Video: Whoopi says Polanski didn’t commit “rape-rape”

posted at 9:30 am on September 29, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

How low will Hollywood go in defending Roman Polanski? Former Oscar hostess Whoopi Goldberg tries to parse the meaning of rape between rape and something called “rape-rape” — which, if you read the testimony of Polanski’s victim, Polanski literally did by raping her and then sodomizing her. Goldberg tries to argue that Polanski pled guilty to statutory rape, not actual rape, which is true, and that he served a sentence — which is absolutely false:

Tommy Christopher can hardly believe this argument:

What I find much more disturbing is that, in that clip and another one that’s posted at Jezebel, the ladies of The View engage in some terrifying “debate” about what happened to then-13-year-old Samantha Geimer. Whoopi floats the notion that rape “wasn’t the allegation,” and that the victim “was aware,” and Melissa Gilbert thinks it makes a difference that “Mom was in the building.”

What the EFF? I hate to even point out the sickeningly obvious here. First of all, “rape-rape” was the allegation. Samantha Geimer testified that she told Polanski “No!” While Polanski denies this, he loses a couple of credibility points by drugging and sodomizing a 13 year old girl. I’d say she gets the benefit of the doubt here.

Notwithstanding that, though, is that the standard of consent now, “She was aware?” Keep an eye on your drinks, ladies, because in Whoopi’s world, the right dose of rohypnol will leave you just conscious enough to have deserved it.

Although Polanski got a deal in which the counts of actual rape and sodomy got dropped, the victim’s testimony makes clear that Polanski did both, and it wasn’t consensual at all. He drugged his victim to make her more compliant, and then forced himself on her twice despite her protestations. Whoopi wants to focus on the age of the victim and the reduced charge for the plea agreement to make it into a Lolita situation, perhaps where the girl and her mother stalked Polanski, rather than a violent rape and sodomy.

I’m curious how other Hollywood feminists see this. Debra Winger defended Polanski yesterday and demanded that the US drop the charges, after many years of feminist complaints from Winger about the Hollywood system. She doesn’t appear to apply her standards and values to a male director who victimized a child trying to break into the business, but Winger will gas on for hours about how older women get mistreated by Hollywood. This seems to be a big credibility test for Hollywood, one which they are flunking — badly.

Not everyone has flunked it, however. Washington Post’s reliable liberal voice Eugene Robinson contradicts Anne Applebaum (who absurdly claimed not to know that her husband was pushing for Polanski’s release and the withdrawal of the arrest warrant) and wonders what the hell is wrong with Polanski’s defenders:

Polanski has dual French-Polish citizenship, and officials in Paris and Warsaw are outraged. Which makes me outraged. What’s their beef? That Polanski is 76? That he makes great movies? That he only fled to escape what might well have been an unjust sentence? Sorry, mes amis, but none of this matters. If you decide to become a fugitive, you accept the risk that someday you might get caught.

Much has been made of the fact that Polanski’s victim, now 45, has said she no longer feels any anger toward him and does not want to see him jailed. But it’s irrelevant what the victim thinks and feels as a grown woman. What’s important is what she thought and felt at age 13, when the crime was committed. Those who argue that there’s something unjust about Polanski’s arrest are essentially accepting his argument that it’s possible for a 13-year-old girl, under the influence of alcohol and drugs, to “consent” to sex with a man in his 40s. Or maybe his defenders are saying that drugging and raping a child is simply not such a big deal.

As far as I’m concerned, it’s a huge deal. Even in France, it should be a big deal. This isn’t about a genius who is being hounded for flouting society’s hidebound conventions. It’s about a rich and powerful man who used his fame and position to assault — in every sense, to violate — an innocent child.

And it’s about a man who ran away rather than face the consequences of his actions. Before any sentence could be imposed, he absconded like a weasel to live a princely life in France.

Only a moron or a moral midget would read the transcripts and the actual facts of the case and conclude that Polanski deserves to avoid accountability for this crime. Unfortunately, Hollywood is filled with both.

Update: Jazz Shaw notes that both Goldberg and Winger are active in a certain kind of charity work:

I did some quick checking at “Look to the Stars” which promotes charitable work by celebrities, and Debra Winger is listed as one of their most prominent advocates for women’s issues charities. And what is the fourth most prominently championed organization there? The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence. And who else is listed as a key supporter on the same page? Why, it’s none other than Whoopi Goldberg, whose profile includes the following:

The comedienne has channeled her celebrity into bringing attention to countless causes including AIDS, children’s issues, healthcare and substance abuse.

So, Ms. Winger and Ms. Goldberg are both prominent activists in the protection of females and children. Unless, of course, the female child in question crosses paths with the great Roman Polanski, in which case, well… you know… we understand they’re all kind of whores at that age, right?

Apparently that’s the message coming from Hollywood feminists and defenders of children like Goldberg and Winger.

Update: As for the argument that the judge was going to unfairly renege on Polanski’s plea bargain, Michael Stickings has the most sensible answer for that:

If the case was politically motivated or mishandled … let the evidence be presented in a court of law, not in the faux court of the pro-celebrity press.

