Sarkozy Criticizes Polanski Arrest
“I understand that people are shocked by the gravity of the accusations against Roman Polanski,” he said.
“But I add that it is not a good administration of justice to do this 32 years after the facts when the person concerned is today 76 years old.”
Well, I’ll go along with that! I think everyone in the Los Angeles criminal justice system would have preferred to do justice on this case 32 years ago. But the defendant fled, making it impossible. Had Polanski murdered his own parents, presumably Sarkozy would say it is “not a good administration of justice” to pick on an orphan.
Meanwhile, Sarkozy defended his pedophile Minister of Culture:
Mr Sarkozy stood by his minister, a friend of his wife, Carla Bruni-Sarkzoy, saying he had “never defended sex tourism” even though he admitted paying for sex with male prostitutes in Thailand and Indonesia.
No, he never defended it. He just engaged in it. With young boys.
He also said he regretted calling defendants in a high-profile smear trial, including the former prime minister, Dominique de Villepin, “guilty” before the verdict. Mr de Villepin is accused of seeking to taint the president, who is a civil plaintiff in the Clearstream trial. “I would have been better off making (no comment) from the beginning,” he said.
Sarkozy may come to feel the same way about his Polanski comments.
If it weren’t futile, I’d send Mr. Sarkozy a message saying I equate him to being an assrapist like Polanski, like his Minister of Culture.
I’d also clue him in that Polanski ADMITTED Rape of the child and fled before his sentence. I’d ask Mr. Sarkozy if France granted get out of Jail Free cards after being on the run for a period of time, and what exactly is that period? A year, 5 years, a decade? Or is is just being an American Celebrity?
PCD (1d8b6d) — 10/16/2009 @ 7:24 amWell, you know who will some come a struttin’ around here.
Hey, hasn’t France gone after criminals many years after they committed a crime?
Eric Blair (8484db) — 10/16/2009 @ 7:30 amThat is, “…soon come a struttin’…”
Eric Blair (8484db) — 10/16/2009 @ 7:31 amThe French character
nk (df76d4) — 10/16/2009 @ 7:35 amIs exactly the same
As the surface of the Seine.
Scum.
No matter who’s leading the country at any particular moment, the French never really change, do they?
Dmac (5ddc52) — 10/16/2009 @ 7:42 amLA didn’t make any effort to get him back. But then Polanski recently petitioned the court to have the case dismissed (after his guilty plea) on grounds that they didn’t go after him.
Well Mr. Polanski, ever hear the one about let sleeping dogs lie?
Alta Bob (e8af2b) — 10/16/2009 @ 7:53 amF the Fing French. Sprechen zie deutsch??
J. Raymond Wright (d83ab3) — 10/16/2009 @ 7:54 amI love how he treats this as allegations.
And, btw, frenchy, didn’t i read that you guys refused to extradite Polanski all these years.
Btw, in the part about Dominique de Villipan, you need to make an edit. it says:
> the former prime minister, Dominique de Villepin, “guilty” before the verdict
it should say:
> the former prime minister, Dominique de Villepin (who is a man), “guilty” before the verdict
You know, just to clear things up.
A.W. (b1db52) — 10/16/2009 @ 8:02 amDominic de Villepin is an aggressively dishonest poofter that should be mocked incessantly
tJD (8ed466) — 10/16/2009 @ 8:09 amNot sure how that t got in my name, but that does not make de Villepin any less of a dishonest poofter.
JD (8ed466) — 10/16/2009 @ 8:12 am“with young boys [whom he described as ‘slaves’]”
Kevin Murphy (3c3db0) — 10/16/2009 @ 8:17 amThese politicians get involved knowing none of the facts and later regret that they opened their mouths. I expect to see Sarkozy retracting for the next two weeks. The French polls are not much different from our own.
Mike K (2cf494) — 10/16/2009 @ 8:46 amAre we framing this story as a liberal vs. conservative one? I am not sure if the official credo of the liberal is to promote underage sodomy. I wonder why this ultra-conservative communication tool is so focused on this story…
reality4life (527115) — 10/16/2009 @ 8:47 amMe, I wonder why sock-lint automatically defends child rape.
Seriously, we should all be the same boat on this one.
Eric Blair (0b61b2) — 10/16/2009 @ 8:59 amExactly right, Eric. I think most of us are in the same boat. I wonder why this site seems infatuated with picking out individuals and projecting these viewpoints as the standard for an entire ideology. Should liberals do the same with Mark Foley’s penchant for young boys?
reality4life (4a7192) — 10/16/2009 @ 9:09 amShould liberals do the same with Mark Foley’s penchant for young boys?
