David Letterman Reveals Blackmail Plot, Sex With Female Staffers to Late Show Audience

Astounding? That Letterman enjoyed sexual relations with some in his staff? The only news here is the blackmail part. Other than that, we don’t know what kind of relationship Dave had with his long-time girlfriend. For all we know it could have been an open non-monogamous one. Regardless, no shock here. Whatever happened was obviously consensual, and frankly none of our business. Dave never claimed to be some paragon of virtue so I really don’t see what the big deal is.

I watched last night and found it awkward how the audience kept laughing while he was trying to explain what was going on. I know they were completely in the dark and might have assumed it was building up to a big punch line. Still, it was uncomfortable, and it was very obvious that Dave was under distress having to share something so personal and upsetting.

What was most frightening to me was the fact that Dave went out to his car in the morning, only to find a package in the back seat. After the stalker/kidnap incidents, why does the man not have better security? How in the world was someone able to get inside his car??

Anyway, the blackmailer has been caught and will be punished. But, what about Dave? When you’re the boss, can’t having sex with an underling, even if it’s consensual, be considered sexual harrassment?

Why would anyone care about Letterman’s sexual affairs? He’s just a comedian.

I don’t even know what to say about this…except that Dave *did* set this up to be a big romp, until near the end, when he comes clean and admits that he was in the wrong. So how could the audience feel or reacta? And was this the appropriate place to sort of make a confession? Bizarre indeed.

Note to Idols: DO NOT go onto Letterman’s show for a while.

ETA: Sunn, Letterman is a comedian with millions of people who watch his show every night. He’s not just some Joe in a small nightclub.

It’s only harassment if the ladies complain. They may have wanted to have sex with him for one reason or another. (Like having your law school paid for) Anyway he was not married and he is a normal guy. No big shock here. I don’t think anyone thought he was a celibate.

He’s doing the right thing by being up front. It sucks to be his wife right now, but it’s better than John Edwards and his cover up attempts.

I wonder if the other late night hosts will joke about this.

Anyways, I think America will forgive him.

So who cares? He is a comedian who hosts a talk show. Give me a break. He was single, he had no children, the women did not object. Big deal.

ETA: David Letterman was not married when he had these affairs, his did not have a wife.

I think Dave will be fine. His core audience is quite devoted and hardly puritanical. It was private business that never should have been forced out into the open.

It would seem to be only sexual harrassment if the women involved felt harrassed or coerced into a relationship with him for fear of losing their jobs, pay, or opportunities. Not enough information yet.

Again, I think Dave will be fine. He’s a master of making himself the butt of a joke. Unless he actually committed a crime, the public will move on.

Are they not all sleeping with their surbodinates?. I wonder what Bill Clinton, John Edwards ,ex NY gov and all those disgraced politicians wld say cos they have been the subject of letterman’s jokes for ages.

And of course greed rares it’s ugly head . u wld think $2m was nothing to the 48hrs producer. unless he did it 4 revenge. this cld be a movie soon. lol

So Letterman slept around before he got married?
And none of the women accused him of sexual harassment?
And he paid his ex-lover’s way through law school?
So America’s supposed to forgive him for … what, exactly?
In the spectrum of indiscretions by those in the public eye, this falls under “not particularly interesting.”

The blackmailing part is noteworthy though. I’m curious, was Birkitt part of it? Or was she also a victim of Halderman?

Letterman should have heeded the advice the character played by Olympia Dukakis gave the John Mahoney character in the movie Moonstruck (1987): “Don’t s**t where you eat!”

The blackmailing part is noteworthy though. I’m curious, was Birkitt part of it? Or was she also a victim of Halderman?

I’m wondering the same thing. She’s his girlfriend, right? Somehow he got access to the “proof” so I think she knew something about it. Who knows.

And of course greed rares it’s ugly head . u wld think $2m was nothing to the 48hrs producer. unless he did it 4 revenge. this cld be a movie soon. lol

I think you’re confusing a “producer” with an “exeuctive producer”. If the job is the one I’m thinking of, it’s probably not very highly paid. He’s works his butt off to pull segments together, in collaboration with the on-air reporter and subjects.

Why would anyone care about Letterman’s infidelities? He’s just a comedian.

Totally the whole point….

He hasn’t betrayed the public trust since no one elected him to his position, we aren’t his wife or family so it doesn’t affect us. I think this guy has had enough! Hopefully, like with Hugh Grant, it will just go away.

Back in the 80′s, Letterman was the victim of a psycho stalker who eventually killed himself.

Small correction MJ, his female stalker was Margaret Ray.

http://www.tvacres.com/fans_david.htm

It really is strange when you think about the wackos who have tried to victimize Dave over the years, and I include Sarah Palin in that group.

I’m wondering the same thing. She’s his girlfriend, right? Somehow he got access to the ‘proof’  so I think she knew something about it. Who knows.

It’s quite possible she didn’t know anything about it. Maybe Halderman found some incriminating emails. Or maybe he had a private investigator follow them.

Either way, in addition to being pissed, he got greedy.

Of course, she may have been in on it, too, I just doubt it. Dave seemed to be trying to get ahead of the story by getting all of the relevant details out. If that were true (and Dave knew it), he probably would have said so last night.

I just watched it. The guy turned it into a comedy skit. apparently there’s nothing wrong with what he did. it was business as usual.

How do u guys know these affairs ( he said women so i am assuming there are more) have ended. He didn’t give the timeline so for all we know it happened after he was married.

Astounding?

Yeah, the blackmail, the tv story telling, the outing himself. I found it astounding. The sex part, not so much.

