Posted on 10/05/2009 2:57:14 PM PDT by Zakeet
Gerald Shargel, the lawyer for alleged David Letterman extortionist Robert Halderman, says Letterman is a "master at manipulation"-- and hinted there's more to the sordid story, which Letterman bared on national TV last week.
"So to think that David Letterman gave the entire story, and there's nothing more to be said, it's simply wrong," Shargel told Ann Curry on this morning's "Today" show.
Shargel, who made the rounds on the morning news shows, was on to defend Halderman, a "48 Hours" producer who's accused of attempting to shake Letterman down for $2 million -- or else go public with Letterman's sexual dalliances with female "Late Show" staffers.
He pleaded not guilty Friday in Manhattan to attempted first-degree grand larceny.
Letterman revealed the bombshell plot on last Thursday's "Late Show," admitting that, "I have had sex with women who work for me on this show." Letterman also referred to himself as "creepy" when detailing Halderman's alleged extortion plot, which started when Letterman said he found a package on the back seat of his car.
"You know what? David give his side of the story," Shargel said, alluding to Halderman's version. "David Letterman said what he wanted the public to know, he wanted to get out ahead of the story, and that's exactly what he did.
"He's a master at manipulating audiences, that's what he does for a living," Shargel said.
Shargel said the charge against his client is “so obviously out of character to the point of not making any sense.”
"Here's a guy who is an Emmy Award-winning journalist, who has dealt with cops and wiretaps and undercover investigations virtually his entire life," Shargel said on CBS's "The Early Show."
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Great photo of Lettermanto to accompany this article.
Gottta admire some photographers.
“Freedom to Roam”, priceless.
I think David Letterman is headed for the Dan Rather Wing of the CBS Hall of Fame.
There’s got to be more to the story - else it would have been a pretty boring screenplay. Aging funnyman uses his power to lure up and coming production staff into bed - that ain’t a screenplay IMHO. There’s got to be a twist of some kind.
Good point. But, that was probably more a function of Edward's own hubris, rather than some function of criminal wrong-doing. From what I gather, it's not extortion that is presumably going to be alleged by the feds in that case. I believe the issue there is a misappropriation of campaign funds.
In any case, Hunter's receipt of those funds aren't illegal per se, so long as either it was claimed income, or the gift tax was paid on her behalf.
In this case, the money alone - especially in such a traceable form as a check - would be powerful evidence of extortion - which you might think a guy who covers crimes for a living might recognize.
The fat lady has yet to sing
As a matter of fact, there might be a whole choir of singing fat ladies.
There’s nothing like VD between former partners.
LOL!!!. Maybe the extortionist has them too ....now?
I was surprised to read that most of letterman’s viewers were women, with an average age of 55. I always figured his idiot audience was all stoned college kids. I hope this brings down both letterman and CBS.
Nope. CBS's big problem is that one of its investigative journalists is in the frame for blackmail. CBS needs to cut him loose fast. That means standing by Letterman.
Well it involves Dave so that is already a given.
I made that very observation to a group of Letterman fans on USA Today yesterday.
Could be, but that is a big lose-lose of the _BS network.
Letterman is hardly what one wants in a network standard-bearer at this point.
CBS might do well to dump both of them and let them fight it out in the courts for decades.
Funny, this guy is trying to divert attention from the fact his client may be guilty of extortion by claiming Letterman is trying to divert attention.
Say what you will about David Letterman, but it seems to me that an awful lot of people around here are more interested in bashing one television comedian (I know, I know: in his case "television comedian" rather sounds like "promiscuous celibate," though he still does have his occasional moments) than in contending with the fact that a crime was committed against him. I'll go far enough to suggest that had he not uncorked that rather grotesque gag about Sarah Palin and her family, even many of those who despise him otherwise around here might jump to his defence against his blackmailer/extorter.
And without acquitting him even once for cheating on his then-girlfriend (so far, it seems most of his, shall we say, liaisons occurred before he married her), would it not be refreshing to remind ourselves about the CBS guy who upended another CBS guy's plot against him---if you'll pardon my doing it Top Ten style, as I did, in fact, on my own radio show Monday night . . .
Number Ten: He may be a mean-spirited jerk but you don’t have the right to blackmail even a mean-spirited jerk, says the law. (And isn’t Don Imus calling our man at CBS a mean-spirited jerk somewhat comparable to Pol Pot calling Adolf Hitler a mass murderer?)
Number Nine: He pretty much got it consensually, believe it . . . or not. (As you say elsewhere, Bob, can't have a complaint without a plaintiff---and, by the way, has anyone noticed that Letterman chose to be somewhat discreet and leave the ladies' names out of it but at least two of them have come forward and disclosed themselves?)
Number Eight: No one’s accused him of implying job insecurity in return for just saying no . . . including the former liaison whose next boyfriend’s accused of trying to blackmail him in the first place.
Number Seven: He didn’t belch up the usual mealymouth non-denying denials and non-confessional confessions. Not on television and not to a grand jury.
