That Letterman confession and the blackmail video
Loading ...Here’s the confession/blackmail story that had everyone talking this morning courtesy of David Letterman. The legendary talk-show host decided to spin the tale without any warning. The end result: a mesmerizing confession that caught the audience by surprise. At first, folks probably thought he was joking but it became clear this was serious. He did manage to wring as many jokes out of it as possible, a way to mitigate the embarrassing “creepy” details.
Bottom line: he had affairs with staff members and admitted it. “I have had sex wtih women who have worked on this show,” he told his New York City audience. And this guy blackmailed him to the tune of $2 million. They set up a sting operation and caught him.
Watch the 10 minutes. It’s worth it.
Here are details on the extortionnist’s plot:
Yesterday, prosecutors in New York charged Robert “Joe” Halderman, 57, an Emmy award-winning producer with CBS News, with attempted grand larceny.
Robert Morgenthau, the Manhattan district attorney, said Mr Halderman was arrested after meeting Letterman in an undercover sting at a hotel.
accessAtlanta Partner Sites
Sections
Advertise on accessAtlanta.com »
Reach the audience you want by advertising on accessAtlanta.com
Join the Access Atlanta Network »
Advertisers and Publishers, expand your reach by joining the Access Atlanta Network.
Tell us what you think about the site
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement | About our ads
© 2011 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
19 comments Add your comment
Jim
October 2nd, 2009
3:33 pm
Are we supposed to feel sorry for or admire Letterman here? What a jerk. If a boss at any company engaged in this kind of behavior (and that’s what he is, the boss), he’d be let go immediately!
I wonder if he made those staffers wear “slutty flight attendant uniforms”?
Ny Nick
October 2nd, 2009
4:07 pm
Dudes a Rock Star is anyone Suprised????
Joey
October 2nd, 2009
6:25 pm
That is awesome! I’ve worked for 3 large corporations including one fortune 500 company I am currently at. Higher ups, “bosses”, sleep with the employees all the time. Most companies look past it. It happens all the time, so Jim I’m guessing you’ve never worked for a company before?
jimbo
October 2nd, 2009
8:30 pm
wrong Joey. 28 years at the same company. I guess Code of Conduct means nothing to you? He’s getting a pass because of course this story is going to get CBS higher ratings, bottom line.
deejay
October 2nd, 2009
9:50 pm
I wonder if the woman who stalked him was one of his ex-lovers. Who knew David Letterman had such power in his pants.
Marcus
October 2nd, 2009
10:01 pm
If he was black then they’d probably throw him in jail. In a a white world white folks can do whatever they want and get away with it.
KennesawDave
October 3rd, 2009
9:35 am
You know, I gotta say I think Letterman may be seeing the last days of his late night career. First the Sara Palin’s daughter fiasco, now this?
I’ll give him credit, it took some character and guts to admit what he did to his viewers. At some point though, this is going to get old and no one’s going to be surprised at any other confessions he gives.
Marcus: Can the race baiting nobody wants to hear it. If you can’t play nice then take your ball and your angry black man chip that’s on your shoulder and go home.
StevenCee
October 3rd, 2009
12:24 pm
That anyone is surprised, shocked, or think it’s some evil, much less uncommon behavior, is the only story I see here. A single celebrity, working day after day with those of the opposite sex, getting involved romantically with some of them over what, 20 years or so, wow, shocking…..not.
As Joey accurately pointed out, this happens in most places of business (how do you think the high number of marriages of co-workers first start out), and it’s only wrong, if a higher-up uses his position in a prejudicial way for or against the employee. To see all workplace romance (whether each person is at “the same level”) as inherently bad, is to deny human nature, for of course there will be relationships developed. And dating someone you get to know, via day to day interaction, is probably better odds, than someone you happen to bump into at a club or grocery store, whom you know little about…
Curt
October 3rd, 2009
1:01 pm
Well said StevenCee, well said.
Marilyn
October 3rd, 2009
4:31 pm
I don’t think Jim lives in the real world.
Neil
October 3rd, 2009
8:50 pm
At the time of this incident Letterman was a single man in a non-committed relationship. There hasn’t been a complaint filed against Letterman or Worldwide Pants for any sexual harassment. There is no evidence that the parties involved were given better jobs or salary raises. One of the women has said she is disgusted by her ex-boyfriend for doing this to Dave. All of this happened before Dave and his then girlfriend (Regina Lasko) had a baby and was over five years before Dave got married. This is a non-issue between two consenting adults where no crime was committed, except by the would-be blackmailer who couldn’t accept that his girlfriend dumped him.
