Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity Accused of Sexual Misconduct in New Lawsuit

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-22-2020, 12:35 AM)fredtoast Wrote: You know the FBI was really gunning for Al Capone.

That proves he was innocent, right?

Oh man, I did not realize the FBI was part of the media.  My bad, Fred.  You clearly won this round.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-22-2020, 12:38 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Considering that I have no idea what would have been required for her to leave the chair I am not going to guess.

Removing a live mic could have interfered with the show.  I treally have no idea?

Did the allegation not say the the alleged harassment occurred after the show (after Carlson changed into his leather jacket (oh my!))?  Are we reading different documents here?

[fredtoast]

(07-21-2020, 08:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Read the complaint.  Even if it happened exactly as described I can't see the merit of the lawsuit.

Unwanted sexual advances with an implied quid pro que for future job opportunity is one of the most basic basis for sexual harrassment.

Apparently after she turned him down she appeared on the show much less often.

Don'tknow if she will be able to prove all this, but the allegations are a classic case of sexual harrassment.

[fredtoast]

(07-22-2020, 12:40 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Did the allegation not say the the alleged harassment occurred after the show (after Carlson changed into his leather jacket (oh my!))?  Are we reading different documents here?

 "she alleges she was kept on set by tech crew, who refused to take off her earpiece, so that Carlson could invite her to a hotel room where he was staying that night without his family." 

[fredtoast]

(07-22-2020, 12:38 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Oh man, I did not realize the FBI was part of the media.  My bad, Fred.  You clearly won this round.

The FBI is not part of the media..  I never said it was.  I was just using an example to show how just because a party wants to get someone has no bearing on if that person is guilty or not.


Try this one.  The media was gunning for Richard Nixon.  Does that mean he was innocent?

 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-22-2020, 12:41 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Unwanted sexual advances with an implied quid pro que for future job opportunity is one of the most basic basis for sexual harrassment.

Agreed, so where were the sexual advances in the allegation?  If they existed why would they not be detailed?

Quote:Apparently after she turned him down she appeared on the show much less often.

If true, does this apply to non-employees?  For example, if Johnny Carson came on to a woman, she refused him and then he never had her on The Tonight Show again would she have basis to sue?  I'm genuinely curious.

Quote:Don'tknow if she will be able to prove all this, but the allegations are a classic case of sexual harrassment.

Given the extreme lack of detail, i.e. what Carlson exactly said, I don't see much of a case.  The allegation states it was obvious that Carlson was propositioning her.  If so then it should be easy to quote the language used, if it was so obvious what he was alluding to.

All that aside, why lump Carlson into a lawsuit against a man who engaged in obviously heinous, and far more extreme conduct?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-22-2020, 12:52 AM)fredtoast Wrote: The FBI is not part of the media..  I never said it was.  I was just using an example to show how just because a party wants to get someone has no bearing on if that person is guilty or not.

Does it not?  Is an obvious desire to get a person not evidence of an untoward motive?

Quote:Try this one.  The media was gunning for Richard Nixon.  Does that mean he was innocent? 

A much better analogy, Fred, sincerely.  Is the evidence of Carlson's culpability remotely on par with that of Nixon's?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-22-2020, 12:45 AM)fredtoast Wrote:  "she alleges she was kept on set by tech crew, who refused to take off her earpiece, so that Carlson could invite her to a hotel room where he was staying that night without his family." 

She couldn't take out her own earpiece?  Seriously?  I suppose that would qualify as "tied down".

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

If you're game, I'd like to engage in an interesting (to me at least) exercise. You are now Carlson's defense counsel, Fred. Please do your level best, as his defense attorney, to attack the allegations made against him as you would in court.

[NATI BENGALS]

(07-22-2020, 12:31 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No gotcha here, dude.  Not my style.  Just pointing out inconsistencies in your position.



So you don't see a problem with lumping the accusations against Carlson, which are innocuous (and that's being generous), with a guy accused of rape?



I agree.  What made him racist?  The site he posted on?  What site was that?  Is that not included in the news story?  Why would that be if it's worth reporting?



Sexual harassment, or worse, should be reported regardless.  Was what Carlson is accused of doing, as described solely by the plaintiffs allegation, the act of a sexual predator?


Don't be sorry, dude, just make a compelling argument for why my position is wrong.  If it's as obvious as you appear to assert this should not be a difficult task.  I'll be here and I honestly look forward to the cogent argument you're going to provide.