Number Six: He didn’t have the unmitigated gall to suggest it all depended on what your meaning of the word “is” was.
Number Five: He wasn’t on the taxpayer’s time or dime, trying to plan the invasion of a Third World country, or trying to mismanage New York state affairs, while getting his horn honked in the studio foyer.
Number Four: Speaking of grand juries, he didn’t commit perjury, suborn perjury, obstruct justice, or beat the rap thanks to a sound asleep Senate or board of directors.
Number Three: He didn’t try blackmailing his former liaisons to keep quiet or else, either.
Number Two: By his own admission, what he did was creepy. That’s a lot more candid than his usual targets for similar creepiness tend to admit.
And, the number one thing to remember about the CBS guy who upended another CBS guy’s blackmail plot against him . . .
Refer to Numbers One through Nine.
(The malaprop was inadvertent---what my script actually said was, "Refer to Numbers Ten through Two." I cringed after it came out of my mouth . . . but my board operator had her hands over her mouth so her laughter wouldn't go out over the air, and a few listeners let me know they thought it was funny as it was, so I quit worrying about it. And so far, nobody's wanted to have me drawn and quartered for defending Letterman. I usually stay away from these devices on my own show---I like to think I'm doing something somewhat original, namely low-keyed humour that aims between your ears and not between your legs---but in context I thought it appropriate, though I'm sure I'm not the only one who's done it in any routine addressing Letterman's current contretemps.)
When you don’t have the law or facts on your side, pound the table.Some of the pounding is getting voluminous enough that, if you were passing by, you'd have thought you'd stumbled inadvertently into a rehearsal for tribal tympanists.
I don’t like Letterman but I also don’t like extortionists and smarmy attorneys. In this case I’m going to have to side with Letterman, as painful as that may be.My auld acquaintance, you surely don't need me to remind you that there come times when we are compelled to defend the indefensible, or at least the distasteful, simply because the law and propriety (not necessarily in that order) require it.
I say again: Even a sleazebag is entitled not to be blackmailed or extorted. The law is not, or ought not to be, merely our plaything with which to beat someone merely because we despise him. (Or her.)
Clearly a crime was committed against him. That is so clear that the outcome is really not in doubt. That's why people don't talk about it much.
It's boring.
Speculating on the crimes that Letterman may have committed at least give people something to talk about beyond "well, I guess that blackmailer will sure go to jail. Yep. That's fer sure. I agree. He sure broke the law that time, didn't he? Yep. Yep. Sure did..."
Speculating on the crimes that Letterman may have committed at least give people something to talk about beyond "well, I guess that blackmailer will sure go to jail. Yep. That's fer sure. I agree. He sure broke the law that time, didn't he? Yep. Yep. Sure did..."
Well, there come times when giving people something to talk about is inappropriate enough. This seems to be one of those times, until or unless any of Letterman's former paramours come forward and, rather than saying they were his former paramours (I think two and maybe a third have done so, though I could be wrong about the third), even one of them says he did indeed do something along the line of actual sexual harassment and files a legal complaint against him---as another poster notes, can't have a plaintiff without a complaint.
Until there's a bona fide complaint with bona fide evidence to back it up, speculation on any crime anybody merely thinks David Letterman committed gives nothing but a scratch on the prurient itch, which says manifestly more against the speculators than against Letterman.
You might as well ask the ocean to stop being wet. People will talk and gossip and ain't nothin' gonna stop it.
It's also covered under that quickly-vanishing "free speech" thingy.
It doesn't bother me anywhere near as much as it seems to bother you for some reason.
You might as well ask the ocean to stop being wet. People will talk and gossip and ain't nothin' gonna stop it.
It doesn't mean I have to agree with the practise. Manifestly it says more against the gossips than it ever will against you or me.
It's also covered under that quickly-vanishing "free speech" thingy.
And so is my right to demur from that sort of gossip and enunciate my objection thereto; or, to decide there's something very inappropriate about speculating over crimes that haven't yet been committed or, as in this instance, suggested by way of bona fide legal complaints with bona fide evidence to support them. I didn't call for a law to stop such conversation---nor would I---but I think there's nothing to prevent you or me from deciding for ourselves, and saying aloud if we wish, that such conversation is indeed inappropriate absent the condition I noted above.
It doesn't bother me anywhere near as much as it seems to bother you for some reason.
I've never had any taste for gossip. And, more important, I have no taste for aiding and abetting the smearing of anyone's reputation, such as it is, without bona fide evidence. That sort of thing does bother me. And it should bother anyone with any sense of decency, due diligence, or, yes, due process.
Show me the evidence that Letterman committed any bona fide crime and I'll be the first one to condemn him. In these pages and on the air.
Until then, let's not deny that anyone (myself included) has an equivalent right to demur from gossip and, so long as it's being hoisted on a very public forum, object to such gossip just as forthrightly (not necessarily along my lines, of course) as has anyone, however wrong, to indulge and practise such gossip.
Absolutely. You are well within your rights. :0)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.