What I do kind of like about the way Dave handled it is 1, Dave could certainly afford 2 million without blinking. He could have tried to pay the guy off and hoped it would go away, but 2, Dave was at least smart enough to know it wasn’t goin away. Might as well face it head on. Admit the indiscretions and lock up the crook. And I do genuinely think Dave was motivated, in the end, because he was scared for his family, namely his son. People are crazy. Anyone in such a high profile position at the same network who would attempt to extort money from him might go to scarier extremes.

becausehelives, we don’t know if they have or haven’t and frankly, it’s none of our business. He didn’t betray me. If he and his family sort it out, it’s between them. Well, that’s how it should have been anyway.

So Letterman slept around before he got married?
And none of the women accused him of sexual harassment?
And he paid his ex-lover’s way through law school?
So America’s supposed to forgive him for ‘ ¦ what, exactly?

There’s probably more than that . we don’t have the whole story. The guy obviously thought he had 2m worth of dirty info so until they leak contents of the package he found in his car we can’t say how bad it was. I really don’t think if it was a normal girlfriend/ boyfriend relationship there wld be a reason for black mail. it’s probably pictures with him all tied up or something like that.

@halfie u are right I was thinking executive producer (powers that be type). my bad.

There’s absolutely no evidence that Birkitt was “in on it,” or she would be in handcuffs too. It does seem likely that she knew about the screenplay and book, but there’s nothing illegal about that.

Letterman had to say something about it because of the extortion plot, but what is between consenting adults really, really isn’t any of our business. I hope this blows over soon.

Letterman, forced to reveal personal business here, really is a victim.

Letterman is a victim…REALLY? , LOL. I wonder if his long-time girlfriend knew of these affairs. I wonder if sexual harassment does come into play here. IMO, sex in exchange for college tuition could be considered a form of prostitution. Like Clinton, he did it because……he can.

What was most frightening to me was the fact that Dave went out to his car in the morning, only to find a package in the back seat. After the stalker/kidnap incidents, why does the man not have better security? How in the world was someone able to get inside his car??

And why the hell wouldn’t you call the bomb squad?

Personally, I think Dave handled it masterfully. The only problem is that people are going to want details and they won’t stop until they get them. So as much as he’d like it to, this story isn’t going away anytime soon.

Dave has always struck me as an odd duck and a bit of a loner. He’s allegedly had long term relationships that have lasted far longer than most marriages, yet he’s never been able to commit until recently when he somewhat impulsively married the mother of his only child. I have to believe these outside relationships overlapped his current one with his (now) wife, since he’s been with her a long time. Seemingly he’s just not a monogamous kind of guy and he knew his limitations. Still, he’s committed no crime here and these folks are all adults (as far as we know).

I watched last night and found it awkward how the audience kept laughing while he was trying to explain what was going on. I know they were completely in the dark and might have assumed it was building up to a big punch line. Still, it was uncomfortable, and it was very obvious that Dave was under distress having to share something so personal and upsetting.

He set it up from the beginning so that the audience would laugh. His delivery and the way he started talking about the oddity of finding a package in his car at 6am. The audience reacted exactly the way he wanted. They were unified with him from the get go and that helped him tell his story with some dark humor rather than going for the woe is me option.

I think “Mr. 48 Hours Producer” overestimated what he had on Letterman and Letterman’s desire to keep it quiet at any cost. First sleeping with women, even those who work for you, isn’t a scandal if it is consensual. Happens all the time. Second, I read in another article that this stuff took place primarily pre-marriage and even pre-birth of child. Whether that is accurate or not we may never know and it’s not my business anyway. The guy is basically going to get a jail sentence for trying to blackmail a guy over some not-so-embarrassing things, especially compared to some of the celeb scandals that are out there right now.

Personally, I think Dave handled it masterfully. The only problem is that people are going to want details and they won’t stop until they get them. So as much as he’d like it to, this story isn’t going away anytime soon.

Rumors about Letterman’s office romances are not new. There’s been several, apparently, and the hunt will be on by TMZ and their ilk to out the others. It really sucks.

And I agree–Dave really knows how to spin a tale. He kept the audience on his side.

When you’re the boss, can’t having sex with an underling, even if it’s consensual, be considered sexual harrassment?

Yes.

CBS is now exposed to massive lawsuits for workplace coercion from any of these women, espeically with a long pattern of behavior.

I don’t know if Letterman will be able to keep his job. This is very serious. When you are in a boss position in a workplace, you don’t even think about it. Totally off-limits. All the staffer has to do is say that you implied future promotions, etc. You’re dead.

I don’t know if Letterman will be able to keep his job

You and I probably couldn’t, but I’ll bet Dave does. He’s too valuable to CBS to cut loose. (Although I’m sure they’re running the NPV calcuations on expected settlements as we speak, just to be sure he’s still profitable).

I don’t know if Letterman will be able to keep his job. This is very serious. When you are in a boss position in a workplace, you don’t even think about it. Totally off-limits. All the staffer has to do is say that you implied future promotions, etc. You’re dead.

Thing is, nobody has complained. And his current wife used to be one of his staffers so the network is well aware of it. Yes, it COULD open them up to a sexual harassment lawsuit but it appears, given how many years this has gone on, that the women don’t have an axe to grind with him.

I am amazed that anyone would even suggest that Dave would be fired for this. The affair ended in 2003 and the extortionist is the boyfriend of the woman involved. Dave had just come from testifying in front of a grand jury when he told the audience last night. Call me crazy but extortion and threats of bodily harm to the man and his family trumps consensual sex. Also note that the woman involved was horrified at what her boyfriend had tried to do. She never intended to file sexual harrassment charges or she would have done it already.

Why did Letterman call it creepy? I don’t get that unless the workers were under the age of consent then that is creepy then throw the book at him. If they are mature consenting adults…then who cares? I’m sure Carson, Leno and whoever have had sex with staffers. It’s no big deal in Hollywood.

Call me crazy but extortion and threats of bodily harm to the man and his family trumps consensual sex.