Exactly.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 6

(OT, apropos the media covering up crimes by their favorite celebrities: …
RD on September 29, 2009 at 9:50 AM

There, fixed it.

RD on September 29, 2009 at 9:58 AM

Even if she’d been dancing naked in front of him and saying “c’mon, do me” it wouldn’t matter. Thirteen-year olds are legally incapable of consenting to sex with adults — and no sentient adult should need to have that explained to him.

This is a problem. In muslim communities, this is why the woman is blamed. It is terrible to blame the woman. . . but to suggest that a sexy 13 year old (there are some WELL developed 13 year olds) asking for sex would be the worst crime possible completely misunderstands human nature.

Guys like sex. The whole ‘to catch a predator’ thing is based on this premise. Even if an underaged girl begs you to come over and have sex with her, you are required to deny your natural urges and say no – or you break the law.

Thirteen year old girls in this day and age are perfectly capable of making decisions about what they want and don’t want. . . look at their shopping habits.

ThackerAgency on September 29, 2009 at 9:58 AM

CapedConservative on September 29, 2009 at 9:57 AM

CapedConservative 2012!

mankai on September 29, 2009 at 9:58 AM

[ThackerAgency on September 29, 2009 at 9:50 AM]

She can’t drop the charges, can she? The charges are by the state after she had made the accusation and gave a deposition.

She might be able to recant, but still I doubt that would annul the charges as it is statutory, right?

And if you argument is applicable, can all rapists awaiting sentencing, and, possibly, all those in jail, too, go free if only the victims “drop the charges”?

Dusty on September 29, 2009 at 9:59 AM

Guys like sex. The whole ‘to catch a predator’ thing is based on this premise. Even if an underaged girl begs you to come over and have sex with her, you are required to deny your natural urges and say no – or you break the law.

Yes and that’s EXACTLY how it should be.

mankai on September 29, 2009 at 9:59 AM

I used to dislike Whoopi less.

ElectricPhase on September 29, 2009 at 10:00 AM

How apropos – I see Whoopi is on a google ad here on Hot Air right on the same post. Google – I know your liberal, but that was bad timing.

Christian Conservative on September 29, 2009 at 10:00 AM

Or does this only apply to popular film directors? It’s all so confusing. Does the left publish a flow chart or something that explains how all their inconsistencies work?

RadClown on September 29, 2009 at 9:53 AM

There are no inconsistencies. It is a liberal so it is OK. I can’t imagine what the cry would be if a conservative drugged and sodomized a 13year old. Most likely they would ask for Bush to stand trial for crimes against humanity or something.

RagTag on September 29, 2009 at 10:00 AM

I have some degree of hope that Whoopi is just misinformed about what actually happened, and will come around once she hears more about this.

At least I’m clinging to that hope right now.

RD on September 29, 2009 at 10:00 AM

HALF-PINT didn’t turn out too well.

cat-scratch on September 29, 2009 at 9:47 AM

Imagine if Pa had been their that night. Polanski would have been beat sensless by Pa and Mr. Edwards. Actually, wasn’t there an episode about this very topic, and the perp got shot at the end?

caygeon on September 29, 2009 at 10:00 AM

There’s a special place in hell for Whoopi Goldberg.

RightWinged on September 29, 2009 at 10:01 AM

Thirteen year old girls in this day and age are perfectly capable of making decisions about what they want and don’t want. . . look at their shopping habits.

Being capable of making decisions doesn’t mean they have the right judgment to make those decisions.

Or to endure the consequences – as adults do – of making those decisions.

This is why we have age of consent laws. Or hold minors to different standards in criminal matters than adults. Or don’t allow 12 year old to vote.

Surely you know this?

SteveMG on September 29, 2009 at 10:03 AM

Polanski is an artist – an artist can’t commit a crime by expressing himself. He operates in another world. We just don’t understand.

JeffinOrlando on September 29, 2009 at 10:03 AM

I’d like to repeat what I said on Sunday’s thread about this. This story lets me know who the posters are that I will never find reasonable, and I remember everything. If you can find anything acceptable in the excuses for the crime, the criminal or his apologists you are scum of the lowest kind.

thomasaur on September 29, 2009 at 10:03 AM

There’s a special place in hell for Whoopi Goldberg.

RightWinged on September 29, 2009 at 10:01 AM

Too late…. Obama selected her for Children’s Czar.

CC

CapedConservative on September 29, 2009 at 10:04 AM

There are enough crimes going on today and enough violent criminals in AMERICA that are let out of jail early because of a lack of funds. Let’s let this guy remain in exile, banned from the US, and move on with our lives.

ThackerAgency on September 29, 2009 at 9:50 AM

They interviews Polanski’s agent on the Today show, and Matt Lauer mentioned that the arrest may have come as a result of Polanski’s lawyers attempting to get the rape charges against Roman completely thrown out earlier this year. If that’s the case, then it’s a matter of the director attempting to completely alter the record by seeking to exonerate himself from ever having committed rape at all (despite the guilty plea) and the Los Angeles County prosecutor’s office pushing back with a stepped up effort towards extradition.

