013 at 2:34 PM

Well, there’s always hope for a Republican Senate in 2014.

How Republicans could take control of the Senate in 2014
http://theweek.com/article/index/239306/how-republicans-could-take-control-of-the-senate-in-2014

avagreen on April 25, 2013 at 2:42 PM

the Department of Justice argued that the court should really just decline to decide on the case

Yeah! Just like that Nixon ‘tape case’.

Once again, the liberal mind is highly selective.

GarandFan on April 25, 2013 at 2:43 PM

I guess this generation of Dems wouldn’t have gone to SCOTUS to demand the Nixon Tapes, for which there was a lot more executive privilege that there is here.

xkaydet65 on April 25, 2013 at 2:45 PM

Opaque transparency

rjoco1 on April 25, 2013 at 2:47 PM

I’d bet a Speaker Newt would have more than one trick up his sleeve to make the president pay for not handing over the documents.

bflat879 on April 25, 2013 at 2:56 PM

Once again, the liberal mind is highly selective.

GarandFan on April 25, 2013 at 2:43 PM

Actually, it’s not. There are no ‘choices’ other than the liberal one, so true selection is not possible. Anything other than liberalism is to be smashed; it doesn’t count as a possible selection. Therefor, it doesn’t exist. Or, well, it shouldn’t. And there are doing their best to make sure of that.

Liam on April 25, 2013 at 2:58 PM

“With all due respect, the fact is, we had hundreds of dead Mexicans! What difference at this point does it make?”

-Hillary Clinton

PatMac on April 25, 2013 at 3:03 PM

Brian Terry is dead.

A Fast and Furious gun run by the ATF into Mexico killed him.

A DEA informant was at the kill site.

Many other guns run by the ATF at the direction of Obama, Ms Clinton, Eric Holder and their hirelings/appointees are sill missing and it is even possible one of those guns will be or is in the hands of a Mexican drug cartel controled coyote who will sell it to a islamic terrorist as the coyote guided the islamic terrorist into the U.S.A. in the time honored illegal way.

Facts are what they are, Obama smiling and talking about healtcare notwithstanding.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on April 25, 2013 at 3:29 PM

Brian Terry is dead, but for the grace of God, it could have been or may well be any one of U.S..

It was not an error, it was not a mis-step, it was a plan, the plan was executed, Brian Terry’s death was a direct result.

No different than a bank rob deal, a car chase and one of the robbers shoots someone not in the deal.

All those in on the planning or bank robbery are assesory to the fact that Brian Terry is dead.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on April 25, 2013 at 3:35 PM

Of some note:

The ATF when they allowed, planed, executed this gun running,,, they used “felons” as the mules to carry out the gun buying and gun running.

“felons” who would not have been able to buy any gun in any gun store except for the direct orders of the ATF to the gun store owners.

High Crimes.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on April 25, 2013 at 3:38 PM

MOST TRANSPAR-

Ah, fuggedaboudit…

MOST TRANSGENDER ADMINISTRATION EVER!

Marcola on April 25, 2013 at 3:39 PM

The unspoken caveat:
“If it saves just one child’s life!”
(Unless they’re Mexican, of course)

questionmark on April 25, 2013 at 3:39 PM

Obama final solution to all his crimes.

“Well George Bush did this same thing.”

Our trouble is, Obama is correct.

Therefor the real problem is ours and what to do about the two party evil money cult operating outside the constitution in Washington D.C..

Selfgoverment is a harsh taskmaster.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on April 25, 2013 at 3:47 PM

Hmmm…

Holder committed 3 counts of Perjury before Congress for him over it…

He refuses to hand over the documents…..

(So much for the most transparent administration in US History…)

This week it was also announced that Congress has a document in-hand signed by Hillary denying Ambassador Stevens’ request for additional security in Benghazi, proving SHE committed the crime of Perjury before Congress as well….

And Congress announced they also have evidence to prove Obama lied under oath (another criminal count of Perjury for him/his administration) regarding Benghazi….

Amazing no one has mentioned Impeachment considering Nixon was forced out of office for helping hide several minutes of audio-tape…

easyt65 on April 25, 2013 at 3:51 PM

The only real privilege that applies here is the Fifth Amendment.

flataffect on April 25, 2013 at 4:00 PM

An inconvenient truth.

South of the U.S. border, only 6 percent of all homicides produce a trial and judgment. As such, killing trafficking enemies to take over their territory, and potentially increase illegal earnings, is profitable. In short, war pays in Mexico.

Do you think someone could inform the Mexican government about this?

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-04-12/opinions/38492205_1_cartels-drug-violence-trafficking

When you really want to get depressed, I have immigration reform facts and figures from good sources. What are the eight thinking?

Et tu, senex?

IlikedAUH2O on April 25, 2013 at 4:00 PM

There is a possibility, remote though it may be, that if the scandal ensuing from Obama’s refusal to surrender those documents got bad enough, and spread persistently, dragging down those complicit with him and those whom he’s trying to shelter with his ‘executive privilege’, that even the senate might move to impeach.

It happened with Watergate.

Events continued to snowball, the scandal dragged on and spread, and eventually, even those senators closest to Nixon had to acknowledge that the damage was too great and the breach to wide to protect him.

thatsafactjack on April 25, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Let’s look at his more illogical claim: He invoked Executive Privilege over an operation he claimed he had no knowledge of–HOW DOES THAT WORK BARRY?

hillsoftx on April 25, 2013 at 4:35 PM

The incest between the commie msm and the commie Democrats is a great evil.

This outlaw coupling has brought fourth stilborn death to many in Mexico and now it springs up more of deaths doors here within the U.S.A..

An evil thing and it grows.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on April 25, 2013 at 4:46 PM

Well, there’s always hope for a Republican Senate in 2014.