But the issue, as hwc presented it, is whether CBS has to fear sexual harrassment suits int the future, not whether Dave was the victim in this.

CBS will do some math, as follows:

++ % Odds of harrassment suits for past behavior
++ % Odds of harrassment suits for future behavior (and this one is CRITICAL. Even if Dave is a very good boy from here on out, having this case public gives any plaintiff evidence that CBS was aware of his past behavior. They wouldn’t have to prove it anymore.
++ Expected settlement or judgment amounts from any suits.
++ % Odds of losing ad revenue (probably low)

== Expected “new cost” of keeping Dave

Measure that against the profit his show brings in and it’s simply a numbers game. If he’s expected to be profitable, they keep him. If they expect the costs to eat up too much profit, he’s either gone or has to take a pay cut to stay.

Also note that the woman involved was horrified at what her boyfriend had tried to do. She never intended to file sexual harrassment charges or she would have done it already.

Yeah, with the law degree that he apparently paid for … if I’m understanding this correctly. Makes me wonder. Did that happen before or after? If after, it looks too much like a quid pro quo and — however innocent — looks like payback rather than just the generosity of a dear friend. Either way, these people seem to have no common sense. Lucky for them, *that’s* not necessarily illegal.

His whole attitude about the whole thing really irked me. He was just like “Ooo yeah, some big scandal! I had sex!!! Wowww.” it’s like, alright.. you’re not really supposed to boink several of your female staff when you’re the boss… and you’ve been with the same woman since 1986… Oh yeah, no big deal.

I hope that someone goes on Conan and says “Wow, you have much more integrity than other talk show hosts at this time.” (if you don’t get it, julia roberts said to letterman that he was much funnier than any other host at that timeslot.)

Conan would never do that. Or I hope Conan cracks some jokes about it.. if it was anyone other than Letterman, they would…

I told my husband years ago that Letterman was having an affiar with Birkitt. I could tell by the way he found her so completely amusing, seemed so delighted with everything she said, and put her on the air so much when she wasn’t really all that entertaining to most of us.

I could just tell.

BTW, Letterman will be fine from all of this.

Why did Letterman call it creepy?

To mock the lack of creepiness in the whole thing.

Conan would never do that.

You know this how?

ETA: NVM, I think I misunderstood what you were saying Conan would never do.

The audience laughing throughout was very bizarre to me. Watching it, I never felt he was telling a joke and if they thought he was building to one … I wasn’t getting it.

Letterman’s dating or affairs with co-workers doesn’t seem that big a deal unless there is strict policy at CBS against that. But given Julie Chen married her boss Les Moonves, somehow I don’t think Dave is in any danger of getting the axe. It seems pretty commonplace and especially in entertainment. Having an affair while he’s married would bug me, but nothing points to that.

This is definitely career suicide for Joe Halderman, who has won an Emmy in the past, and very likely for his girlfriend whose diaries are the source for the extortion attempt.

“I’m sure Carson, Leno and whoever have had sex with staffers. It’s no big deal in Hollywood.”

I agree. Good to know he is a normal guy. lol Not a big deal. I can even bet it’s good for his image AND ratings. Let’s wait and see.

You know this how?

ETA: NVM, I think I misunderstood what you were saying Conan would never do.

No, I think you got it right. I know we don’t know him, but I don’t think he would screw a female employee. At least not while he was involved with someone. That’s just terrible.

No, I think you got it right. I know we don’t know him, but I don’t think he would screw a female employee. At least not while he was involved with someone. That’s just terrible.

Ok, then. I don’t know Conan either, but even if I *did* know him, I wouldn’t go too far in predicting such behavior. I’ve known too many people who have had affairs and yet who seemed otherwise beyond reproach to make this guess.

Humans do all kinds of things. Sex is the least surprising of them.

Letterman fans will recognize Birkitt’“she’s been featured over the years in many of the show’s on-air bits. Apparently Letterman paid Birkitt’s law school tuition.

OMG! This was who I immediately thought of when I watched his little speech last night!

Other than the extortion…this is real life. Many affairs tend to happen between co-workers and this doesn’t preclude boss and employee. And sexual harrasment isn’t cut and dried, it isn’t easy to prove and unless these “women” have spoken to someone before now and insinuated that something inappropriate was occuring there won’t be any sexual harrasment issues now.

Also, having a “sugar daddy” is not considered prostitution in the State of New York whether any of the individuals are married or not.

The only crime here has been handled by the AGs office and the instigator of the crime will be punished. Everyone else is a victim and should be treated as such regardless of the “moral” values that society puts on the participants. And I don’t think that David’s contract contains a morals clause so CBS isn’t about to terminate his contract over this incident…and anything regarding the women is totally supposition and shouldn’t factor into anything.

By the way, Letterman met his wife while she was a staffer on his show…

Also note that the woman involved was horrified at what her boyfriend had tried to do.

mdegraffen where have you read anything about Birkitt’s reaction? I’ve read a few articles today and haven’t seen anything about that.

Why did Letterman call it creepy? I don’t get that unless the workers were under the age of consent then that is creepy then throw the book at him. If they are mature consenting adults’ ¦then who cares?

I think he was just trying to cushion the blow of admitting to the affairs on national television, knowing that many if not most viewers would be taken aback by the news. But I agree it was a poor choice of words. I don’t think I’d be too pleased about him calling sex with me “creepy” if I was one of the women.

Actually, I wonder why he chose to say “I had sex with staffers” rather than “I had intimate relations” or some similar euphemism. It made the whole thing sound more sordid than it needed to.

ETA: I’ve found the source mdegraffen was referring to:

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2009/10/exclusive-details-woman-center-letterman-extortion-plot

It really is strange when you think about the wackos who have tried to victimize Dave over the years, and I include Sarah Palin in that group.