Not Going To Use My Usual Name
October 3rd, 2009
10:16 pm
No, sorry. It’s not right. It is never right for a superior to have a relationship with an employee. (Remember that this is what got a certain President of the US in trouble some time ago?) The power dynamics make it more than a simple fling.
That said, it’s not completely unforgivable (any more than it was unforgivable for a certain President of the US).
Slang
October 4th, 2009
8:26 am
Look moron, that president was married AND he lied about it AND he was the leader of the country. There is nothing wrong with a superior having a relationship with an employee. Try taking that logic to two people married at the same company and see how far you get. Georgia educated, no doubt.
Not Going To Use My Usual Name
October 4th, 2009
11:37 am
Slang, we call some of your post an “ad hominem attack, abusive.” You might Google it. It’s what we call a “fallacy,” meaning it’s irrelevant to the argument. Here’s a quick definition from the wiki: “Ad hominem abusive (also called argumentum ad personam) usually and most notoriously involves insulting or belittling one’s opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent’s argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent’s personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent’s arguments or assertions.”
To address your more substantive points…
Yes, the President was married (meaning that the affair likely mattered quite a bit to a particular woman and doesn’t affect the rest of us at all). Yes, he lied about it–but that’s not quite the issue behind the witch hunt, as anyone who lived through the time and read the media coverage can attest. Finally, “leader of the country” is a job. It is, in fact, a job in management.
Your argument that two people married at the same company wouldn’t agree with the logic is irrelevant to whether the argument is, in fact, correct. I’d call that a begging the question fallacy (also called circular reasoning). Essentially, your argument is this:
Premise 1: It is fine to date/marry people at the same company, because people do this.
Premise 2: People do this because it is fine to date/marry people at the same company.
Do you see? You are using one to prove the other, and the other to prove the one.
In no way do you address the central issue of my premise, which is that the power dynamics between a superior and an employee render a sexual relationship more complicated than it would otherwise be and, for that reason, is best avoided.
For this reason, the point stands.
Michael Smith
October 4th, 2009
2:07 pm
Slang 1 Not Usual Name 0. Then again I’m in the camp that says that it’s acceptable to find love between two consensual adults no matter where you are, so I’m a little biased.
Slang
October 4th, 2009
3:21 pm
Nameless guy, I will admit, at first I thought you were just playing dumb. Now I’m pretty convinced that you are dumb. Not only do you speak out of your behind, you cannot even comprehend a simple point that I had made.
To maybe put in a way that you might understand, how’s this premise,
Premise 3: It is fine to date/marry people at the same company, because it IS acceptable and normal and not frowned upon, and a normal part of life.
Hence my point that you should go give your idiotic opinion to someone in this situation. They’ll probably explain to you how you have no business putting rules on their love life.
Short of speaking to you as if you were a child (maybe you are though), how can I argue with someone who thinks that the blowup over Clinton had nothing to do with him being married. On that same note, how can I argue with someone who puts David Lettermen and Bill Clinton on the same relevance scale?
I guess the fact that you can’t even remember your own name should have been a sign of the idiocy to come spewing forth.
Good day, moron.
Not Going To Use My Usual Name
October 5th, 2009
9:24 am
“Premise 3″ is merely a restatement of “Premise 1 and 2.” Asked and answered already.
I never put Letterman and Clinton on the same “relevance scale.” I merely used the latter as an indication that (a) yes, it’s wrong and (b) yes, it’s forgivable.
I also never said that it wasn’t fine to date and marry people at the same company. What I *did* say is that it is inappropriate for a *supervisor* to date an *underling*. I suggest you ask your HR person (if you’re employed) whether that’s true. If s/he disagrees with me… I’ll eat your shorts.
These are, by the way, what we call “fine distinctions.” Certain behaviors are all right in some situations and unacceptable in others. As I tell my students (I teach college), if I’m talking during class, they should listen and take notes. If I come over to their homes at four in the morning and start to deliver the same lecture, they should call the police. Similarly, dating a coworker (though this can be tricky) can be acceptable. Dating your boss/dating your underling isn’t, unless you *first* get a transfer to another department.
Again, the issue you continue to ignore is the power dynamic, which is the heart of what makes that relationship unacceptable.
Also, your continued digression into unwarranted personal attacks leads me to believe… that you are probably a talk-radio junkie. Contrary to their example, that’s inappropriate in the real world.
Slang
October 5th, 2009
6:20 pm
I said good day.
Not Going To Use My Usual Name
October 5th, 2009
8:08 pm
Ah–perhaps you are a talk-radio *host*. They, too, have a habit of cutting someone off when they are trounced.
Seriously, my friend, if I were writing this for your benefit, I wouldn’t have bothered after your initial response. But others read and, I have to believe, may be moved by logic.