Comment by reality4life — 10/16/2009 @ 9:09 am
They already do. Well, at least at HuffPo and the
no one you know (7a9144) — 10/16/2009 @ 9:12 amNUT(<—-another actual Freudian typo – urrggh) NYT opinion section.Comment by no one you know — 10/16/2009 @ 9:12 am
If you think that it is inappropriate to do so, why are you participating in the exact same argument from the other side?
reality4life (4a7192) — 10/16/2009 @ 9:19 amI am not sure if the official credo of the liberal is to promote underage sodomy.
Bet there are a lot of other things you are not sure about. Such as how to tie your shoes. Maybe you can get your mommy to help you.
nk (df76d4) — 10/16/2009 @ 9:26 amTo mock, is to shame!
AD - RtR/OS! (086c92) — 10/16/2009 @ 9:28 amUnfortunately, the Left has no shame;
just as politicians must be genetically programmed to rush to the nearest TV camera to make intemperate remarks that they will be need to “walk back” when the facts come out.
If that gene could be removed from our DNA, it would probably severely limit the pool of possible politicians …
(and the downside is?-Ed).
reality – Are you comparing the assrape of a child to naughty texting, just so you can accuse a Republican? How about Studds then?
JD (a6c61b) — 10/16/2009 @ 9:30 amWhy is it that commenters that use words in their name like reality/twoofnjustice/vet/etc … inevitably show themselves to be aggressively mendoucheous partisans?
JD (a6c61b) — 10/16/2009 @ 9:35 amBecause they are on the side of “Good”, and we – the great unwashed – are on the side of “Evil”, and need to acknowledge our betters, who have these cool names.
AD - RtR/OS! (086c92) — 10/16/2009 @ 9:44 amGlass house, folks. Easy does it.
The Emperor (0c8c2c) — 10/16/2009 @ 9:54 amJust waiting for the first “NUKE FRANCE!” post to appear here.
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 10/16/2009 @ 9:55 amI think Sarkozy is safe in casting his characteristically French passive aggressive aspersions towards the U.S. justice system. There’s a steady stream of dirty socialist CNNi and Newsweek International propaganda that reinforces that message. Dirty socialist American media is the number one cheerleader of anti-Americanism in the whole world, and also the best financed. I don’t think the little French president man himself can move the dial on that.
As far as defending the little girl rapist goes, the fey little French president man doesn’t really do that so much but the Washington Post Company’s dirty socialist family of propaganda whores has put several of its business units in play – most notable of course is the Poland government’s propaganda whore Anne Applebaum who lied outright for her child raper hero on behalf of her Polish government monkey husband but also William Saletan at Slate has weighed in and Newsweek offers this fawning little gem what studiously avoids the word rape though it avers that this great great filmmaker has had something of an “untidy” life.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 10/16/2009 @ 10:11 am^assrapingchildapologist.
Dmac (5ddc52) — 10/16/2009 @ 10:13 amIf you think that it is inappropriate to do so, why are you participating in the exact same argument from the other side?
Comment by reality4life — 10/16/2009 @ 9:19 am
I do think it’s inappropriate to do so. And am not participating in that. That said, to say that the overwhelming majority of high profile people in Hollywood (Note well the qualifier: it means those who have ready access to media attention) are either out there openly defending Polanski or signing petitions (“Free Roman”!) or (what is just as bad) are silent on this matter of defending a child rapist.
Those already known as political liberals in the media are also by and large very quick to defend him. Only liberal columnist Susan Estrich comes to mind as on the correct side of this. Her takedown of him was great.
Re: Hollywood: got four names for you: Kirstie Alley, Chris Rock, Luc Besson and one other gentleman whose name I don’t recall. Everyone else seems to want him not to pay for his crime. That is a far, far cry from blaming all liberals.
IOW: if the shoe fits, I will say it fits. And I think it’s a good thing to point out, since it’s accurate, that most of high-profile Hollywood and liberal media commentators appear to be just fine with child rape that is, as long as the man doing it is really artistic, creative and urbane and all.
no one you know (7a9144) — 10/16/2009 @ 10:15 amone other gentleman whose name I don’t recall.
Now I remember. Jamie Foxx.
no one you know (7a9144) — 10/16/2009 @ 10:17 amYeah, that’s right Sarkozy – it’s not right – and where was he over all those years? Where? I demand to know.
Oh, I see – never mind.