Sorry I just happen to think jokes about sex with underaged girls is about the poorest taste there is. I think I’d be upset if my children were joked about like this. I know I’m nobody, but understand a mother’s instinct.

Any, hey, I like Letterman!

I guess this situation isn’t such a biggie, but I agree with the poster who said it was uncomfortable to watch. I knew what was coming because it was mentioned on the news beforehand so I watched pretty closely to see how he’d handle it. It was just strange.

And yes, I think he’ll be readily forgiven.

It’s crazy but sometimes it seems like women are the biggest *proponents* of sexual harassment.

Letterman is/was in a position of authority over subordinates and misused that position to leverage sexual favors.

How is that not horrendous and evil?

‘I’m sure Carson, Leno and whoever have had sex with staffers. It’s no big deal in Hollywood.’ 

Well I guess if rape and murder were commonplace in hollywood we should just go ahead and make that ok too. We should just write exceptions into the law for anyone famous as the normal rules shouldn’t apply.

What he did was *wrong*. It doesn’t matter if his victims were complicit in it, he should bear responsibility for his actions.

The blackmailer was in the wrong too, and deserves the handcuffs, but old Dave is acting like it’s no big deal. FAIL. It is a big deal, and no matter how many women he trots out who are willing to sell out every other woman on the planet by giggling and acting like it’s completely socially acceptable will not change the fact. He is a scumbag, through and through, and seems completely unrepentant about it.

I don’t know what legal action can be taken against him, but I don’t particularly care. I don’t believe in boycotts or demanding that someone be fired, but I’m happy to vote with my remote. Letterman’s giant ugly face will no longer be gracing my tv screen, ever. I’ll happily change the channel or switch off.

What a scumbag.

“It really is strange when you think about the wackos who have tried to victimize Dave over the years, and I include Sarah Palin in that group.”

Wow, I didn’t see this before I posted… but wow. Regardless of your politics, I would think we could all agree that sexually suggestive attacks against underage girls should be in the ‘no don’t do that’ category. But I guess not.

It’s just really really hard for me to see the viewpoint of anyone who would support Letterman’s classless sexually suggestive barb directed against an underage girl who wasn’t even present, over the understandably defensive response of *her mother*. But maybe I’m just crazy.

Oh for Christ sakes..it is only sex and unless the women come forward and that THEY were blackmailed or coerced then what is the big deal?

Glad he sdealt with this head on and there is no doubt in my mind he will be easily forgiven.

He’s sharp and he’s funny and a breath of fresh air, with his snarky wit, nice change from a lot of conservative hypocritical rants I hear on TV.

Sorry I just happen to think jokes about sex with underaged girls is about the poorest taste there is. I think I’d be upset if my children were joked about like this. I know I’m nobody, but understand a mother’s instinct.

coolcricket I really didn’t mean to instigate a debate about the Palin mess. But just briefly, his joke was not about “underaged girls,” it was about Bristol Palin. That was clearly Letterman’s intention, the joke made no sense otherwise. Unfortunately, he and his writers made an error because it wasn’t Bristol who was at the ballgame. Sarah and her husband were the ones who then exploited their younger daughter by dragging her into the spotlight with their faux-outrage.

ETA: Daniel B and Layla, Bristol was born on October 18, 1990.

It’s just really really hard for me to see the viewpoint of anyone who would support Letterman’s classless sexually suggestive barb directed against an underage girl who wasn’t even present, over the understandably defensive response of *her mother*. But maybe I’m just crazy.

Crazy Palin and her rather trashy daughter have made themselves targets…but no- he just should have waited until she turned 18..which was soon after.

In this day and age, a boss having sex with people who work for him is a BIG DEAL everywhere. I assure you that the CBS corporate attornies are involved in furious meetings on this issue and it is not a forgone conclusion, at all, that Letterman will keep his job. He said as much. He knows.

a masterful tale of crime and whoa

Whoa?
lol
Can’t decide if this is clever wordplay or you meant “woe”.

Actually, I wonder why he chose to say ‘I had sex with staffers’  rather than ‘I had intimate relations’  or some similar euphemism. It made the whole thing sound more sordid than it needed to

Probably because he was feeling his “midwestern Methodist guilt” over all the jokes he told about Clinton doing the same thing and using those same euphemisms.

Actually, to lawfully be considered sexual harassment, the behavior has to be considered “unwelcome.” That doesn’t seem to be the case here.

I’m not making a moral judgement one way or the other, but that’s how I understand the law.

Actually, to lawfully be considered sexual harassment, the behavior has to be considered ‘unwelcome.’  That doesn’t seem to be the case here.

Not necessarily true. The partner can find it quite welcome, but if others in the office environment are exposed to the behavior, it can cross the line into “hostile work environment”.

I have no idea if this is true in this case, but it’s definitely not just a matter of the two people involved.

Not necessarily true. The partner can find it quite welcome, but if others in the office environment are exposed to the behavior, it can cross the line into ‘hostile work environment’ .

I have no idea if this is true in this case, but it’s definitely not just a matter of the two people involved.

Good point. All I know is that if someone else complained, it wasn’t made public. I guess time will tell about that.

Based on what I do know, I can’t see a lawsuit against Dave unless there was a situation as you described above AND a complaint was filed at the time.

coolcricket I really didn’t mean to instigate a debate about the Palin mess. But just briefly, his joke was not about ‘underaged girls,’  it was about Bristol Palin. That was clearly Letterman’s intention, the joke made no sense otherwise. Unfortunately, he and his writers made an error because it wasn’t Bristol who was at the ballgame. Sarah and her husband were the ones who then exploited their younger daughter by dragging her into the spotlight with their faux-outrage.