So basically he brought it on himself by trying to get off scot-free, which would then allowe to visit the United States again and bask in the glow of Hollywood adulation without fear of prosecution (and while Roman’s lawyers may have thought in the Age of Obama, it was OK to try and pull off this stunt because the Justice Department only cares if Roman interrogated Gitmo detainees to harshly, they forgot Los Angeles County voters elected a Republican D.A. in the wake of the O.J. foul-ups and other botched trials in the 1990s who wasn’t going to be as forgiving).

jon1979 on September 29, 2009 at 10:04 AM

Do these creatures not have children of their own?

How would they feel if THEIR daughter was the victim of this monster?

God helpus, we live in a coutry with a bunch of soulless, amoral individuals.

Elizabetty on September 29, 2009 at 10:04 AM

I’m not going to watch the vid, so could someone tell me how the audience reacted?

Dusty on September 29, 2009 at 10:04 AM

ThackerAgency on September 29, 2009 at 9:58 AM

I don’t agree with you all that often…but COME ON!!!

Even YOU can’t possibly be saying a 13 year-old can honestly consent to sex…you actually seem to be saying it’s not even all that bad!

*facepalm*

JetBoy on September 29, 2009 at 10:04 AM

Again, if Polanski were instead a 76 year-old man in Alabama, Michigan or Washington State, would he have been forgiven so easily? You know the answer, folks. He’d be put in jail for the rest of his life because one, it was illegal and two, he evaded authorities to escape punishment. However, he’s a Hollywood director and you “know” that “intellectuals” must be judged less harshly because their brains and hearts are slightly larger than most.

pjean on September 29, 2009 at 10:04 AM

During a trip to Okinawa, Japan, for the G8 Summit in 2000, Parker Aab, who was then 26, claims Bill Clinton summoned her to his hotel room, escorted her onto the balcony and gave her a hug that she says lingered just a little too long to be paternal. As the only girl in a boys’ club, the young aide writes that she was terrified of where the hug might lead, but managed to maintain her composure as Clinton said he’d always admired her.

Bubba wasn’t the only reportedly touchy-feely guy Parker Aab encountered in the White House. She insists that Clinton pal and adviser Vernon Jordan kissed her not once but twice while he was married.

Whoppi would have us believe that she was asking for it.

J_Crater on September 29, 2009 at 10:05 AM

Didn’t a lot of (non-molesting) Catholic Bishops get in lots of trouble for displaying just this kind of indifference to the molestation of minors? They didn’t molest themselves, but they minimized the importance of evil acts done by others, for public relations purposes, and their personal convenience.

RBMN on September 29, 2009 at 10:06 AM

God helpus, we live in a coutry with a bunch of soulless, amoral individuals lawyers.

Elizabetty on September 29, 2009 at 10:04 AM

FIFY

CC

CapedConservative on September 29, 2009 at 10:06 AM

Only a moron or a moral midget

Well there’s your answer. And these (according to them) are intelligent and ‘sophisticated’ people.

GarandFan on September 29, 2009 at 10:06 AM

I wonder if the libs would be supporting him if the 13 yr old was Obama’s oldest daughter?

justsam65 on September 29, 2009 at 10:07 AM

Yet another reason why I’ve never watched The View. What repugnant gasbags!

NebCon on September 29, 2009 at 10:07 AM

Do these creatures not have children of their own?

How would they feel if THEIR daughter was the victim of this monster?

God helpus, we live in a coutry with a bunch of soulless, amoral individuals.

Elizabetty on September 29, 2009 at 10:04 AM

Back in college, I had some not close friends who’s parents, in an attempt to be “cool” did drugs with their kids. I’m sure some of these blithering idiots would want their kids “to explore their sexuality” even at age 13. It is all part of the current fad of moral relativism.

rbj on September 29, 2009 at 10:08 AM

How I love the semantics of the liberal left!

Rape-Rape?

That’s like saying it’s possible to be a little bit pregnant!

pilamaye on September 29, 2009 at 10:08 AM

Polanski should be thankrull he wasn’t caught soliciting an adult in an airport toilet stall rather than raping a drugged thirtenn year old. Then the media would have bee n all over him.

AcidReflux on September 29, 2009 at 10:08 AM

rape. bring ‘em to the Commonwealth of Virginia. we’ve got some juries who would treat ‘em right.

kelley in virginia on September 29, 2009 at 10:09 AM

Someone needs to reel in those dish rag ho’s on the veiw, they throw thier own sorry arse opinions out there and a lot of stupid people believe them. they gulp koolaid by the gallon and when there heads explode it’s gonna make a mess…

SHARPTOOTH on September 29, 2009 at 10:10 AM

This reminds me of the Onion article on how the media was having a hard time spinning Obama’s double muder.

Here it is

Hey, he’s a liberal like us so we will defend him to the death even if he rapes 13 year olds or feeds babies to crocodiles.

