(photo credit: Steve Clemons, The Washington Note)
(This article is appearing simultaneously at TheAtlantic.com)
News is breaking that the prosecutor's case in the rape allegations against former IMF Director and French political kingpin Dominique Strauss-Kahn is collapsing.
According to reports, the accuser who worked at New York's Hotel Sofitel has allegedly been engaged in money laundering activities and has had substantial contact with an incarcerated drug dealer. Strauss-Kahn's bails and terms of detention are reportedly going to be lightened today -- and others are suggesting that felony charges may be dropped against him.
Maybe he did harass this woman -- but it is also possible that he did not. That's what the system of justice is for -- to presume innocence until guilt is determined. That no longer sounds likely in this case.
But this week, former French Finance Minister Christine Legarde was named Strauss-Kahn's successor at the International Monetary Fund, and back at home, French Socialist Party Leader Martine Aubry declared her candidacy for President.
Strauss-Kahn, who may be innocent, who even Sarkozy said should be presumed innocent unless evidence led to a different conclusion, now cannot return either to the IMF or to his position as the next likely President of France.
One of the fears that I often hear from people when talking about the growing power of social network sites, blogs, as well as micro-journalism and micro-comment platforms is the one of scandalmongering, or a tsunami of mistruths and reputational attacks that take down some high profile person.
A good read on this sort of thing is the late William Safire's historical novel, Scandalmonger, which shares what slander blogging might have been like in late 18th century America in the person of James Callender who doggedly pursued, occasionally inventing, sleazy stories about both Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson.
I have generally argued, and may be wrong, that the internet is a much more honest and disciplining arena than print, that errors, mistakes, or misreporting would be instantaneously sniffed out and corrected by a global audience. I know I have gotten things wrong before and had emails or posted comments that helped me put my information on a better, more accurate track. But that isn't always the case, particularly in growing clusters of same-thinking people who care less about sorting out the facts than they do about the frame (or bias) they bring to some respective issue.
But in today's fast-paced world, a reputation can be destroyed rapidly -- and if, as in the case of Strauss-Kahn it seems, the consequences of charges made actually precede the processing of those charges, then we as a society are no longer extending the benefits of presumed innocence that are core to our form of democracy and our legal system.
I realize given the proliferation of commentary about Strauss-Kahn's alleged womanizing and the bandwaggoning criticism of him that built after his arrest that he is perhaps a flawed and tragic figure.
But the problem of reputation wrecked still stands whether the target is warm and likeable or a brilliant storm, as I see Strauss-Kahn, and that lesson is a bad one for people on the internet, who are becoming commentators and writers, to learn. They see the successful effects of attack, whether based in truth and credibility or not, and sense that the downsides of backlash and consequence to an accuser's or scandalmongerer's credibility are not serious.
When Georgia State USDA rural development director Shirley Sherrod was fired by Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack for making 'alleged' racially-tinged remarks, we also saw consequences meted out before the entire story of that video, brought to light by Andrew Breitbart, was properly considered.
There is no clear fix to these problems. We don't have a system that would let Strauss-Kahn have his job back, and Aubry is not likely to step aside in her presidential quest and let DSK go back and take the top spot challenging Sarkozy.
Again, I am not saying that I know if he did or didn't engage in lewd conduct against a hotel chambermaid -- but his legally-based presumed innocence has been inconsequential to the penalties that he's already received, and that's something that should worry us.
-- Steve Clemons is Washington Editor at Large at The Atlantic and can be followed on Twitter at @SCClemons
Follow Steve Clemons on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SCClemons
"Accusations like this are like being accused of child molestation. No one will ever remember that you were acquitted ... only that you were accused."
It's been like that for thousands of years ... Democracy hasn't changed it.
Somebody accuses you and it later turns out to be wrong, but your life is ruined forever because they paraded you in front of everybody as guilty, while the accuser's identy is kept secret.
I completely agree that priviledged people should be treated like regular people. But nobody, who has not been convicted should be shown all over the world in handcuffs and have his or her name ruined forever.
The leaks to the press by the DA's office and DSK's lawyers are intended to discredit the accuser and make it more difficult to convict Strauss-Kahn. According to The Guardian, DSK's legal team is working with TD International, which is run by former CIA officers and American diplomats. The leaks to the media are being orchestrated by former CIA officers and American diplomats.
I agree with you on the issue of the so-called, "Perp Walk". But, we should be careful not to confuse the accuser's history of misstatements, lies or omissions as evidence that that rich, powerful, super-elite, transnational White man with ties to TD International did not rape her as she alleged.
LINK: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/02/dominique-strauss-kahn-hotel-maid
If the people who know him best expect him to be found guilty and wish to preemptively disassociate themselves ... then so be it. Its not like you can make a law requiring people act a certain way towards the accused. At least not in a free society.
Also I wasn't aware that visiting a family member in jail made it OK to rape you. Or are you trying to imply that rapists won't attack women with family members in jail? How can they tell who does? That bit really makes no sense whatsoever.
The fact that she spoke with someone whether in prison or out about the incident does not mean she was not raped - nor is it a crime - and it should not be held against her.
The fact that she omitted a specific detail about her actions immediately after the rape should not result in the DA's office dropping charges against DSK. In fact, the charges are still in place.
But, after thinking about the fact that the DA's office leaked the damaging details to the newspaper, I began to suspect that politics, power and influence were conspiring against the victim who is the accuser - not DSK.
Today, the accuser's attorney accused the DA of buckling under pressure of power, money and political influence. He also said that most of the information leaked to the Times was freely provided to the DA's office by the victim herself and were not obtained through ongoing investigations as had been suggested in the paper. He added that the DA's office has plenty of evidence to substantiate the victim's claims and that she deserves a fair hearing in court.
I agree.
=First, there was a rush to judgment declaring him guilty and, now, it seems with an equal lack
of thoughtfulness, there's a rush to come to the opposite conclusion.
=Personally, after the "first the verdict, then the trial" infamy of the Duke lacrosse team
"rape" scandal, I vowed to reclaim the once-cherished notion of "innocent until proven guilty."
The DSK mess confirms the wisdom, as well as the fairness, of this criterion.
Yes, on the surface it looks like money and power are ruling the day...as is often the case.
Still, it makes little sense that a guy in his position would jeopordize his life and career for something as sordid as this.
One has to wonder it this wasn't a set up. Otherwise, it's somewhat hard to understand.
David Vitter, Elliott Spitzer, John Ensign, and countless other in positions of power didn't consider the risk they faced from being caught to be enough of a deterrent, either. Saying DSK couldn't have done this because getting caught would hurt him is absurd.