I agree with this and remember precisely that Letterman was making a joke about the older girl, who had the baby and was almost forced to marry the father of it. Letterman didn’t know that the daughter who was actually accompanying the mother was her younger one, but Sarah Palin sure took full advantage of it to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Not every incidence of sex in the work place is sexual harassment. And as a woman who worked in a profession that was predominately male I never once in 40 years ever felt threatened…and if someone approached me in a fashion I felt was inappropriate I took care of it.

I’m not saying that it doesn’t occur but I have watched as many incidents when it was the employee who voluntarily slept their way to the top as vice-verse. I think to automatically condemn what someone did and to label it as a “crime” is irresponsible. That suggests that men and women cannot work together at any time…just like the old wives’s tale that people of the opposite sex can’t be friends, nor can married couples have friends of the opposite gender.

Every incident has to be judged on its own merit and I think that arm chair quarterbacking is uncalled for unless all the facts are known.

Not necessarily true. The partner can find it quite welcome, but if others in the office environment are exposed to the behavior, it can cross the line into ‘hostile work environment’ .

It also seems like the staffers who weren’t sleeping with him could easily say that Letterman favored his lovers and create more legal problems. Not ideal.

Tess I respectfully and strongly disagree with the premise that it is any more ok for an employee to ‘sleep their way to the top’ than it is for an employer to solicit sexual favors from the employee. It doesn’t matter who the instigator is, the act itself, if permitted and condoned, effects much more than just the employee and the employer (all other employees of the company, for example, and future employees who may be placed in more peril for future predations).

Either way, it doesn’t matter. The employer has the power and authority, and it is a misuse (to say the least) to allow any sort of sexual liason to happen. Ultimately responsibility may or may not apply to the employee, but it surely *always* has to apply to the employer. He or she is in the position of greater power.

I’m not blind to the fact that many men and women first meet and start relationships in the workplace. I owned and operated a business (nightclub) with over 30 female employees and I was propositioned on many occasions by multiple employees, so I also have direct personal experience with this issue, seen from the employer’s side.

There is, in my opinion, no healthy way to start a relationship between an employer and an employee. It is a repugnant abuse of power, no matter which side instigates it.

I completely agrree with Daniel and I believe that is how most corporate legal departments would view the situation. There’s just no way to separate the position of power from issues of coercion or pressure.

We all know employers do it, but in this day and age, they have to be out of their minds.

Daniel B
October 2, 2009 at 6:26 pm

The problem is that to condemn any kind of sexual liason between workers is to step on the toes of those of us who have either married or had long term relationships with our co-workers. It all seems well and good to say that there will be no fishing off the company pier but every company that I knew who had this policy has now abandoned it because they were losing many of their very good employees who had to choose between their professional and their personal lives. It’s never an optimum situation but it is part of real life and has to be accepted as such.

As long as nothing else follows this, I don’t see it as a big deal. I loved his preemptive strike. I wonder how many people pay extortionists. I am sure many do. He’s a ballsy SOB. I am certainly not gonna get on any high horse about cheating. Folk do it all the time. Being a talk show host isn’t some kind of public trust. He’s a horny celebrity, lol. Shocked? Not!

I completely agrree with Daniel and I believe that is how most corporate legal departments would view the situation.

Corporate legal departments tend to work with HR to put a sexual harassment policy into place, train employees on what constitutes sexual harassment, and provide avenues to report misbehavior. This allows them to cover their butts. No doubt CBS has done that.

There’s no law that says there can’t be a consensual relationship between a boss and an employee. That would be a violation of civil rights. The key word is “unwelcome.”

I’m guessing that if the situation caused a “hostile work environment” for others, it will come forward if reported at the time. My guess is that no one filed a complaint. Dave doesn’t strike me as an idiot. My guess is that they were discreet.

That said, it is kind of skeevy of him, especially if he was in a relationship with his future wife at the time of the affairs.

Also, to whomever generalized about women being proponents of sexual harassment? Really? Talk about a sexist remark. Ahem.

I guess I just don’t get it.. why anyone is shocked or supprised.. lol
He’s a human like the rest of us just more opportunity to screw it all up.

And I think before we judge anyone we should all be aware that some day we could resemble this remark

Crazy Palin and her rather trashy daughter have made themselves targets

“The question is, will America forgive him? ”

I watch Letterman for his show, not his private life. Unless he has done more than have consensual sex with women who work for him, (something that happened routinely between lots of people when I worked in the corporate world), I have no reason to even give it a second thought. His private life is his own business, and from what is being said currently, (doesn’t mean that it’s accurate), the behavior in question stopped by the time his son was born. His wife used to work on the show, and probably was well aware of his behavior, so that’s really between them.

pj, that was me. To be specific, I said sometimes it seems like women are the biggest proponents of sexual harassment, and perhaps I should clarify.

I wasn’t talking about the (extremely small) percentage of women who set out to ‘sleep their way to the top’ and have an agenda to use sex as a tool for advancement, though there’s no doubt that such women certainly do their part to contribute to the problem.

I also wasn’t talking about the (extremely small) percentage of women who are employers/managers or in other positions of power who use their positions to leverage sexual favors from subordinates, though again, there’s no doubt they also contribute to the problem.

I also wasn’t generalizing about the majority of women, everywhere, because I am optimistic that the kinds of women I know and interact with in everyday life are in fact the majority (and they would object strenuously to any sort of sexual harassment, and be quick and firm to speak out against it).

I was referring to to the very vocal minority of women who immediately seem to come out of the woodwork defending the perpetrator, not the victim. I’ve been astonished by this effect ever since the days of Bill Clinton. I hardly ever hear any men throwing out opinions that somehow sexually improper behavior and/or harassment is somehow ‘no big deal’ or ‘happens all the time so it shouldn’t matter’. But every time one of these scandals goes public there’s quite of number of women who express these opinions, and seem to have sympathy only for the aggressor/predator, and if anything contempt for the victim.

