Skip to comments.Are Rich and Powerful People Above the Law in America?
Posted on 07/01/2011 9:13:33 AM PDT by pinochet
The latest news concerning the Strauss-Kahn rape case, is that prosecutors are considering dropping the case, after Strauss-Kahn's lawyers managed to attack the reputation of the witness. I am convinced that rich and powerful people are above the law in America, because decisions on prosecuting people are made by politicians, or by prosecutors who have an eye on a political career, and do not want to piss off potential donors to their future campaigns.
In 1991, William Kennedy Smith, a nephew of Ted Kennedy, RFK, and JFK, was tried for rape. The facts of the case reported in the media were so convincing, that I had no doubt that he would be convicted. Three women had come forward with accusations that Smith had raped them in the 1980s, and were willing to testify on behalf of the victim. But my Uncle, a retired police officer in Portland, Oregon, told me that no nephew of Ted Kennedy and JFK was ever going to do time in prison. He made me a $500 bet, that the Kennedy nephew was going to walk. Foolishly, I made the bet, and I lost $500 to my uncle. The testimony of the 3 women who said that they were raped by Smith, was excluded by the Judge, and Smith was acquitted.
Two more women came forward in 2004 and 2005, alleging having being raped by Smith. One case was settled out of court, and the other resulted in a failed lawsuit. You are, of course, all aware of Kathleen Willey's rape claims against Bill Clinton, which the mainstream media had no interest in.
Rich people are mostly jailed when they commit crimes against other rich people, such as Bernie Maddoff, who stole from other rich people.
I am not engaging in left-wing class warfare by mentioning this fact. I am just stating a fact. Strauss-Kahn, Kennedy Smith, and Bill Clinton, are powerful men of the left, who have escaped accountability.
See this wikipedia entry on William Kennedy Smith http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kennedy_Smith
Well we know that ‘Bammy’ thinks so.
Short answer, yes. Longer answer, H#LL YES!!! We are supposed to be a nation of laws, NOT men. However, court proceedings involving the rich prove otherwise.
Mary Jo Kopechne was unavailable for comment.
ALL leftist elitists think they SHOULD be above the law,
and not subject to the consequences of the rules they would impose on the rest of us.
Their goal is neo-feudalism under the guise of benevolent socialism.
I wouldn’t say they’re above the law but they can sure afford to destroy others in court. In the case of political criminals, they can pull in a lot of high powered favors.
Not all rich guys walk as Bernie Madoff shows. Andrew Luster is another rich guy who had the book thrown at him.
well at least she got a quick settlment and a so-so "apology"....
Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think that’s what’s happening here. I think that Strauss Kahn certainly misbehaved, but that the maid is, as reported, mixed up with drug smuggling and other fishy activities and that she disappointed the prosecutors by changing her story until it fell apart.
Clinton and Kennedy, of course, are quite another matter. But you didn’t find the law going out, clapping them into handcuffs, doing a perp walk for the news media, and spreading enough scandalous accusations that they lost their jobs.
I think they were out to nail Strauss Kahn, but the case fell apart on them. Just an opinion, of course, but I don’t think they treated him with the kind of kid gloves they would use for a Kennedy or Joe Biden’s son, or that type of situation.
Then it's impossible to be above the law........
What are you talking about? Everything I've read was that law enforcement discovered serious character issues.
I think you should get your facts and thoughts together before posting a screed like this.
Oh, and wikipedia is not a source.
There is some truth in what you say, but particulars matter. Rich people rarely do the kind of violent, predatory crimes that merit severe punishment. When they do, they tend to be clever enough to diminish their risks. Finally, many poor people represented by public defenders also go free because of the same technicalities and weaknesses in prosecution that the elite benefit from.
They aren’t above the law but their money puts them above the law because they will find someone in authority who can be bought. Same as this case here - only it took a bit longer. This does not surprise me at all. High priced lawyers - high priced results. It has nothing to do about justice.
If truth is not on one’s side - attack the accuser. Nothing new under the sun.
That used to be the case, but with cellphones equipped with still/video cameras, the modern Internet and TMZ.com, not so much anymore!
Yep. Life ain’t fair...
False sexual activity charges are more likely to be made against the rich and powerful, for obvious reasons, than against just anyone. (Not that there are not a plenitude of false sexual assault charges filed out of spite--the woman scorned syndrome.)
On the other hand, many genuine rapes go unreported, simply because nice women do not want the attention on a terribly humiliating episode, or are afraid of retaliation. The whole subject has now been politicalized to an extent which makes much improvement nearly impossible.
>>>I wouldnt say theyre above the law but they can sure afford to destroy others in court
According to my Uncle, a retired police officer, most cases involving rich people never make it to court. Discreet phone calls are made by the mayor or governor to the police chief, and the case never makes it to the prosecutor’s desk. Police Chiefs owe their careers to politicians, and they have mortgages to pay.
Yes, he said, echoing the response of others.
Always have been, always will be.
It’s rare that an athlete, movie star, or rich guy gets convicted and sentenced to prison.
You gotta go some...
OJ Simpson is such a FU that he managed to beat a murder rap and still found a way to do hard time.