Moral Relativism, folks! The Hallmark of all leftist ideology.

Spectreman on September 29, 2009 at 10:11 AM

Whoopi is a notorious pothead(not that there’s anything wrong with that)and I think Polanski is a closet Nazi.But I could have my degenerate film makers mixed up.Besides the fact that Whoopi probably hasn’t had sex since Carter’s administration,I think she’s a little jealous.

inevitable on September 29, 2009 at 10:11 AM

Whoopi: Polanski did not commit “rape-rape.”

Whoopi you needed to stay at the Holiday Inn Express before taping the show.

mwbri on September 29, 2009 at 10:12 AM

Even if she’d been dancing naked in front of him and saying “c’mon, do me” it wouldn’t matter. Thirteen-year olds are legally incapable of consenting to sex with adults

Bingo. It’s a strict-liability offense. And though it’s not relevant here, the Tender Years Doctrine would apply. The name of the doctrine is relevant, IMO. I remember a case in Crim Pro where the thirteen year old invited older men to a trailer where she lived outside her parents’ home — I know, right, the worst parents ever: rape-rape, rape-rape.

The facts in this case are nothing like that. If this victim had been an of-age woman it would still be rape.

Beagle on September 29, 2009 at 10:12 AM

Let’s see, the “smartest people” in the room think this is not RAPE-RAPE:

(via Hot Air.)
Monday, Sept. 28, 2009 06:29 PDT
Reminder: Roman Polanski raped a child
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/09/28/polanski_arrest/

Roman Polanski raped a child. Let’s just start right there, because that’s the detail that tends to get neglected when we start discussing whether it was fair for the bail-jumping director to be arrested at age 76,

Before we discuss how awesome his movies are or what the now-deceased judge did wrong at his trial, let’s take a moment to recall that according to the victim’s grand jury testimony, Roman Polanski instructed her to get into a jacuzzi naked, refused to take her home when she begged to go, began kissing her even though she said no and asked him to stop; performed cunnilingus on her as she said no and asked him to stop; put his penis in her vagina as she said no and asked him to stop; asked if he could penetrate her anally, to which she replied, “No,” then went ahead and did it anyway, until he had an orgasm.

When are people in this country going to quit holding idiots like this in Hollywood up to such high status.

Taking international and domestic advice from hollywood makes about as much sense as going to Charles Manson for family counseling.

Liberals and their groups like NOW don’t give a dam# about the rights or advancement of real women.They only care about the advancement of liberal ideology.

Look no further than there defense of weak,lying,and cheating men like Clinton and Edwards.

Look no further than their silence in the bigoted,misogynistic,and hateful treatment of Sarah Palin and Condeleza Rice.

Pathetic.

Baxter Greene on September 29, 2009 at 10:13 AM

RBMN on September 29, 2009 at 10:06 AM

Excellent point.

caygeon on September 29, 2009 at 10:14 AM

Does this mean feminism is dead? Oh, never mind, I just realized the double-standard is alive and real.

gwelf on September 29, 2009 at 10:14 AM

when stupidity is finally made painful like it should be, she will be one of the first victims.

gsherin on September 29, 2009 at 10:14 AM

One should not benefit by committing a crime. Failure to appear in court is a crime. That he managed to elude the authorities for so many years, is not mitigation. That he did not rape any more kids, is not mitigation in that everyone is expected to not rape kids. That he made a film about the holocaust, is not mitigation, even if it wasn’t how he makes his living, was a business decision, and he was paid millions of dollars for doing it.

Blake on September 29, 2009 at 10:15 AM

Whoopi is living proof that money cannot buy class.

Poway on September 29, 2009 at 10:15 AM

I think Polanski is a closet Nazi.But I could have my degenerate film makers mixed up.

Polanski is a Jew and a concentration camp survivor. His parents were also sent to the camps; his mother died there, his father survived, IIRC. Polanski is a lot of disgusting things, but he’s not a Nazi.

AZCoyote on September 29, 2009 at 10:16 AM

The excuse BY women regarding the rape of a 13 year old girl, is why I’ll never understand women.

Jeff from WI on September 29, 2009 at 9:47 AM

There you go again, Jeff. These aren’t “women.” I’d tell you what they are, but I’d have to use a word “seldom heard outside of the kennel.” – Clare Boothe Luce

But I understand your confusion. Seems our friend Hollywood has promoted this odious, yapping behaviour for decades…

Real woman are outraged that this child predator escaped, has lived with acceptance in luxury, and is now being defended by the glitterati.

Real woman are disgusted with the amoral delusions of such canine commentators like Whoopi.

Real woman are simply not cool.

itsacookbook on September 29, 2009 at 10:16 AM

tomasaur
On Sunday I commented that as an abuse survivor myself I thought that what Polanski was horrible.
I also said that it had been 32 years and the now woman had forgiven him so prosecuting him at this time wouldn’t serve justice.