I have no idea why this is the case, but again I do not generalize the opinion that this is the viewpoint of ‘all women’. And everyone is allowed to have their own opinions, but as far as I can see women who are willing to say sexual harassment is ok are consciously or unconsciously contributing to creating a societal environment where it will become more commonplace and treated more lightly.

I think what Letterman did was despicable & evil. He may be a victim of blackmail but he’s also a *victimizer* of his subordinates. I’m not going to bite my tongue and pretend it’s no big deal. I don’t have kids but I might someday, and I wouldn’t want my daughter (or my son) growing up in a world where trading sex for favors is seen as ok, and employers would feel it’s ‘no big deal’ to exert their power and influence to get sexual favors.

“Talk about a sexist remark. Ahem.”

? My remark is sexist? Oh I see, it was sexist because I’m alarmed at how readily an extreme minority (I hope) of women are willing to leap to the defense of a man who was perfectly willing to exploit his position and influence over women who worked for him to obtain sex.

I still think Letterman was very very much in the wrong on this.

Tess:

“The problem is that to condemn any kind of sexual liason between workers is to step on the toes of those of us who have either married or had long term relationships with our co-workers.”

I disagree. There is a clear cut difference between men and women working together and forming relationships naturally, and a manager/employer exerting pressure and exploiting his position to solicit sexual favors from subordinates.

My current girlfriend was once an employee of mine. Neither she nor I did anything untoward when we were working together, aside from forming a friendship. She moved on to another job and a year after she had worked for me we met again and began dating. She was certainly attracted to me back when we were working together, and I was certainly attracted to her. But ultimately each of us is responsible for our *actions* and we can choose to indulge our attractions, even when it’s clearly improper, or we can choose not to. I was in a position of power and could easily have exploited it. I chose not to, and now I don’t have anything to feel guilty about. You may make the case that there have been a few lasting and loving marriages and relationships that have sprung from illicit employer/employee affairs, and I’m sure this probably does on occasion happen. It doesn’t change the fact that this is the wrong way to begin a relationship (I would wager in the vast majority of cases it poisons any chance of creating a real lasting relationship) it is unprofessional, it is deceitful, it is unfair to either party (and extremely disrespectful of both people towards each other), it hurts the workplace and the other employees in it, and it is ultimately still an abuse and misuse of power.

An unrepentant Letterman does damage not just to himself and his own reputation (which is poor enough anyway), but to everyone who works on his show now (hmmm, I wonder if she was hired for her talent or for other reasons…), and ultimately if the whole incident contributes to society being more accepting of this kind of behavior as ‘no big deal’, he hurts workers and employers everywhere.

It’s just really really hard for me to see the viewpoint of anyone who would support Letterman’s classless sexually suggestive barb directed against an underage girl who wasn’t even present, over the understandably defensive response of *her mother*.

I always wonder if people heard the show when Letterman told that “joke”, or if they just heard about it 2nd hand. The joke was clearly about the Palin daughter who had already had consensual sex, with a child as proof of it. So, nothing shocking about the “joke”. But, as he said, if you have to explain a joke, it was a bad joke, so he apologized anyway.

Alison, good to see you posting. But I disagree that Conan would never make the same mistake. I don’t know Conan, obviously, and his personal life is none of my business, but I’ve got no reason to think that his lifestyle is squeaky clean, just based on his career and the company that he keeps. Sex seems to happen when you’re rich and famous, as far as I can tell. As long as it’s consensual, I see no reason for it to be something that the public needs to worry about.

as far as I can see women who are willing to say sexual harassment is ok are consciously or unconsciously contributing to creating a societal environment where it will become more commonplace and treated more lightly.

I’m certainly not one to say that sexual harassment is OK, but there is a HUGE difference between sexual harassment, (or ANY harassment), and 2 consenting adults choosing to have a private relationship. As far as I know, Letterman and the women were consenting adults who chose to have a private relationship. We haven’t been given any reason to think that there was any harassment involved.

? My remark is sexist? Oh I see, I’m sexist because I’m alarmed at how readily an extreme minority (I hope) of women are willing to leap to the defense of a man who was perfectly willing to exploit his position and influence over women who worked for him to obtain sex.

I didn’t say you were sexist (don’t know you), but I thought your remark was. Generalizing about women because of the statements or actions of a few? Yes, that to me is a sexist comment. When you rephrased it, no, it doesn’t sound quite as bad. But I did take issue with your original remark. I also disagree with your statement that most men don’t condone this behavior. That is not my experience. So to single out women seemed like a sexist remark to me.

There’s no real scientific data on this, so to make sweeping generalizations about one sex or another is troublesome to me.

loving marriages and relationships that have sprung from illicit employer/employee affairs

This is the first time that “illicit” has been brought up. At no time has anyone said that this was the case either for Letterman or for us that have been posting. This is where the bias comes in and this is my argument. None of us know what the circumstances were when David was having sex with someone he was working with. We don’t know if it occurred when he was married or when he was single…in or out of a relationship. And again it is not sexual harrasment when both parties agree and their relationship does not affect their work environment.

Nuff said.

An unrepentant Letterman does damage not just to himself and his own reputation (which is poor enough anyway)

Sheesh, he called his behavior “creepy,” what more do you want from him?

This…is not surprising.

Letterman Extortion Case Raises Questions for CBS

Sheesh, he called his behavior ‘creepy,’  what more do you want from him?

At least, he seems aware that his behavior was not ok. I hope this acts as an eye opener for him and that he becomes more ethical.
Anyhow it’s good that he didn’t succomb to blackmail and had the guts to reveal this during the show instead of the news slowly creeping its way in the medias.

I do think his behavior with his staff sounds creepy. There’s always been something creepy about him which is why I rarely watch his show. Yes he’s funny but creepy. I’m glad he didn’t succumb to blackmail but of course 2 million is a lot of money and it would never end so he had to come forward.

