Replies

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.)