I didn’t not know all the facts of the case when I posted.
I do now-and I was wrong.

annoyinglittletwerp on September 29, 2009 at 10:16 AM

Even if she’d been dancing naked in front of him and saying “c’mon, do me” it wouldn’t matter. Thirteen-year olds are legally incapable of consenting to sex with adults — and no sentient adult should need to have that explained to him.

True, but most folks would make a distinction between a 13-year-old devirginized sex addict who was hounding an older boy/man for sex and a girl/woman of any age who was tied down and violated in multiple ways against her will — regardless of what statutory law says. IMHO this goes to the question of what the appropriate sentence should be.

And having said that, liberals and leftists are apt to defend Polanski w/o having heard the facts merely because they perceive the “law-and-order nutballs” as conflating the two scenarios as being of equal “moral turpitude”, which is not necessarily the same thing as evil OR criminal intent, and thus don’t trust them to make careful distinctions (fairly or otherwise).

In this case, however, there is no need to go down that road because the facts of the case are so clear. That’s why I have hope for Whoopi on this issue, long-term.

RD on September 29, 2009 at 10:17 AM

Whoopi is a star, so that makes her an authority on rape and everything else. So, you peons should just shut up and worship at the alter of Herr Polanski, or learn to speak French or Italian or some other European language.

Johan Klaus on September 29, 2009 at 10:17 AM

the victim has dropped the charges.
ThackerAgency on September 29, 2009 at 9:50 AM

Irrelevant. Polanski pleaded guilty to a lesser charge and skipped the country prior to sentencing.

ya2daup on September 29, 2009 at 10:17 AM

“She was aware”? This 13 year old kid was given Quaaludes and booze! Does anyone remember Quaaludes? Trust me, drop one of those, wash it down with a beer and you wouldn’t know or care if the Elephant Man was raping you.

RadClown on September 29, 2009 at 10:19 AM

Mary Kay Letourneau and Vili Fualaau were * consensual* and she was convicted of rape and served time. He has even sought her out, and married her. But it was STILL rape!

I don’t care if the 13 year old wanted to have sex with Polanski, it is illegal! Whoopi was making me sick with her arguments. Just because she was sexing it up all over town at 13 doesn’t mean this 13 year old girl was not raped by a 44 year old man, who drugged her. And what the hell was up with Gilbert’s excuses? Is she trying to get a movie role? Blaming the mother? Was the mother there? No, she wasn’t – Polanski drove the girl home.

Not only did Polanski rape her, but he FLED. That in itself is a crime! Wow, just because he makes good movies, we should let it go?

Considering they think Ted Kennedy should be let off the hook because he worked in Congress, it figures they would side with Polanski.

sarainitaly on September 29, 2009 at 10:20 AM

B..uh…uhm, but…uhm… we….uh, well…buh…but…uh, uhm uhm….bu….uhhhh…..

Sean Penn was unreachable for comment

Let’s face it. The woman doesn’t want to testify again because she doesn’t want to relive it again! She was tortured once and now she doesn’t want to be tortured again by being forced to remember what was obviously a horrible experience! I don’t blame her a bit for that!

On the other hand, he should be granted a deep dark cell with Bubba as his room-mate so he can feel what he forced her to feel! Then he should be hung by his testes upside down! THEN he should go to prison for the rest of his life!!! Filthy pervert!!!

Vntnrse on September 29, 2009 at 10:20 AM

So Whoopi believes it wasn’t rape rape. But what might she say if the 13 year old girl was black? I don’t mean black black though. Would that have made a difference? I don’t mean a real difference difference. Ok so she was white white, but maybe not too smart smart, but very young young and naive naive. This still means that Polansky is a pedophile. Not a pedophile pedophile…just the pervert pervert type. So perhaps after escaping his fate for 30+ years he should still go to jail jail.

Nalea on September 29, 2009 at 10:21 AM

D2Boston on September 29, 2009 at 9:41 AM

Thank you.

ladyingray on September 29, 2009 at 9:55 AM

Thank you and God bless your sister and niece.

becki51758 on September 29, 2009 at 10:22 AM

RadClown on September 29, 2009 at 10:19 AM

Hey, he’s not an animal!

sarainitaly on September 29, 2009 at 10:22 AM

Is anyone really surprised? Hollywood and libs have a sick fascination and fixation on sexualizing children as early as elementary school for petes sake.
And Whoopis remark;
“would I want my 14 year old to have sex? Not necessarily, no. “
Wow, I mean just wow. Degeneracy, before our very eyes.

And where are the Womans grps on this? NO means NO , right..oh wait…

imperator on September 29, 2009 at 10:25 AM

RD:

I have some degree of hope that Whoopi is just misinformed about what actually happened, and will come around once she hears more about this.

Of course this is what happened. At the beginning of the clip, she says:

“I’m not sure, it was something else, but I don’t believe it was rape-rape. And when we get all the information someone will tell me (unintelligible)”

It is obvious that she does not know the facts, and she is admitting she doesn’t. Later, when another “View” member is saying:

“He gave her qualudes. He gave her champagne. She was drugged…”

Whoopi at the same time is saying:

“They were having sex beforehand”

This is clearly wrong, but it is what she believed at the time. Whoopi thought it was consentual sex, which is why she said it wasn’t “rape-rape”. Most people do draw a distinction between consentual sex with a minor and forceable rape. Whoopi is guilty of talking without knowing all the facts, but not really, because she admitted that she didn’t know the facts. This is blown way the hell out of proportion. I guess it’s just a good opportunity for conservatives to whine at Hollywood.