I like Jay Leno, he’s funny and he’s a good family man. Not sleeping with his young staff. Think how that would be for the other staff on the set. Just a creepy scenario. Keep your private life away from work, be a professional and set standards for yourself, David Letterman.

Wow! Daniel B.

Your understanding of this problem is far better than that of almost every man I have ever met – and most women. It is unsurprising to anyone ever approached by The Office Masher (and there usually is one) why no one has come forward to complain about Letterman’s behavior: Such a report would be an instant career killer; the woman would undoubtedly be blackballed.

That Letterman described his own behavior as “creepy” leads me to believe we haven’t heard it all yet. His use of that word covers any as yet unreported territory.

Seriously. I Cannot believe what I am reading here.
A crime was committed here. Allegedly, of course.
Focus on the extortion and the extortionist.
THAT guy is the creep. He stole his girlfriend’s diary and stalked another human being, trying to make money off him.
This has happened many times to Mr. Letterman. His celebrity and his wealth has made him a target of many arrogant imbeciles.

What do we care if he had a soda or slept with anyone in the world? Is it anyone’s business what YOU do with your life?

Not even going to go into the Monica Lewinsky thing. Letterman’s not a public officer (and even there, unless the behavior is illegal, we should not hold a government representative– legislative, judicial, or executive — to a higher standard). And quite frankly I could care less who Clinton hung out with, White House or not.

Letterman spends 100 percent of his time at work. Hello? Where do most people meet people they date? AT WORK or in the course of work. He wasn’t married until this year but even THAT status is NONE of our business. That is between Letterman and his wife and when she was his girlfriend, his girl friend. Others Keep OUT.

As for using the term “creepy:” Please. Stop the hand-wringing here. Letterman was being sarcastic. As in ha ha comedian. As in “Hhm.. Creepy… Now Wink Wink Sex is illegal in America.” He revealed the story to show JUST HOW INSANE THIS IS. That the “creepy” activities Haldeman was threatening to reveal was.. someone having PRIVATE, consensual sexual relations with another human being. Oh my goodness. Stop the presses. Call in the fire department. Hose him down and lock him up.

The act of trying to extort someone is a CRIME. Letterman went to the DA to get this criminal off the streets. Does anyone enjoy publically talking about who they sleep with? He had to do this in order to corroborate the legal foundation for the crime. The PEOPLE bring the case vs. the extortionist. NOT Letterman. Look up the penal code in your state. EXTORTION is a crime. SLEEPING WITH SOMEONE is not. (And joking about your own private life or someone else’s is not legally actionable– civil or criminal– unless it is deliberate and intentional slander or libel.)

You work with people. You go out to lunch with people. You like people. You date, sleep, get up and go to work again with people. WHO THE HELL CARES? It could happen to two ordinary folks JUST the same as if it happens to Employee ____ and David Letterman.

It’s not creepy to have sex with someone. It’s only creepy to think you can control someone’s private, legal life.

He did nothing wrong and all the snickers are truly beyond the pale.

Oceana: I am not picking on you but your comment was close to mine and I cannot not help but bring this question to the screen:

Not that it matters one whit to me but please tell me how you know what Leno does when he is not on camera.

Unless Oceana is a pseudonym for the real Jay Leno… you cannot answer this question with a bit of legitimacy.

One more thing. Daniel B. writes:
Letterman’s reputation “is poor enough anyway.”
Says who?

This is the sort of blanket statement that needs to be qualified. Your opinion is not indicative of anything but your opinion– justified or not.

BlankSlate:

No one said that blackmail wasn’t a crime. Ever. I suggest you go back and re-read, because it sounds like the focus of your argument is a debate that no one has had (at least on this thread). There is not one post here defending the blackmailer. Not one. So righteous indignation against all who would take the blackmailer’s side over Letterman’s is completely misplaced.

I would hope you would never advocate a world where employers extorting sex from female (or male) subordinates is completely acceptable. And yet, you seem incensed that anyone should take any issue with what Letterman has done.

It doesn’t matter whether someone is in public office, has celebrity status as a television entertainer, or is just a regular joe of no particular fame. If they abuse their position of power to sexually exploit the people that are subordinate to them, they have grossly overstepped the boundaries and done something repugnant and patently wrong. I don’t believe that this sort of behavior should be lauded and praised, or even ignored. In my opinion, it doesn’t matter one whit whether the subordinate was complicit or not, the person with the power and authority has still overstepped and created an unprofessional and hostile workplace and has still misused his/her authority for sex.

The argument that this is consensual private sex and that it is none of our business became completely null when Letterman opted to LAY THE WHOLE STORY OUT ON NATIONAL TELEVISION (with the wink wink undertone that you allude to). He has invited the whole nation in to his no-longer-private sex life, so acting as if it’s outrageous that people should have an opinion on the subject is simply ridiculous.

Guess what? I don’t understand your opinion. I disagree completely.

Guess what? It doesn’t matter, you are still allowed to have an opinion on this subject.

Guess what? So am I.

Also, the description of ‘consensual sex’ is thrown around quite a bit here. No one is claiming that there was any sort of rape here, but the reality is that a solicitation of sex from an employer to an employee can never be made without an implication of career consequences.

Sure, the employee can refuse the invitation, but what will the consequences be? Will she lose her job? Will she lose any chance of advancing fairly based on merit? Will she face a coldly distant boss? What if she accepts (maybe she’s even interested). Will the boss now give her promotions/responsibilities/raises that she hasn’t earned, even if there are other employees who deserve it more? Or maybe he will go the opposite direction, and she won’t advance or be promoted even if she’s earned it because he wants to make sure he ‘keeps up appearances’ that he’s a fair and tough boss, even to the subordinate he’s sleeping with. Even if there are no consequences intended at all, for refusal or acceptance, it still creates an unstable work environment, where everything the employee or employer does is second-guessed by the other employees present “well, you know she only got that raise because she’s seeing the boss”, etc.

