Comments on: Counterparties http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/07/01/counterparties-389/ A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: hsvkitty http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/07/01/counterparties-389/comment-page-1/#comment-28149 Mon, 04 Jul 2011 19:18:36 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=8842#comment-28149 This woman has some very astute comments about Rape and the 2 controversial cases of late.

http://sashasaid.wordpress.com/2011/06/0 2/jury-deadlocks-on-rape-charges-despite -911-recording-of-rape/

http://sashasaid.wordpress.com/2011/07/0 2/when-rape-victims-lie/

]]>
By: hsvkitty http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/07/01/counterparties-389/comment-page-1/#comment-28148 Mon, 04 Jul 2011 15:43:28 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=8842#comment-28148 Ermm, Danny Black, good to see you are still on here to act like the banker apologist that you are! I never claimed … I said ‘possibly’ for that reason. There may be many more reasons, but that one would seem to fit and you can be darned sure it isn’t because the banks feel like being generous!

Rather than simply deriding others for their comments, why are you not giving us your reasoning for defending the banks for forgiving debt of some after having ousted so many people out of their homes, rather than give them the HAMP modifications?

“big banks are going to borrowers who are not even in default and cutting their debt or easing the mortgage terms, sometimes with no questions asked.”

]]>
By: Danny_Black http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/07/01/counterparties-389/comment-page-1/#comment-28145 Mon, 04 Jul 2011 05:56:54 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=8842#comment-28145 hsvkitty, glad to see you are still claiming articles say things that they clearly don’t.

]]>
By: hsvkitty http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/07/01/counterparties-389/comment-page-1/#comment-28140 Sun, 03 Jul 2011 22:52:52 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=8842#comment-28140 Also, in case you missed it, I said at an earlier date that banks were modifying loans that weren’t in default, possibly to clear up their bad chain of title and now there is proof it wasn’t just a few people.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/busine ss/03loans.html?_r=1

]]>
By: John_Hempton http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/07/01/counterparties-389/comment-page-1/#comment-28135 Sun, 03 Jul 2011 03:47:42 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=8842#comment-28135 The NYT reader is silly. You don’t take a criminal case as a prosecutor to decide who is credible. You do it because you as a prosecutor seriously believe that you can get a beyond reasonable doubt conviction.

To take the case now would be on the edge of prosecutorial misconduct.

If anyone goes to trial now it will be accuser for giving false statements. It would be nasty of the prosecutors to run that case – but if they do she will do time. Her story to the grand jury was later changed. She admits that. That is criminal.

John

]]>
By: hsvkitty http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/07/01/counterparties-389/comment-page-1/#comment-28134 Sun, 03 Jul 2011 03:46:49 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=8842#comment-28134 Speaking of Africa… it really hasn’t been exploited enough, so the hedgies are seeing what environmental, human and economic mayhem they can create… legally of course!

http://www.businessinsider.com/meet-the- millionaires-and-billionaires-buying-lan d-in-africa-2011-6?op=1#ixzz1Qpzs5hIS

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-1 3688683

]]>
By: bxg21 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/07/01/counterparties-389/comment-page-1/#comment-28130 Sat, 02 Jul 2011 20:22:39 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=8842#comment-28130 “Let it go to trial and let the jury decide who is more credible”

Exactly why did you include this as link and this snippet from a NYT commentator? It is because you seriously think this is clear thinking (!), or because you want to draw attention to a truly dangerous ignorance (maybe just among NYT readers – what _are_ you saying??) as to what the standard of proof is in criminal trials?

]]>
By: hsvkitty http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/07/01/counterparties-389/comment-page-1/#comment-28122 Fri, 01 Jul 2011 20:57:45 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=8842#comment-28122 Is the act less criminal now that the defense has drummed up their own dirt? We knew that power and wealth trumps a lowly maid in the eyes of most people, but in the case of rape and the justice system, that is not supposed to matter. How is any of the info on the maid material to the case going to trial?

One question I have is, if the maid was making all kinds of lucrative money elsewhere, why was she still a maid? Why did DSK lie about having sex with her, and only change his plea to consensual sex after he lawyered up and semen was found? So she will be deported and DSK will get off regardless of what may have happened? I surely hop not… a fair trial is still in order.

Does this now negate that he is a sexual predator and well proven in the past to have been one who walks away every time because of his status … and in this case it seems, his ability to pay for the best “justice” money can buy?

@theambler, exactly right.

]]>
By: theambler http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/07/01/counterparties-389/comment-page-1/#comment-28119 Fri, 01 Jul 2011 19:44:57 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=8842#comment-28119 It may be the case that no court could prove beyond reasonable doubt that DSK raped this woman, but why on earth can anybody think that a former head-of-IMF who engages in – at best – consensual tawdry sex acts with hotel maids is fit to be President of France is beyond me.

]]>
By: DarylB http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/07/01/counterparties-389/comment-page-1/#comment-28111 Fri, 01 Jul 2011 15:06:41 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=8842#comment-28111 On DSK:

1. I lack confidence in “two well-placed law enforcement officials” when it comes to cases over a well placed political appointees.
2. a. Nothing following “Although forensic tests found unambiguous evidence of a sexual encounter…” can possibly sound legitimate. b. There’s no way a 32-yr-old Guinean woman would think “any sex was consenual” between her and a 62 yr old with sex appeal approaching that of Charles Montgomery Burns.
3. There is no evidence of entrapment (how do you coerce someone to coerce someone to have sex?) Even if there were, if the victim leaves their keys in an unlocked car, stealing the car is still grand theft auto. DSK would have thought out 2.b. and suspect something was up.
4. Associations with drug dealing and money laundering, or lying on an asylum application is irrelevant. This isn’t an investigation into the housekeeper, it’s an investigation into a man with a history of sexual assault.

]]>