“Only a moron or a moral midget would read the transcripts and the actual facts of the case and conclude that Polanski deserves to avoid accountability for this crime.”

-Ed

If Whoopi actually does this (reads the transcripts and finds out the facts) and then repeats what she said, then I will be outraged. As it stands, this story is pretty meaningless.

dave742 on September 29, 2009 at 10:26 AM

They are tying to imply that there is some nefarious reason that they are only arresting him now. They have been trying to arrest him for over 30 years. There are complicated procedures that must be followed. It’s not like the movies where they just kidnap or have another country arrest him.

Actors and leftards are stupid.

Blake on September 29, 2009 at 10:26 AM

RD on September 29, 2009 at 10:17 AM
Girl and woman are not synonymous. Neither are boy and man.

Johan Klaus on September 29, 2009 at 10:26 AM

WW2 ended over 50 years ago and the Jewish community is still hunting down Germans that worked in concentration camps and getting them deported to Germany to face war crime trials. Polanski’s crime was over 30 years ago and we should expect no less of him doing time for his crime then we do the former German Concentration camp guard.

The Hollywood bunch are idiots, I find it facinating how they attack conservatives and the average American but how they rally around the nutjobs, commies and libs. The Hollywood elite aren’t very elite and apparently not too bright either.

Broomy on September 29, 2009 at 10:26 AM

he victim has dropped the charges.

The only thing that could possibly come from this is vengeance. That and it wastes time and money – TAXPAYER money.

There are enough crimes going on today and enough violent criminals in AMERICA that are let out of jail early because of a lack of funds. Let’s let this guy remain in exile, banned from the US, and move on with our lives.

ThackerAgency on September 29, 2009 at 9:50 AM

The victim can’t drop the charges, he was already tried and convicted…plus, even if he wasn’t convicted the victim can’t drop the charges, not once the state files suit.
It isn’t “vengeance” it is paying your debt to society. You are telling us that if you escape imprisonment, then you should be able to live free in another country, un punished.
That’s a good lesson, if convicted, flee, and thacker then considers you a fugitive, but wants you to live your life.
That is quite an unusual system of justice….catch me if you can.
He raped and sodomized a 13 year old girl…and has lived a life of luxury, even capitalizing upon it. He is a hero to all who want to beat the system…and apparently you think that is okay, or at least not pursuing.

right2bright on September 29, 2009 at 10:26 AM

the victim has dropped the charges.
ThackerAgency on September 29, 2009 at 9:50 AM

In a felony case the victim is not required to press charges for a prosecution to take place, murder victims can’t press charges. Victims are not even needed as witnesses in all cases. The State of California was the Plaintiff and Polanski was the Defendant. He pleaded guilty of the crime and resulted in his conviction. He skipped his sentencing thereby making him a felon for a second time.

thomasaur on September 29, 2009 at 10:27 AM

Maybe from now on we should only capture 13 yr. old female terrorists. Assassinate all others.

Griz on September 29, 2009 at 9:46 AM

Identifying a terrorist in the field and terminating/neutralizing/expiring/executing/killing them, is not assassination.

The best part is no more brides == no more terrorists (at least within one generation)

Blacksmith8 on September 29, 2009 at 10:27 AM

sarainitaly on September 29, 2009 at 10:20 AM

VERY good point.

Diane on September 29, 2009 at 10:27 AM

What the hell is happening to liberals in this country? You would think child exploitation would be one thing all members of society could oppose- If we can agree on nothing else. But now we have two instances where prominent liberals in hollywood and the media are embracing this sickness. ACORN and Polanski.

tflst5 on September 29, 2009 at 10:28 AM

The depravity of liberalism knows no bounds.

angryed on September 29, 2009 at 10:29 AM

Thacker – Eating is more fundamental to man than sex. If I put the most delightful, wonderful food down in front of you, told you it was full of arsenic, then proceeded to tell you to ignore the poison because the food was so delicious, would you eat it?

Just as I would expect someone to be able to avoid food they know is poisoned, I would also expect them to be able to avoid sex they know is illegal.

To have self control over the one urge because you think you might die but not over the other at least indicates that it is not that you can’t control yourself. It’s that you choose not to control yourself because you believe the consequences aren’t thar severe.

JadeNYU on September 29, 2009 at 10:29 AM

AZCoyote on September 29, 2009 at 10:16 AM

Between his history and Sharon Tates murder, he should have stayed to receive his sentencing. He might have been granted leniency because his wife was murdered, and of his past…. He could have served his time and been done with this YEARS ago. He chose to run, like a coward, and now deserves to finish his punishment.

Now that he is old as dirt, and lived a luxurious life, I’d say he got off virtually scott free.

