It’s down to Anne Sinclair and Cambridge University.
They’re the last entities willing to hang out with Dominique Strauss-Kahn.
It’s down to Anne Sinclair and Cambridge University.
They’re the last entities willing to hang out with Dominique Strauss-Kahn.
Trackback URL for this post:
https://www.margaretsoltan.com/wp-trackback.php?p=34978
February 26th, 2012 at 9:27PM
The Cambridge Union has a long history of inviting controversial speakers, and DSK has not been convicted of anything, nor is he presently charged (so far as I am aware) in any criminal case. So at the moment all we know is that he’s an aggressive, sexually incontinent sleaze who once held high office. Surely the Clinton standard should apply? And, for whatever it is worth, the Cambridge Union is entirely distinct from Cambridge University, is student run, and owns its own premises.
February 26th, 2012 at 9:58PM
Colin: Clinton did his best; but surely his disorganized efforts, his occasional below-the-desk blow jobs, can’t be compared to the extensive sex club/criminal syndicate world of which DSK seems to be a part. Clinton gave his paramour a copy of Leaves of Grass; DSK’s people, in emails, refer to his women as “the material.” The Clinton standard doesn’t apply. He’s not in DSK’s league.
As for criminal cases: The Lille investigation (into misuse of public funds and pimping) is ongoing, and DSK is a focus of it.
February 27th, 2012 at 8:57AM
Oh, he’s a turd of magnificent proprtions. And true, Clinton was never investigated as a possible pimp. But there was the hint of force in one or two of the allegations against Clinton, and in my book doing the intern is a bit sleazier then renting, even in bulk. I’m not sure Walt Whitman makes up for that, although it is weirdly touching. But that’s just a matter of taste. But in the history of the Cambridge (and Oxford) Union, DSK isn’t even in the first rank of scummy speakers.
February 27th, 2012 at 12:19PM
@Colin: DSK is not being investigated as a possible pimp. (The question seems rather to be whether he knowingly had sex with prostitutes that were paid with corporate money, and thus whether he was an accomplice of misuse of corporate money, or corruption recipient.)
February 27th, 2012 at 2:08PM
DM: I based my remark on http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/dominique-strauss-kahn/9094886/Dominique-Strauss-Kahn-questioned-as-pimp-suspect.html .
February 28th, 2012 at 7:59AM
@Margaret: I suspect some mistranslation here. “Matériel” does not mean “material” (which would be the translation of “matériau”), but rather the “hardware” or “tools”. Granted, this is equally disparaging.
February 28th, 2012 at 10:51AM
DM : Yes, I think you’re right that there’s some uncertainty in the translation as it appears in the [English] article in which I saw the word material. But, as you say, quite unpleasant either way.
February 28th, 2012 at 12:20PM
@Colin: Not being privy to the case, I cannot be sure he is not investigated for being an accomplice to “proxenetism”; but the acts being discussed seem more like DSK accepting personal perks illegally bought for by corporate money.