Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Suspect's lawyer: Dave (Letterman) is master of manipulation
new York Post ^ | October 5, 2009 | Michael Starr

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 ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: letterman; scandal

Looks like the fun has just begun.

1 posted on 10/05/2009 2:57:14 PM PDT by Zakeet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

He seems to be implying that Dave lied to a grand jury.


2 posted on 10/05/2009 3:00:00 PM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet
Not commenting on the probable guilt or innocence of this guy, but he may very well be the first alleged extortionist in the history of extortion that accepted a check from his mark. Doesn't that seem odd to anyone else?
3 posted on 10/05/2009 3:00:05 PM PDT by OldDeckHand (No Socialized Medicine, No Way, No How, No Time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Yeah, that does seem odd. Are you thinking this could be a setup for ratings?


4 posted on 10/05/2009 3:05:12 PM PDT by randomhero97 ("First you want to kill me, now you want to kiss me. Blow!" - Ash)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

What matters to me is the one thing literally no one is talking about: the blackmailer is a CBS newsie. Award-winning, according to some articles. Everyone is enjoying giggling at the naughtiness of it all, while here we might have a clue as to how some news items might make it into print or on the air, and how some doesn’t. If enough money gets paid, perhaps it never sees the light of day?


5 posted on 10/05/2009 3:05:29 PM PDT by MizSterious (Do you not think an angel rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm? John Page, 1744-1808)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

“Not commenting on the probable guilt or innocence of this guy, but he may very well be the first alleged extortionist in the history of extortion that accepted a check from his mark. Doesn’t that seem odd to anyone else? “

He may have been getting advice from ACORN staffers?


6 posted on 10/05/2009 3:06:11 PM PDT by jessduntno (Tell Obama to STFU - Stop The Federal Usurpation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
he may very well be the first alleged extortionist in the history of extortion that accepted a check from his mark. Doesn't that seem odd to anyone else?

Maybe...just maybe....he's an idiot? Half the country voted for Obama....what does that say for the intelligence of many people?

7 posted on 10/05/2009 3:07:28 PM PDT by Snurple (VEGETARIAN, OLD INDIAN WORD FOR BAD HUNTER.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet
His obsession with Sarah Palin IS becoming more clear here. There were comments to this effect; that he must be hiding his lust for her given his obsessive/compulsive comments re Sarah. Now; am beginning to think Sarah's picture is somewhere in Dave's 'secret room'.

We do know for sure he holds obsessively, a grudge. Jay Leno can attest to that and no doubt probably plenty of ugly stories out there re Dave. Even without this 'disclosure'; it is easy to see that he is a sick, controlling, loathsome, troll of a man.

8 posted on 10/05/2009 3:10:06 PM PDT by cricket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Snurple
"Maybe...just maybe....he's an idiot?"

Well, he does work for CBS himself, so that is a given. His attorney does make an interesting point that you might think that a guy who produces a show about crime might not act so stupidly if he actually had criminal intent. It's an argument - I'm not sure how much merit it has.

9 posted on 10/05/2009 3:16:29 PM PDT by OldDeckHand (No Socialized Medicine, No Way, No How, No Time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: randomhero97
"Are you thinking this could be a setup for ratings?"

No. CBS isn't that desperate, yet. As unlikely as it sounds, I suppose it's possible that this was an earnest business transaction in the mind of the defendant. Like I said, "as unlikely as it sounds".

10 posted on 10/05/2009 3:18:36 PM PDT by OldDeckHand (No Socialized Medicine, No Way, No How, No Time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

11 posted on 10/05/2009 3:24:54 PM PDT by BigLittle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet
Sucks getting caught, eh, Dave?


12 posted on 10/05/2009 3:31:57 PM PDT by SparkyBass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet
Can't WAIT for the Fox Movie of the Week outlining every step (the guy that played Dave in the movie about him NOT getting The Tonight Show would be perfect).

And the guy who plays Larry's agent Jeff in Curb Your Enthusiasm could play Halderman if he grew a beard.


13 posted on 10/05/2009 3:32:16 PM PDT by Pharmboy (The Stone Age did not end because they ran out of stones...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

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.

When you don’t have the law or facts on your side, pound the table.

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.


14 posted on 10/05/2009 3:36:12 PM PDT by Bob J ("For every 1000 hacking at the branches of evil, one strikes at it's root.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

The silence from the NOW group is deafening. Could anyone imagine what they’d be doing if it were Limbaugh or Hannity instead of Letterman? Questions similar to those in the Paula Jones case (the one that brought out the Lewinsky brouhaha) abound.

Did the woman or women that Letterman was sleeping with get preferential treatment (salaries, bonuses, promotions) over women he was not sleeping with? Were men bypassed for advancement because Letterman is not a homosexual? This appears to be a bona fide case of sexual harrassment, which is grounds for immediate dismissal in virtually every office in America. Not here?


15 posted on 10/05/2009 3:38:29 PM PDT by TruthShallSetYouFree (Kenya tell me where Obama was born?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TruthShallSetYouFree

You have to have a plaintiff for a complaint. I don’t see any.


16 posted on 10/05/2009 3:40:39 PM PDT by Bob J ("For every 1000 hacking at the branches of evil, one strikes at it's root.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

Given that all the documentation was collected by the gal it seems she had blackmail in mind.

It worked, Letterjerk paid for her law college tuition.