Maybe we should start a campaign to get Bernie Madoff off? He’s paid his dues, hasn’t he? He’s old…I’m sure all those rich people in Hollywood who got screwed by him won’t care.

After all, they consensually gave him their money.

sarainitaly on September 29, 2009 at 10:29 AM

Whenever I watch a clip from “The View” I feel like I need to wash my hands afterward.

Whoopi Goldberg is one of the most appalling people on the planet — truly grotesque.

cruadin on September 29, 2009 at 10:29 AM

A 13 year old can’t legally consent to sex, but her mom can consent for her, so that makes it OK
/Whoopi

agmartin on September 29, 2009 at 10:30 AM

Whoopi: “The 13 year old girl acted stupidly.”

LibTired on September 29, 2009 at 10:31 AM

Ah, for the good old days, when sewer rats like Polanski were dragged out by the city fathers and disposed of appropriately. Never to be heard of again

But now we’re “civilized” and perverts who rape little girls stay wealthy and get support groups of other millionaires.

How far we’ve “progressed”.

I’m quite sure this is not the only girl Polanski raped, probably only one of dozens. A sick piece of garbage like him, probably offed a few of them as well.

But he’s an “artist”. Making crappy films that impress other morally and intellectually bankrupt perverts. Whoopie.

NoDonkey on September 29, 2009 at 10:34 AM

Let me get Hollywood in perspective…you can’t waterboard a suspected terrorist with information that could save thousands of lives…but you can rape a 13 year old girl and be called a hero and be honored.
Convict a waterboarder, and honor a rapist…I think I have got it now.

right2bright on September 29, 2009 at 10:35 AM

If Whoopi actually does this (reads the transcripts and finds out the facts) and then repeats what she said, then I will be outraged. As it stands, this story is pretty meaningless.

dave742 on September 29, 2009 at 10:26 AM

No. If she is going to open her fat trap about it on national television, it is her duty to know the facts. And if by some reason she was mistaken, it is her duty to correct her mistake and apologize. I doubt she will change her opinion because the meme is that Polanski is the victim.

Blake on September 29, 2009 at 10:35 AM

Whoopi: “The 13 year old girl acted stupidly.”

LibTired on September 29, 2009 at 10:31 AM

That is the definition of every 13 year old…by definition they act stupid, which is why we are called adults and they children.

right2bright on September 29, 2009 at 10:36 AM

If you have a strong stomach, I’d suggest you read the grand jury testimony of the victim in this case. If the victim had been an of-age college girl there’s little doubt Polanski would have been convicted.

Polanski lured her by claiming to take semi-nude and nude ‘fashion’ photographs which would appear in “European Vogue.” He drugged her with alcohol and very powerful sedative. Every time she tried to leave he made some excuse and didn’t allow her to go home. He had her call her mother and lie about what was going on. He secluded her from help. He raped her repeatedly despite her multiple statements she didn’t want to have sex. Not that the ‘consent’ of a drugged tender years girl would have any legal effect whatsoever. And the victim repeatedly testified that she was afraid of Polanski, a much older man.

Those are the facts in evidence based on her testimony. The perpetrator fled rather than risk trial and have the right to cross-examine the witness. You can argue the facts if you’d like some law professor to point at you and laugh.

It’s rape-rape-rape in any case of any woman of any age.

Beagle on September 29, 2009 at 10:37 AM

the victim has dropped the charges.
ThackerAgency on September 29, 2009 at 9:50 AM

Irrelevant. Polanski pleaded guilty to a lesser charge and skipped the country prior to sentencing.

ya2daup on September 29, 2009 at 10:17 AM

Even if he hadn’t pled guilty, the DA can still pursue charges no matter what the victim says. Especially when we’re talking about someone who was 13 at the time.

Prosecutors have a duty to uphold the law as a general matter that goes beyond any one case or victim. There’s a larger issue of the credibility of the criminal justice system at work here.

RadClown on September 29, 2009 at 10:37 AM

Newsflash, Whoopi.

HE PLEADED GUILTY OF RAPE. RAPE OF A 13-YEAR OLD.

That’s “rape” spelled “R A P E.”

Now tell us all what horrible people we are for condemning him and for not advocating he skate.

We’re listening.

Good Lt on September 29, 2009 at 10:37 AM

Think about it people, we just had a media circus for several days straight when a pedophile died. Our congress had a moment of silence and our president made a comment. Liberals are disgusting people with no morals and no common decency. There is no crime disgusting enough to get ostracized in Hollywood. I don’t care how old he is, he raped a child. There is no way to minimize or spin the fact. He deserves to serve out the rest of his life in prison.

TXMomof3 on September 29, 2009 at 10:38 AM

Apparently “No means no” isn’t binding if you’re a famous movie director.

Kasper Hauser on September 29, 2009 at 10:38 AM

Whoopi is guilty of talking without knowing all the facts, but not really, because she admitted that she didn’t know the facts. “

dave742 on September 29, 2009 at 10:26 AM

It sounds a little bit like, you know, Obama.

