This is all over running out on a tip. A lesson to be learned . In her country , she would have recieved a calf and end of story. In America, the stakes are high. She played herself out of the payout.

They're letting this douchebag go? Let a jury sort it out.  

This is a classic case of Crying Wolf. Her past untruths undid her. Small consolation, but her accusation cost him the French Presidency.

Considering the evidence implied rape and past sexual history of DSK, this is a classic case of acquittal due to the extreme wealth and ethnicity of the defendant.  A porter accused of the same would still be cooling his heels in Rikers.

well, we'll see.  maybe it didn't.

If Mr. Strauss Kahn actually were to win the french presidency, things could get interesting. I can see French/US relations being at their worst for several years.

Really? You think the US State Department or any other portion of the federal government would react differently towards the nation of France because of something like this in the background of their president?

There's a whole bunch of history ready to disagree with you.

Actually I was referring to the possible relationship between the two presidents, even perhaps the reluctance of one to visit the other.

still why is his wife happy about?? she still looks like a fool by him 

Marriages like DSK's aren't normal familial relationships that the rest of us have.  People from that class marry as arrangements to consolidate family legacies and produce heirs to those legacies. They've probably had two separate lives and an understanding for years.

i think she was rape but based on the motion to dimiss alone, i would have a not guilty verdict.  

just read the motion to dismiss and she lies too much over stupid stuff including her shoulder pain. the fact that this "rape" accourding to the card keys to the room occurred in less than 10 minutes shows that it was not consensual as the DA office states on motion but her lies just hurt her.  even her lies about what she did after the rape. why even lie about that.  I can understand about her tax fraud and asylum fraud.  she is a pathological liar but unfortunately it seems as if she was rape. 

Justice is supposed to be blind. Even to liars. Let the jury decide if her "lies" outweigh the merit of her case. 

DA Vance needs to the right thing, for his career, city and country. He needs to stand up and say "Its not about the accuser, this dismissal is more about the accused. The system is broken and I have (?) ideas to fix it".

Anybody who see's through a rape case - from a convicted prisoner to a little girl - is fighting for everyone. 

And a whole shitload of dictators, Kadfi's who havent given up WMD's or whatever, are redoubling their efforts to report to their people that Western Civilization is a corrupt hypocrisy. 

Once again, you are confusing accused and accuser.
Justice is supposed to be blind towards the accused.  Meaning that a jury is not supposed to assume guilt based upon the fact that the accused has lied or been convicted previously.

Decisions about whether or not to procede with a trial should not be blind, and the evaluation of a whitness' credibility should not be blind.  All of those evaluations are heavily dependent on witness credibility.  

"Kadfi's who havent given up WMD's or whatever"  I take it all back about you being smarter than average around here.  Seriously? "Kadfi's who havent given up WMD's or whatever"?

Yes. The perception our system is corrupt is one of the worst enemies we have. 

"IMF head gets off without trial" is not in anyones best interest.

Justice is supposed to be blind on both ends of the spectrum. All men are created equal. The King is as culpable as his subjects. 

So we should prosecute the head of the IMF despite the fact that the only eye witness for the prosecution lacks all credibility; because not prosecuting would look bad?

You seem to be in favor of pursuing a flawed, and futile prosecution because this guy is rich, powerful and white.  That is the exact opposite of your final paragraph.

You seem to be projecting something about yourself or your fears onto what I'm writing. A trail wont hurt, if you trust the process. The publicity damage is already done.

I'm white, I didn't grow up bad-off, I have no interest in identifying with the accused because I'd never be in his situation. I don't know about you.  

My point is that the trial should be dismissed whether the accused were a homeless, non-white immigrant, or the president of the IMF.  The only evidence the DA had is worthless because that evidence comes from the mouth of someone who lied to the DA's office and the grand jury about this case.  

In the real world, trials cost a great deal of money are are enormously damaging and expensive for the accused (and costly to the state, too). In fact, this is why there are grand juries. Trials are only, and should only pursued if there is a reasonable suspicion of guilt and a possibility of conviction.

It's not worth it at this point. He/she will never accept anything but his/her own twisted view on it.

"It doesn't matter what I believe, it only matters what I can prove. So don't tell me what I know and don't know, I know the LAW!"

"You know nothing about the law.  You're a used car salesman ... you're an ambulance chaser with a rank.  You're nothing, live with that."