Amphipolis (b120ce) — 10/16/2009 @ 10:17 amIn case anyone here hasn’t seen it:
“Roman the Rapist” (by liberal writer Susan Estrich)
And, reality4life, bonus: she also has a bit more documentation in there about how many of the artistes are defending a child rapist. Cause he’s such a great filmmaker and all.
no one you know (7a9144) — 10/16/2009 @ 10:28 amIsn’t that just wonderful logic?
If you get away with it long enough, it’s as if it never happened at all.
I wonder if the victim feels like it never happened at all.
Icy Texan (6fdd44) — 10/16/2009 @ 10:44 amNOYK
> “Roman the Rapist” (by liberal writer Susan Estrich)
Btw, Susan Estrich was herself raped. i read parts of her account and the interesting thing was because she was a blond white girl and her attacker was black no one believed her. they thought it was just to kill a mockingbird all over again.
Just fyi…
A.W. (b1db52) — 10/16/2009 @ 11:06 amI wonder if the victim feels like it never happened at all.
Comment by Icy Texan — 10/16/2009 @ 10:44 am
The victim forgives the crime and wants to move on. And so should we.
The Emperor (0c8c2c) — 10/16/2009 @ 11:07 am32, assrapist, you still digging deeper? You are truly stupid and incapable of taking care of yourself. The law is that he pled guilty and ran before sentencing. Therefore, when apprehended, he faces the judge for the crime he admitted to, and the crime of flight from the court.
You volunteering to be his bendover buddy in prison?
PCD (1d8b6d) — 10/16/2009 @ 11:11 amThe Empty Roar
Meanwhile you get sexual stimulated reading a 13 year old girl describe her rape and say that it isn’t real rape unless she screams and fights. so anything less than that, i guess, is permission to go ahead.
You are a poster boy for jessica’s law.
A.W. (b1db52) — 10/16/2009 @ 11:19 am34, A.W., I disagree. What lovey is a legitimate target for any parent who wishes to protect their children from rapists. I can see the Dog Turd being Ellie Nesslered.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 10/16/2009 @ 11:27 amPCD, I remember complaining online about the noxious decision in Kennedy v. La, where the supreme court said you couldn’t execute a man for raping a child. the case was horrifying. the man forcibly raped his own 8 year old daughter, and did it so violently he ruptured the separation between her anus and vagina. Sorry to disgust you, but its important to say it because according to the supreme court we are too evolved to kill that bastard.
The next day i was still bitching about the decision and down came District of Columbia v. Heller, the big gun rights case. The joke from alot of people then was, “well sure, Kennedy is an awful decision, but its kind of moot now.” 🙂
(and if you want a clear indictment of the kennedy decision think about this. our constitution clearly says the death penalty is available for treason. now when they talked about treason we all know there was one name on their minds: Benedict Arnold. Now as a good patriot I would say Arnold was the scum of the earth. But, who is worse? The defendant in Kennedy who raped his own daugher? Or Arnold? to me it is not even close.
(and if you want a deeper indictment of that decision, read Alito’s dissent. it is scathing.)
A.W. (b1db52) — 10/16/2009 @ 11:52 amThe only reason this being done 32 years after the fact is because Polanski ran away. This was the authorities opportunity to catch him. Had he stayed in the US or if the US had and extradition treaty with every country this would have been dealt with back in the 70’s.
Thomas Farrell (92f9a9) — 10/16/2009 @ 12:04 pmThe translation you quote is not really what Sarkozy said.
He stated:
“Je comprends que l’on soit choqué par la gravité des accusations contre Roman Polanski. Mais j’ajoute que ce n’est pas une bonne administration de la justice que de se prononcer 32 ans après les faits alors que l’intéressé a aujourd’hui 76 ans.”
For those who cannot read legal French, the key mistranslations is rendering “se prononcer” as “to do this”. Se prononcer means in this context “to reach a verdict”.
Combined with the first sentences reference to “accusations”, which has same meaning as in English, it is clear that Sarkozy thinks Polanksi has yet to be tried.
Sarkozy, like a lot of people in Europe, are under the misunderstanding that Polanksi never confessed. That’s a direct product of PR campaign of his handlers. So while the comment is misinformed, he does not deserve the racist rants above.
Also, Sarkozy does NOT defend Mitterand. He specifically states that Mitterand was in the wrong.
Cyrus Sanai (3b1f29) — 10/16/2009 @ 12:27 pmBtw, i will point something out that i forgot.
Remember a few months ago when it looked like Obama was checking out a girl’s behind? and it turned out she was 16?
Do you remember who else seemed to be checking her out? Sarkozy.