How Republicans could take control of the Senate in 2014
http://theweek.com/article/index/239306/how-republicans-could-take-control-of-the-senate-in-2014

avagreen on April 25, 2013 at 2:42 PM

There will not be 67 votes even if the Republicans win the Senate in 2014. Recall, the Republican-controlled Senate didn’t even vote to convict and remove the impeached Bill Clinton. Only 45 Senators voted to convict Clinton of perjury and the Senate split 50-50 on the obstruction of justice charge.

Resist We Much on April 25, 2013 at 4:57 PM

Great. How about the House blocks all funds for White House entertainment, presidential vacations, and cuts his kitchen staff in half if he doesn’t turn over the documents?

Socratease on April 25, 2013 at 2:41 PM

Better — I wanna see what Moochelle can whip up in the kitchen…

affenhauer on April 25, 2013 at 5:00 PM

that even the senate might move to impeach.

It happened with Watergate.

Events continued to snowball, the scandal dragged on and spread, and eventually, even those senators closest to Nixon had to acknowledge that the damage was too great and the breach to wide to protect him.

thatsafactjack on April 25, 2013 at 4:20 PM

The Senate doesn’t impeach. The House does. The Senate only votes to convict and remove.

Nixon resigned because REPUBLICANS went to him and told him ‘resign or be impeached.’ Democrats will NEVER do that to the ‘first African-American President of the United States.’

Short of slicing Michelle’s throat live on national television, I don’t see Democrats EVER demanding his resignation or voting to impeach/convict/remove. They love that 95% African-American voting bloc too much.

Resist We Much on April 25, 2013 at 5:00 PM

There is a possibility, remote though it may be, that if the scandal ensuing from Obama’s refusal to surrender those documents got bad enough, and spread persistently, dragging down those complicit with him and those whom he’s trying to shelter with his ‘executive privilege’, that even the senate might move to impeach.

It happened with Watergate.

Events continued to snowball, the scandal dragged on and spread, and eventually, even those senators closest to Nixon had to acknowledge that the damage was too great and the breach to wide to protect him.

thatsafactjack on April 25, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Never happen. Republicans will vote to impeach a Republican president in the right circumstances because they put the Constitution and rule of law before politics.

Democratics don’t. They would never impeach a democratic president, especially a black one. If affirmative action can’t keep you from being impeached, what good is it?

slickwillie2001 on April 25, 2013 at 5:39 PM

The House could probably get an impeachment approved. Of course, the Senate would probably not convict but it would at least both spotlight some of O’s excesses and maybe wake up the low information voters.

duff65 on April 25, 2013 at 5:41 PM

The House could probably get an impeachment approved. Of course, the Senate would probably not convict but it would at least both spotlight some of O’s excesses and maybe wake up the low information voters.

duff65 on April 25, 2013 at 5:41 PM

Wake them up? No, it would enrage them, and they would steal even more votes next time around.

Most low-information voters are that way because they are stupid, and you can’t fix stupid.

slickwillie2001 on April 25, 2013 at 5:48 PM

Is Obama just a better stonewaller than past Presidents, or is our GOP just that weak?

Yes.

ghostwalker1 on April 25, 2013 at 7:08 PM

avagreen on April 25, 2013 at 2:42 PM

There will not be 67 votes even if the Republicans win the Senate in 2014. Recall, the Republican-controlled Senate didn’t even vote to convict and remove the impeached Bill Clinton. Only 45 Senators voted to convict Clinton of perjury and the Senate split 50-50 on the obstruction of justice charge.

Resist We Much on April 25, 2013 at 4:57 PM

Yes, you might be correct, but that was in 1998. The landscape is different today.

Look at it this way, in order to convict (not impeach, which is what the House does)…. the present Senate makeup is: 54D/45R + 1 Ind……(if the 6 R’s are elected) could end up as 48D/51R +1 Ind.

Then, there is Max Baucus’s seat (in a conservative state)up for grabs, which could make it 47D/52R + 1 Ind.

Then, 67(votes needed to impeach) – 52R = 15 crossovers needed.

In Clinton’s (a much more popular President than O) trial in the Senate, 45 Democrats and 10 Republicans crossed over voted he was not guilty. Here’s the breakdown. I haven’t chased down who was what then (conservatives vs Liberal) vs now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

Here’s the present breakdown in present day Senate:
http://www.senateconservatives.com/site/senators

Well, as I look at the current lineup….you could be correct. Don’t know if there are 15 that would crossover.

avagreen on April 25, 2013 at 8:09 PM

This site says 9 Senate seats are up in the air:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/

avagreen on April 25, 2013 at 8:15 PM

Jackson, an Obama appointee, repeatedly suggested that Gershengorn was giving the judiciary short shrift.

“You keep talking about the two [branches] as if the third one isn’t there,” she said.

I just love the smell of Communist Red-on-Communist Red violence in the evening.

Steve Eggleston on April 25, 2013 at 8:22 PM

Obama still holding out on those subpoenaed Fast & Furious documents

Impeach.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 25, 2013 at 8:27 PM

In Clinton’s (a much more popular President than O) trial in the Senate, 45 Democrats and 10 Republicans crossed over voted he was not guilty. Here’s the breakdown. I haven’t chased down who was what then (conservatives vs Liberal) vs now….

avagreen on April 25, 2013 at 8:09 PM

The 5 “Pubbies” who voted not guilty on both charges (John Chafee, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Arlen Specter, Jim Jeffords) were/are all liberal. 3 of the 5 who thought Clinton didn’t perjure himself but did obstruct justice (Richard Shelby, Ted Stevens and John Warner) were also liberal. Dunno where Fred Thompson’s and Slade Gorton’s heads were.

Steve Eggleston on April 25, 2013 at 8:31 PM