Johan Klaus on September 29, 2009 at 10:38 AM

A 13 year old can’t legally consent to sex, but her mom can consent for her, so that makes it OK
/Whoopi

agmartin on September 29, 2009 at 10:30 AM

So the ACORN set up was okay, because in theory the underage girls being used for prostitution is okay because their mom thinks it is okay…gee, I get enlightened by these liberals everyday.

right2bright on September 29, 2009 at 10:38 AM

Blake:

No. If she is going to open her fat trap about it on national television, it is her duty to know the facts.

But it’s not really her duty. This is a talk show. People talk without knowing the facts all the time in much worse venues than a talk show. It’s called the news.

dave742 on September 29, 2009 at 10:38 AM

Klaus:

It sounds a little bit like, you know, Obama.

Yes. And just about every other politician as well.

dave742 on September 29, 2009 at 10:40 AM

I thought it was mentioned that he’s MARRIED. Some woman married a guy that raped a 13 year old??

Women, your gender is SICK!

Jeff from WI on September 29, 2009 at 9:54 AM

What is wrong with you? By that logic I guess since you are a man like Polanski, you are a pervert & a rapist. I know you’re just trying to stir the pot but you could at least try to do it by saying something intelligent.

kg598301 on September 29, 2009 at 10:40 AM

Mother in the building? No, according to grand jury testimony.

Polanski committed rape-rape-rape.

Sorry, Whoopi, from now on you are a pedophile enabler. Sister Act is tainted, and is going on the shelf forever.

unclesmrgol on September 29, 2009 at 10:41 AM

Eh….in the legalistic world, exactly what does “sodomy” mean?

pseudonominus on September 29, 2009 at 10:41 AM

Unsurprisingly, quite a few lefties (Hollywood types to boot) have a soft spot for Charles Manson who was convicted of the murder of Sharon Tate (actress) wife of – Roman Polanski.

deadman on September 29, 2009 at 10:43 AM

right2bright on September 29, 2009 at 10:35 AM

gawd, no kidding… idiots.
i wish they would just shut their mouths… they are ruining movies for me.

sarainitaly on September 29, 2009 at 10:44 AM

Ummmm, not only was it “rape-rape”, but it was “rape-rape” of a child.

applebutter on September 29, 2009 at 10:44 AM

Women, your gender is SICK!

Jeff from WI on September 29, 2009 at 9:54 AM

Why are you married?

right2bright on September 29, 2009 at 10:45 AM

pseudonominus on September 29, 2009 at 10:41 AM

anal intercourse

sarainitaly on September 29, 2009 at 10:45 AM

Whoopie Goldberg, do us all a favor; chamber a round into a .38 snub nose revolver; place the end with the hole in it in your open mouth; pull the trigger…

Fuzzlenutter on September 29, 2009 at 10:47 AM

Republican congressman sending sexually explicit instant messages teenage boys:
huge scandal

Liberal Hollywood director raping 13 year old:
sweep under rug

agmartin on September 29, 2009 at 10:47 AM

If a man said what Whoopi is saying, he’d be run out of his job and polite society, with good reason. It’s like she’s minimizing the rape not in spite of, but because, the victim was under-age. Whoopi, get your head out of your ass.

evergreen on September 29, 2009 at 10:47 AM

Liberals choose money over morality. Don’t ever let a Lib tell you they’re not a capitalist. Own it Liberal because here comes Alinsky:

RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. (Apparently liberal handbook says its A-OK for powerful financial and propaganda contributers to drug and sodomize 13 yr. old girls.)

RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.”

Socmodfiscon on September 29, 2009 at 10:48 AM

Michael Jackson was unavailable for comment…
Maybe I just hit on it accidentally…there was a Hollywood void, and Polanski was asked to fill it.

right2bright on September 29, 2009 at 10:48 AM

This is priceless. Polanski runs to France and lives (with government collusion) for 30 years. He makes films. He shows at Cannes for an annual fist bump. The weirdsters give him an Oscar. Then one sunny day his assistant and travel agent forget about “outstanding warrants” and he flies to Switzerland. He steps off the plane and two polite uniforms arrest, cuff, take him away. Our government didn’t think he was important enough to bribe the French to return him. The Swiss didn’t even ask for a tip.
 
If anybody cares, there’s a personal assistant seeking new employment. Apparently their memory only works for 29 years.

Blacksmith8 on September 29, 2009 at 10:49 AM

sarainitaly:

anal intercourse

Not in the US:

http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/sodomy/

dave742 on September 29, 2009 at 10:49 AM

Liberal women, supposedly feminists, hate other women, especially the younger ones, even children whom they consider competition. “Feminist” must not mean what we think it means, because I never see these hags standing up for women’s rights except the right to abort a baby.

It’s sad that Samantha Geimer feels like she must apologize for what happened to her at 13. She seems to have adopted Hollyweird’s POV that she was lucky to have been raped by Polanski and that was the closest she would get to fame.

alliebobbitt on September 29, 2009 at 10:49 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 6