Just sayin’.
you can see an IMAO altered version of the pic, here.
http://www.imao.us/index.php/2009/07/lolbama-part-19/
A.W. (b1db52) — 10/16/2009 @ 1:23 pmEven after he fled, it could have been handled with dispatch if the French had been willing to extradite him.
Steven Den Beste (99cfa1) — 10/16/2009 @ 1:41 pmIt’s not just Polanski who is responsible for justice being so late… it’s France’s fault. They aided this rapist, and now blame us for their creation.
I feel sympathy for all the french children that Polanski used to satisfy his sick addiction.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 10/16/2009 @ 1:43 pmThe victim forgives the crime and wants to move on. And so should we
The dog whistle was blown, and the merry scumbag adroitly returned to fling his feces around at will. This pedophile’s probably a grade school gym coach – they love to hide in those kinds of trustworthy careers; and they’re never discovered until it’s too late.
Dmac (5ddc52) — 10/16/2009 @ 2:21 pm‘the victim forgives’
A) bullshit
B) it is a felony to flee, too.
This has escalated to the point where we need to send a very strong message to COUNTER the messages encouraging pedophiles and rapists. Society does not condone this behavior, but many monsters are quite obviously taking great encouragement from what many loud voices are saying justifies their crimes. We cannot let that go unanswered. I think this is a reasonable justification for a very harsh penalty that otherwise would be unnecessary. It’s not as though Polanski does not deserve to die in a prison.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 10/16/2009 @ 2:28 pmHey, look who’s supporting Polanski!
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 10/16/2009 @ 2:32 pmRemember a few months ago when it looked like Obama was checking out a girl’s behind? and it turned out she was 16?
Do you remember who else seemed to be checking her out? Sarkozy.
Just sayin’.
The Emperor (0c8c2c) — 10/16/2009 @ 2:33 pmComment by A.W. — 10/16/2009 @ 1:23 pm
Just saying what?
Your point being? Oh. That President Obama as well as Sarkozy are pedos? What was your point exactly? I am beginning to get tired of your pretending to be a mild and reasonable person only to be as disgusting and idiotic like most of your bedfellows. A**hole.
dude, he was joking
Dustin (bb61e3) — 10/16/2009 @ 2:35 pmThe girl didn’t scream when they looked, so clearly she was asking for it. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.
*points and laughs*
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 10/16/2009 @ 2:38 pmyou can see an IMAO altered version of the pic, here.
http://www.imao.us/index.php/2009/07/lolbama-part-19/
Comment by A.W. — 10/16/2009 @ 1:23 pm
That limp-wristed throw in the mom jeans (last picture) is priceless. What a wuss. Thanks, A.W.
nk (df76d4) — 10/16/2009 @ 2:39 pmGoodness gracious, Stash. He or she did it again:
Amazing!
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 10/16/2009 @ 2:42 pm“…your pretending to be a mild and reasonable person only to be as disgusting and idiotic ..”
(which this thing knows all about, as an openly – admitted pedophile)
Dmac (5ddc52) — 10/16/2009 @ 2:51 pmI posted the following after scrolling down the 10/11 comments….
So here is my theory, for what it is worth as a transactions (Tax) lawyer who doesn’t deal specifically with criminal law..
Comments back at #106 (see 10/11 comments CC) may be on point. I add the following, subject to correction by my associates of the criminal bar…
A judge has already said that if RP feels he was wronged, he has to show up and come directly under the court’s jurisdiction. He can then plead his case.
Let’s assume, that he has a case. (“HA”) The guilty plea is vacated. However, since he has been “on the lam” for 30 years, the court is not going to allow him to use the elasped time in his favor (aka tolling of the statute of limitations). Thus allowing the state’s attorney (or whatever they call them in CA), to refile the original charges. (Ot, oh)
The state subpoenas the deal with the victum (discoverable). I beleive any clause in the deal about testifying would be held in a civil case as
contray to public policy and unenforcable. (She gets to keep the money).
RP is now charged with RAPE, wtih Drugs. Victum is caused to testify ( and yes they can do that)as to the accuracy of her grand jury testimony, being previously entered into the court record, (or if defense wants to truly abuse her, force her to read it.)
? Was this your testimony?
Yes (If not perjury case against her)
Was it true?
Yes. ( See above)
Your witness defense….
Defense ain’t going there…..
Obviously, he is not coming back on his own.
Although coming back for sentencing on the original charge may not be so bad…
Of course he has to deal with the flight issue (separate charge).
