AP wonders: In hindsight, wasn’t it hypocritical of Letterman to mock politicians for infidelity?
posted at 9:49 pm on October 2, 2009 by Allahpundit
Why … yes. Yes, I suppose it was.
Eliot Spitzer, John Edwards and Larry Craig came in for their share of abuse, as did the governor of South Carolina. “Gov. Mark Sanford didn’t really enjoy this year’s Fourth of July. He left his favorite firecracker in Argentina,” Letterman wisecracked…
Not that Letterman falls into quite the same category of unfaithful officials who hypocritically spouted family values. After all, comedy — not moral guidance — is Letterman’s aim. And he is not facing re-election, though he did briefly fret on the air about keeping his job.
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who had a run-in with Letterman over jokes made at the expense of her teenage daughter, declined through a spokeswoman to comment on his admissions. But visitors to Palin’s Facebook page did not hold back.
One Palin supporter who posted under the name Linda Aragona wrote: “Amen! God said you will reap what you sow. Letterman tried to destroy Sarah personally and professionally. Looks like that wagging finger was turned right back on him. Who’s laughing now Dave?!!!”
Being blackmailed by an avaricious scumbag is God’s revenge on Dave? Hmmmm. In any case, Verum Serum was way ahead of this meme last night, chronicling some of Letterman’s greatest side-splitting hits at the expense of Larry Craig, David Vitter, Eliot Spitzer and others. I’m assuming he’ll skate on the hypocrisy unless the mysterious “creepy things” that he did turn out to be even creepier than what those turds were charged with doing, in which case this’ll be a source of content for months on end. Are you looking forward to post after post about Letterman’s skeevy behavior? Me neither.
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: « Previous 1 2 3 4
And the instant that one comes forward, her career, not to mention her entire life, will be completely and utterly destroyed. This is an industry, after all, that has decided that drugging and sodomizing a 13-year-old girl is perfectly normal and acceptable behavior when one of their own does it, and we have no right to object because they are the only ones with any “moral compass.”
Next to that, a scumbag has-been comedian forcing a few women to sleep with him if they want to keep their jobs is pretty tame stuff. Don’t think that message hasn’t been made well known to any woman even suspected of thinking about coming forward with her tale of harassment, along with the implied threat to her livelihood. I expect that will be sufficient to convince them to just suck it up and keep toeing the Hollywood company line.
Letterman will come out of this just fine, to the immense relief of libtards like Proud Rino, who can eagerly look forward to many more years of Dave basking in acclaim while calling Sarah Palin and her daughters sluts and whores.
Gator Country on October 3, 2009 at 11:24 AM
Well if his wife knew about the $2 million threat and didn’t object, who cares? Can we call it extortion then? Two adults signing an exclusive use contract for intellectual property– yeah that’s just what our overburdened court system needs!
Chris_Balsz on October 3, 2009 at 11:25 AM
I agree. It’s bad in that industry.
I can’t see a lawsuit emerging.
AnninCA on October 3, 2009 at 11:36 AM
He lied under oath and tried to influence another person to also lie under oath. That is perjury. Get over it.
Blake on October 3, 2009 at 11:41 AM
The former thing is not necessarily perjury, and the latter thing is most definitely not perjury.
Proud Rino on October 3, 2009 at 11:45 AM
Because one of those things (the real extortion) is illegal, and the other (Letterman making a joke he shouldn’t have made) is not. It doesn’t matter if his wife was OK with it, if it’s against the law then it’s against the law. Remember we all said that when Polanski’s victim said she didn’t care about it anymore? Remember how we used that standard then? Just a couple days ago?
Proud Rino on October 3, 2009 at 11:48 AM
Well bravo to you for looking up the statutes.
I don’t think perjury holds up because the lie has to be material – this was in the Paula Jones case – what does Clinton’s relationship with Lewinsky have to do with Jones? I assume they were trying to say that Clinton exhibited generalized “bad behavior with women” That’s almost always illegal under FRE 404(b) (the propensity box – you can’t use prior acts in a case because it will prejudice a jury), but there are exceptions under FRE 415 in civil cases predicated on sexual assault as Jones v. Clinton was, for sexual assault and child molestation.
The problem is that no one ever alleged that Clinton sexually assaulted Lewinsky. She was a willing participant. Those questions shouldn’t have been asked and by definition his answer is immaterial.
As to whether he lied – the question in the Jones deposition (BTW going from memory here so if I’m wrong, I’ll cheerfully concede) where they claimed that he lied is the one where the guy asked him “whether it was accurate that his lawyer claimed that “he was not in a sexual relationship with Lewinsky.” His lawyer *actually* said, “He *is* not in a sexual relationship with Lewinsky.”