Of course. It has always been that way. That little charade of jailing Madoff was just that, theatre.
He’s chump change in the world of the power elite.
Or has promiscuity merely run amok to the point that rape is nearly impossible to prove in court anymore?
In the current culture I sure as heck would not want to have to sit on a jury and try to Monday Morning Quarterback what was consensual and what was not.
The maid or Strauss-Kahn?
"I think you should get your facts and thoughts together before posting a screed like this."
The most interesting thing about the Strauss-Kahn case is the political goals that were achieved.
A french presidential contender eliminated, an IMF head eliminated.
um... I wasn't away the wiley claimed that she was raped. molested, but not raped. that was Juanita Broderick. IIRC Clinton grabbed Wiley's breasts.
Ever wonder why they never catch the Mr. Big of drug dealers?
Ever wonder where all tht money is laundered?
I have a hint for you ,Banks.
I can go with that. Definitely.
When William Kennedy Smith walked across the stage to receive his diploma (MD degree I think) a year or so after his acquittal, he received a standing ovation from his fellow students. Many standing were females.
Why would the American legal system be out to get Strauss-Kahn.
Right and clinton lost his law license.
>>>>um... I wasn’t away the wiley claimed that she was raped. molested, but not raped. that was Juanita Broderick. IIRC Clinton grabbed Wiley’s breasts
Thanks for correcting me on this important fact. Juanita Broderick was the woman who said she was raped by Bill Clinton. Clinton has attacked so many women, that it is easy to get the names mixed up. Juanita Broderick, Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, Elizabeth Ward Gracen, etc. One wonders how many were unable to come forward.
The real question should be: who had something to gain from setting DSK up?
Apart from half the French Government (DSK was standing for President or some damn thing) and the whole Federal Reserve (DSK was pro-removing the artificial reserve status of the dollar), I can't think of anyone.
None of us has forgotten Tawana Brawley, nor the Duke Lacrosse case. Some women seriously do cry rape where no rape has occurred, either for money or to get out of trouble.
I don't believe DSK is a moral man, and he's certainly capable of rape - but we need evidence of rape, not evidence of sex: we can't safely convict him without it.
To me Robert Blake was the ultimate, freebie murder, in plain view case.
“I think they were out to nail Strauss Kahn, but the case fell apart on them. Just an opinion, of course, but I dont think they treated him with the kind of kid gloves they would use for a Kennedy or Joe Bidens son, or that type of situation.”
The Leftists needed a scapegoat, and the head of the IMF was a golden goose. He was backed for his Presidential bid by Sarkozy, and we see how he’s getting along right now. The socialist/communist natives are restless in Europe - perhaps the ‘victim’ was influenced by societal rage against the rich as well?
Strauss-Kahn certainly is not getting away in any real sense. His career and reputation are in the toilet. I don’t think people are going to forget, and will have doubt in their minds about him from now on. It also makes him a target in the future for unsavory characters wishing to put him at risk (blackmail and such...).
I hope the case didn’t fall apart simply due to his monetary influence - I think it just fell apart FASTER because of it (unlike the Duke case, for example). JMHO.
I still think it would have to be O.J. that typifies it for me. I picked up a book by Marcia Clark really cheap at the thrift store. Her side of things is fascinating.
No doubt there have been more than a handful of REALLY evil people who have gotten away with their crimes due to having money and being famous.
Here are his political affiliations as listed in Wikipedia for him:
Born: 25 April 1949 (age 62) Neuilly-sur-Seine, France
Political party: Socialist Party (1970spresent)
affiliations: Communist Party
Interesting that Sarkozy was backing him seeing that the guy’s a socialist/communist. I hadn’t realized that before.
There's your problem.
It is not just who you know, it is who your lawyer knows.
In the early 70’s my mother was on a sequestered jury for a convenience store murder. The media had the young man as guilty as hell. Open and shut case. The only evidence the prosecution had was that the defendant was a young black man and the perpetrator was a young black man. 12 - 0, not guilty. The jury was all white.
A friend of mine suspected that his wife was cheating on him and was considering a divorce. He went and consulted with every lawyer in his county and the adjoining counties, starting with the most high priced. He did not consult with the lawyer that ran against the judge in the last election.
When she started shopping for a lawyer, all the good ones had to refuse her case because they had consulted for her soon to be ex-husband. Needless to say, he got custody and child support. Not that she ever paid any.
Can’t argue with the OJ choice, there are so many, and they go back many decades.
The powerful are usually above the law in every nation, in every century, and in every race, tribe or clan.
The middle class, straight white male is the only person held to strict legal standards.
Charles Bronson: “Death Wish”
As I recall Michael Savage never believed her story. I don’t remember if he said anything about the blood on his shirt.
Also you have to consider how often DAs with aspirations decide to go after the rich and famous with a case they’d probably ignore if it wouldn’t get their name in the paper. Like the Kobe Bryant trial, the woman admitted to multiple sex partners in between the alleged rape and going to the cops, all the word was that she was the hotel rental, if the accused was Bob from Accounting no DA takes that case. Oh but the chance to take down the big sports star... Sometimes the rich NEED the justice that they can afford.