Comment by Cheshire Cat — 10/16/2009 @ 3:29 pm
I think he is going to fight coming back here a
Cheshire Cat (14abf8) — 10/16/2009 @ 3:49 pmNo, you cannot enter your witness’s prior statement as evidence in your case in chief. It’s hearsay. Maybe to rebut a charge of recent fabrication after he has testified and been cross-examined but that’s about all.
nk (df76d4) — 10/16/2009 @ 4:03 pmAnd no
nk (df76d4) — 10/16/2009 @ 4:07 pmprosecutorlawyerhuman being will do what you suggest to the victim in this case or any other rape case.I’m glad Patterico continues to pay attention to this case, because there are grievous offenses to justice here that are worth paying attention to.
When a fugitive child rapist has such prominent people pushing for him to be treated as above the law, the truth must be restated and underlined and there ought to be mockery and push-back.
By the way, add Adam Baldwin (who Firefly and Serenity fans will know better as Jayne Cobb) to the list of the just (link). This in no way rights the moral balance for Hollywood. Adam Baldwin does not equal Harvey Weinstein, Martin Scorsese, Michael Mann, Woody Allen (inevitably) and many others. But it is to his personal credit.
David Blue (26b029) — 10/16/2009 @ 4:59 pmThat link is botched, this is the correct link: (link).
David Blue (26b029) — 10/16/2009 @ 5:01 pmAfter reading Sarkozy’s rot, it seems rather fitting his humble palace is rife with scabies.
Dana (863a65) — 10/16/2009 @ 5:10 pmOh, good Lord, Dana! Grotesque! When I was in high school, and had to go to a dermatologist for acne, they had a patient with scabies in one of the observation rooms. People went nuts with cleansers and such.
Eric Blair (0b61b2) — 10/16/2009 @ 5:20 pmI was quite disappointed to see Mann’s name on that list (he’s a homeboy) – his prior MO doesn’t seem to have indicated that he’d make public statements like this.
Dmac (5ddc52) — 10/16/2009 @ 5:44 pmThe Emporer scrawled, in penguin feces: The victim forgives the crime and wants to move on. And so should we.
— Uh, since when does the victim forgive the CRIME?
Oh, and since when does the victim have the power to void a guilty plea?
And what does the victim have to do with the unlawful flight charge?
Most importantly, Love, why do YOU want to forgive the crime?
Icy Texan (6fdd44) — 10/17/2009 @ 1:17 amWhere did this mentality of “reward the fugitive” come from? Let the child rapist go because he’s evaded justice for so many years? Let the illegal alien become legal because he’s evaded INS for so long? Overlook the presidential candidate’s mentor, an unrepentent domestic terrorist, because the bombs went off so long ago? But if someone makes up a racist quote and attributes it to Limbaugh the left goes insane with self-righteous rage and blocks him from a business opportunity. Liberal values are completely backwards.
Crusty (2fb454) — 10/17/2009 @ 4:42 amPatterico
Did you see that Polanski has been taken from jail to deal with health issues. It was not clear that he was still in custody.
Cheshire
No, you can’t just rely on previous testimony. But she can’t really back out of it now, if the DA wants to get hard on her.
So either its down to 1) did you have sex and 2) were you 13? Or if she denies part 1, then the grand jury testimony becomes evidence of perjury.
And will they force her to testify? Actually I have seen it done, but sparingly. I mean its not like she is a little girl anymore. Maybe when the crime happened they wouldn’t have forced her to testify but no longer.
Finally, I wouldn’t assume that Polanski’s lawyers won’t go after her in a cruel way. it happens all the time these days.
A.W. (b1db52) — 10/19/2009 @ 6:16 amObviously, Sarkosy does not give a crap that a majority of the french are NOT in favor of supporting Polanski. A majority of french also know that there is no time limitation concerning the rape of a child.
I have also seen news here in france (I live in France) that says that Sarkosy called Obama concerning Polanski. All I can say, is that unlike France (in which Sarkosy seems to be establishing his monarchy), we do not have a monarchy in the United States and Obama cannot pardon Polanski. And thank God for that!
Nancy Paris (425720) — 10/20/2009 @ 2:36 amSo Sarkozy is actually criticizing another country’s administration of justice. Unfortunately, this exhibits a lack of good judgment on his part. Most importantly, he does not seem to care that a majority of french are in favor of Polanski’s return to the US. He should have just taken a neutral position but I suppose Sarkozy prefers to side with the ‘non-philistines’ group of elite creme de la creme who think the law does not apply to them.
Nancy Paris (425720) — 10/21/2009 @ 2:23 am