Then Clinton answered, “It depends on your definition of is – if it means is and never was, that’s one thing. If it means that it’s still ongoing, then that’s true.”
The lawyer didn’t follow up. He didn’t ask the questions he had to ask (probably because he knew he’d lose when Clinton’s lawyers objected).
Did he lie? Maybe – I might be forgetting something.
But was Clinton’s lying or dishonesty material? To the Jones case?
Nope.
Proud Rino on October 3, 2009 at 11:57 AM
I’m not a fan of Letterman and thought the joke against Palin’s daughter was over the line. That doesn’t mean that he deserves to be blackmailed.
Proud Rino on October 3, 2009 at 11:59 AM
You think ‘fidelity’ has no set definition; how about “extortion”? You think the tort of sexual harassment is too tiresome to litigate, how about extortion? Surely we can explore the thing?
There’s a judge in the room to settle such questions. The witness, especially a deposed party, can never be allowed to give false answers on the legal theory that some other authority will probably rule the matter immaterial. Otherwise, anybody could lie under oath about anything. For instance, I could falsely swear an alibi for OJ Simpson the night he didn’t kill Nicole–he didn’t do it, his whereabouts are immaterial to the murder inquiry, so I can’t perjure myself lying about an immaterial fact.
The standard has always been to give truthful answers to stupid questions, and then, your attorney will have it struck out from consideration.
Since Clinton has sworn he testified falsely, I’m not prepared to argue with him.
Chris_Balsz on October 3, 2009 at 12:39 PM
Extortion is illegal. Being unfaithful to your spouse (drawing a broad definition of what that could mean) is not. I don’t think sexual harassment is too tiresome, I think it should be litigated most of the time it actually occurs. A boss having sex with a subordinate is not sexual harassment. That’s my point.
All the other stuff you said re: perjury looks pretty irrelevant to me. In order to prove perjury, you have to prove the false statement was material. And until you can draw the line from Clinton having a consensual sexual affair with Lewinsky as probative as to whether Clinton sexually assaulted Jones without violating the FRE, he’s still not guilty.
Proud Rino on October 3, 2009 at 12:48 PM
And if I beat you on the head with an axe and you died, I would not be guilty of murder until a jury verdict was read.
Chris_Balsz on October 3, 2009 at 12:55 PM
Look, I’m not denying that Clinton was dishonest, he was dishonest as hell, but perjury is a legal standard. You’d be guilty of murder in the eyes of God as soon as you commit the crime (really before that, but that’s a differnet discusion), but in the eyes of the law you’re not guilty of murder until a court has said so or you have confessed to it.
Proud Rino on October 3, 2009 at 12:59 PM
But I would be a murderer from the commission of the act.
Chris_Balsz on October 3, 2009 at 12:59 PM
Yeah, as a moral matter, not as a legal one. Did you not see that when I typed it the first time?
Proud Rino on October 3, 2009 at 1:05 PM
Yep and though Clinton was not convicted specifically of perjury it is a fact that he did in fact commit perjury.
Not every one who commits a crime is convicted. Not even close. The lack of a conviction does not change the reality.
CWforFreedom on October 3, 2009 at 1:21 PM
Well duh.
The *whole argument we’re having* is not that Clinton wasn’t convicted, it’s that even if he’d been tried, I don’t think he would have been convicted.
That, by the way, is a minority viewpoint – not just here, but most places. I’ll admit my view is controversial and most people don’t like it, but they can never seem to refute it.
Proud Rino on October 3, 2009 at 1:40 PM
Guess not.
Well the only real test is to put him in front of a jury and ask for a conviction.
Chris_Balsz on October 3, 2009 at 2:14 PM
As a budding young auditor preparing for my first big out of town audit, the first words of advice I got from the Partner on the job was:
“Keep your pecker out of the payroll”
Too bad letterboy never heard that sage advice, or simply chose to ignore it!!
Sweet_Thang on October 3, 2009 at 2:21 PM
Apologists are as despicable as the person committing the offense.
ultracon on October 3, 2009 at 3:03 PM
I heard it that Letterman is a plushie. He likes to wear the crotchless velcro suit during his extramarital sex romps. The possibility of being stuck in that position “heightens” the pleasure.
papertiger on October 3, 2009 at 5:40 PM
After giving up on Dave 15 years ago, all this attention, being somewhat unavoidable for someone browsing the news, is not happy. Dave was creepy before this.
bbhack on October 3, 2009 at 9:36 PM
- Robert Halderman’s address and phone number – drop him a line!
6 Renzulli Rd
Norwalk, CT 06851-4408
(203) 847-1209
nondhimmie on October 4, 2009 at 9:57 AM
Ha ha ha, what a stupid question from someone who doesn’t believe in God.
By the way, the answer is yes.
kg598301 on October 4, 2009 at 8:44 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4