When an employer solicits sex from his employee, or allows an employee to solicit sex from him, he (or she) is completely abusing his position and authority, as well as fostering an unsafe workplace. I have my doubts about how ‘consensual’ any sort of relationship can be under those circumstances.

I don’t know that any laws were broken by Letterman, but a whole lot of ethics and trust was certainly broken. Sadly he’ll probably be rewarded for his actions because more people will tune in to watch the scandal unfold and ratings will jump. But as I DO get to judge whether I will or won’t watch him, well I’ll be tuning out from now on. It won’t make any particular difference to his ratings, I’m sure, but I’m equally sure that I’m not the only American out there who feels this way.

As for telling all the rest of us:

“He wasn’t married until this year but even THAT status is NONE of our business. That is between Letterman and his wife and when she was his girlfriend, his girl friend. Others Keep OUT.”

It is NOT a private matter between Letterman and his wife, and ceased to be that when he chose to parade the whole sad scenario in front of the rest of the nation. Some have praised his courage in the face of blackmail (courage? really? he was forced to this by his own sorry actions), and I would say at least he’s man enough to take some responsibility for what he did, but from the nudge, nudge, wink wink way he handled this it seemed obvious he thinks it’s no big deal (and all the rest of us must be some kind of insane judgmental puritans who hate sex and think it’s dirty to think otherwise)

But hey, you’re entitled to your opinion, however ridiculous and pro-sexual-harassment it seems to me.

“This is the sort of blanket statement that needs to be qualified. Your opinion is not indicative of anything but your opinion’“ justified or not.”

Well gosh, I guess for some people he’s a hero (heck, Hitler and Lenin and Mao would also fit that category). So sure, it’s an opinion. I don’t need to qualify it to you to have it, that’s the nature of an opinion, but I think if you’re willing to go back and read through this thread you’ll see I’ve listed plenty of reasons for me to think that, I’m not going to repeat myself just to qualify my opinion to you. You obviously disagree and nothing more I could say would persuade you. But your point is?

One other point I want to make: Letterman has admitted that he has sex with multiple women who have worked under him going back for years.

This means a pattern of behavior. This isn’t a case of star-crossed lovers who happen to meet when one of them just happens to be the employer and the other happens to be the employee, and although they tried to be professional true love must yet find away, oh the cruelty of the universe to place them in this position! And yet they found their way to each other and lived happily ever after and gosh it’s true love so no one should be allowed to judge them just because they happened to meet in this way…

Yeah, not so much that. More like he operated in a work environment for years where the notion of sex with the boss is just the way it is, get with the program sister and don’t be such a prude. Yes, he eventually (23 years later?) did marry one of them, but I don’t think there’s any way you can make the argument that Letterman himself hasn’t engaged in a long pattern of behavior of improper sexual relationships with women who were subordinate to him.

So, maybe I’m crazy, but I think he’s a scumbag.

I’m not arguing with you. I am not trying to change anyone’s opinion. I never said anything about defending what Haldeman did. I never said anyone in the thread here did the same.

Letterman talked about it on his show. Not in a smarmy, salacious revelation. The press was clearly going to discuss the arrest of Haldeman in the papers. It was his call to tell people what was about to happen. Not to open the can of worms but to close them before people cast judgment without an informed opinion as to the facts.

I would address the abuse of power discourse you undertake and ask you how you know what went on behind closed doors here but..

Anyone that goes the Letterman as Hero is a parallel to Hitler route…?

There’s no point having a mature discussion with you. Did I really read that? Hitler?

I accept the first half of your last sentence.

And now back to loving this blog. You left a very ugly taste in my mouth. Hitler?

“There’s no point having a mature discussion with you. Did I really read that? Hitler? ”

No you really didn’t bother to read it, obviously, as you are intimating that I am equating hero-worship of Letterman to be equivalent to hero-worship of Hitler. I’d explain my point but really, if you have the ability to misread my words so drastically there really isn’t any reason to pursue this any further. On at least one point we definitely agree:

“There’s no point having a mature discussion with you.”

I completely agree about the lack of maturity. A little life experience may change your viewpoint on this, in the meantime I sincerely hope that you aren’t ever put into a position within your career where you have a lecherous boss trying to pressure you for sex. I wouldn’t wish that on anyone, even someone who thinks that that sort of workplace environment is ok.

I am quite mature, thank you very much, with many years of life experience behind me.

Another erroneous presumption you make: your infinite knowledge as to the workplace environment at the Ed Sullivan theatre/Late Night with David Letterman program. Please back this up with facts. I know him from 11:35 pm -12:35 am, Monday through Friday. On a screen. What do you know that we don’t? Does Mr. Letterman confide in you? Do you work for him? Are you him? Do you shadow him 24/7? How do you know anything but his public televised persona?

I never defended sexual harrassment or abuse of power anywhere at anytime.

Well gosh, I guess for some people he’s a hero (heck, Hitler and Lenin and Mao would also fit that category

A throw-away line or not, even bringing a mass murderer into this LETTERMAN discussion and allowing that there are sane people who worshipped Hitler, turns my stomach. Don’t go there.

I do not misread words. Words pay my bills.

Daniel B:

You wrote:
I’ve been astonished by this effect ever since the days of Bill Clinton.

I know. Astonishing assessment. Sex in the office never happened before Bill Clinton.

And isn’t it funny how Bill Clinton is the first president to -ever- have an extra-marital relationship?

Please enlighten us: how do you know so much about what women think or do? Do you mean pre-Clinton, women would march on Washington to protest abuse of power in the office place but post-Clinton, women stayed home and burned their brains? Oh yes, how that man hypnotized us all into working against our own best interests.

Please.