17 posted on 10/05/2009 3:40:52 PM PDT by Carley (OBAMA IS A MALEVOLENT FORCE IN THE WORLD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious

Maybe he was about to do a story on Letterman and the check was Letterman’s idea. Maybe he accepted it because it would add to the story. Maybe he accepted it as a bride offered by Letterman to get him (news guy) to do a Palin story instead.


18 posted on 10/05/2009 3:51:20 PM PDT by HapaxLegamenon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet
It's not impossible he could have handed the guy a check in an attempt to diffuse attention from himself to the guy who would be culpable to blame, thereby taking the heat off himself. I hope they really do get to the bottom of this and don't take anything or anyone's word (or deeds) for granted.

What Letterman was doing was potentially explosive and the potential for it backfiring upon him was definitely risky behavior on his part.

19 posted on 10/05/2009 4:07:30 PM PDT by MamaDearest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

How was Edwards’s mistress paid off? In cash??


20 posted on 10/05/2009 4:08:31 PM PDT by kenavi (No legislation longer than the Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

Great photo of Lettermanto to accompany this article.
Gottta admire some photographers.

“Freedom to Roam”, priceless.


21 posted on 10/05/2009 4:09:30 PM PDT by rod1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

I think David Letterman is headed for the Dan Rather Wing of the CBS Hall of Fame.


22 posted on 10/05/2009 4:12:23 PM PDT by rod1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

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.


23 posted on 10/05/2009 4:15:53 PM PDT by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kenavi
"How was Edwards’s mistress paid off? In cash??"

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.

24 posted on 10/05/2009 4:16:44 PM PDT by OldDeckHand (No Socialized Medicine, No Way, No How, No Time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet
Hope this one gets real ugly.
25 posted on 10/05/2009 4:17:52 PM PDT by Shqipo (A whiff of blowback is in the air.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet
There is more to this story than we know. The perp's girl friend is also in the mix. Perhaps Dave did some things to her that were less than appropriate, which has given her problems in future relationships?

The fat lady has yet to sing

As a matter of fact, there might be a whole choir of singing fat ladies.

26 posted on 10/05/2009 4:54:12 PM PDT by Candor7 (The effective weapons against Fascism are ridicule, derision, and truth (Member NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Candor7

There’s nothing like VD between former partners.


27 posted on 10/05/2009 5:33:36 PM PDT by ConservativeMind (There is no "gray area" on issues. I see things from both sides, but I choose the right side.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind
Ohhhh! Hadn't thought of that angle! Suing Dave for giving them warts ( or worse)?

LOL!!!. Maybe the extortionist has them too ....now?

28 posted on 10/05/2009 5:40:45 PM PDT by Candor7 (The effective weapons against Fascism are ridicule, derision, and truth (Member NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
In any case, Hunter's receipt of those funds aren't illegal per se, so long as either it was claimed income...

Dollars to doughnuts, this producer sent Dave "Worldwide Pants" a proposal for a documentary investigative report using his (the producer's)unparalleled sleuthing skills.

As evidence of such sleuthing skills, the producer volunteered to Dave "Pants" how he (the producer) had uncovered numerous affairs of Dave "Pants", despite all of Dave "Pants"'s precautions.

I expect that Letterman's alleged blackmailer is indeed not stupid, and produced a legitimate paper trail to justify someone investing a couple of million dollars.

We shall see.
29 posted on 10/05/2009 5:59:28 PM PDT by kenavi (No legislation longer than the Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

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.


30 posted on 10/05/2009 7:16:57 PM PDT by ozzymandus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rod1
I think David Letterman is headed for the Dan Rather Wing of the CBS Hall of Fame.

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.

31 posted on 10/05/2009 7:45:53 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (Thank you. I'm here all week. Try the veal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Shqipo

Well it involves Dave so that is already a given.


32 posted on 10/05/2009 8:25:48 PM PDT by xp38
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious
Everyone is enjoying giggling at the naughtiness of it all, while here we might have a clue as to how some news items might make it into print or on the air, and how some doesn’t. If enough money gets paid, perhaps it never sees the light of day?

I made that very observation to a group of Letterman fans on USA Today yesterday.

33 posted on 10/05/2009 9:03:17 PM PDT by an amused spectator (The money vampires fear garlands of lead & brass)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy

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.


34 posted on 10/06/2009 4:08:25 AM PDT by rod1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
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.)

35 posted on 10/07/2009 9:43:51 AM PDT by BluesDuke (We stand on the shoulders of giants. God help us when they sneeze.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: BluesDuke
than in contending with the fact that a crime was committed against him.

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..."

36 posted on 10/07/2009 9:47:19 AM PDT by paulycy (Screw the RACErs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: paulycy
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.

37 posted on 10/07/2009 9:59:29 AM PDT by BluesDuke (We stand on the shoulders of giants. God help us when they sneeze.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: BluesDuke
Well, there come times when giving people something to talk about is inappropriate enough.

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.

38 posted on 10/07/2009 10:09:14 AM PDT by paulycy (Screw the RACErs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: paulycy
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.

39 posted on 10/07/2009 10:31:19 AM PDT by BluesDuke (We stand on the shoulders of giants. God help us when they sneeze.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: BluesDuke
and saying aloud if we wish

Absolutely. You are well within your rights. :0)

40 posted on 10/07/2009 12:29:12 PM PDT by paulycy (Screw the RACErs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson