Considering both sides
From early in the DSK story, I did not have or push any single view of the case, but considered various possible angles. For example, in a May 24 entry, a commenter wrote:
I find it simply mind-boggling the number of people who can not or will not consider that this entire story actually might be exactly as we are told it is: a man used to power decides to have his way with a woman he’s quite confident won’t make an issue of it, because none ever have before.To which I replied:
Yes, it’s entirely possible that the maid’s entire accusation is true.
Knowing what we do now, I still would have drawn the conclusions I did at the time.LA replies:
Yes. How did she imagine that all her lies would not eventually be uncovered?Alexis Zarkov writes:
Mr. Auster asks, “How did [the maid] imagine that all her lies would not eventually be uncovered?” Simple. She lied on her asylum application and got away with it. She then proceeded with a string of lies to get cheap housing, a reduction on her income tax, and whatever other scams she’s involved in, and got away with those too. She had continuous reinforcement to lie, and no moral qualms. Indeed I think many Third World immigrants have nothing but contempt for our laws and customs. However with DSK she failed to appreciate that her lies affected a specific person who had a lot at stake. And the means to protect himself. All her other lies had a diffuse set of victims. The bureaucrats who accepted her falsehoods have nothing at stake as they are spending other people’s money. Moreover I suspect the prosecutor told her that likely she would not have to testify because he believed DSK would accept a plea bargain to a lessor charge. That was his plan. He thought he would get a cheap victory. Cyrus Vance Jr., a WASP with no street smarts, is ultimately responsible for this whole fiasco.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 02, 2011 12:01 PM | Send