Was he not named in the legal stuff? No scary left wing media boogey man when they are naming names in a lawsuit and reporting on it.

Apparently the words and expressions he used on a message board made him racist. I didn't really care enough to dig in to the story. I took it at face value when I saw the headline. It just took me 20 seconds to find out what site he was posting on, to see he quit before he could be fired, and see tuckers comments where there wasn't a denial. I've been aware of multiple instances where advertisers have left tuckers show because he is a pos. So I really didn't have a reason to instantly think this was some scary left wing media ploy to go hard core at poor little tucker. I'm interested to know why you think it is.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-22-2020, 02:20 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Was he not named in the legal stuff? No scary left wing media boogey man when they are naming names in a lawsuit and reporting on it.

He was named, not in dispute.  The question was why.

Quote:Apparently the words and expressions he used on a message board made him racist. I didn't really care enough to dig in to the story. I took it at face value when I saw the headline.

What an outstanding consumer you are, kudos.

Quote:It just took me 20 seconds to find out what site he was posting on

You did a better job than CNN then.  Share with the rest of the class?

Quote:to see he quit before he could be fired, and see tuckers comments where there wasn't a denial.

This part is actually factual, thank you.

Quote:I've been aware of multiple instances where advertisers have left tuckers show because he is a pos.

You spelled being threatened with a boycott wrong.

Quote:So I really didn't have a reason to instantly think this was some scary left wing media ploy to go hard core at poor little tucker. I'm interested to know why you think it is.

I already explained this, do you really need me to repeat it?

[fredtoast]

(07-22-2020, 12:56 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Does it not?  Is an obvious desire to get a person not evidence of an untoward motive?

Not unless you think every law enforcement officer in America who ever made an undercover drug buy has untoward motives.

[fredtoast]

(07-22-2020, 12:59 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If you're game, I'd like to engage in an interesting (to me at least) exercise.  You are now Carlson's defense counsel, Fred.  Please do your level best, as his defense attorney, to attack the allegations made against him as you would in court.

I don't have a clue where to begin.  I don't know hardly anything about the evidence.

The one thing I DO NOT DO is try to paint every woman who ever made a sexual harrassment claim as a liar.  And I don't play what I call the "Trump defense" where I claim it is impossible for him to be guilty of anything just because a lot of people don't like him.  I know how good prosecutors will tear those apart.

Despite what many people think, just one unwanted advance is usually not enough to establish a "hostile work environment".  But the problem Tucker faces is that he was in a position to effect her job opportunities and she alleges those were effected by her refusal.  In cases where there is an implied quid pro quo of sex for job opportunities then just one declined advance is enough.  So i would have to see the actual records of how often she was on his show before and after.  if there is a big difference Tucker will have to come up with a good explanation.

Tuckers problem is that since he is a public figure he is really dealing with two separate trials, one in court and one in the media.  Playing the victim of a media bias may work with his core supporters it won't do shit in court.  But we are in the era when even people that get convicted in Courts are considered innocent by their followers.  So maybe that  is all Carlson is worried about.

[GMDino]

(07-22-2020, 12:40 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Did the allegation not say the the alleged harassment occurred after the show (after Carlson changed into his leather jacket (oh my!))?  Are we reading different documents here?

Does that not go to show details of the event?  For example a lot of people attacked Ford for not remembering every detail about Kavanaugh assaulting her (allegedly).  This accuser has very specific memories.  Doesn't make her right or him guilty but if she couldn't even remember what he was wearing she would probably be ripped for "not remembering such a traumatic event".

[CJD]

(07-20-2020, 10:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Read the complaint.  It really looks like a strong attempt to link Carlson to the actually heinous conduct of a Fox employee who had nothing to do with Carlson.  Unless I missed it, and I do a pretty good speed read, the only allegation against Carlson is that he slightly propositioned a woman, she refused and then she appeared on his show less the next year and then not at all in 2020.  This, of course, assumes the allegation is 100% true.  I'm not a fan of Carlson, although he is clearly good at what he does I'm not huge on smarmy and smug, either together or in combination.  That being said it could not be more obvious that the left wing media is gunning for him hard core.

Like I said, they really fear him.

I think the purpose of linking them all together is to show that treating female correspondents and guest speakers like potential sexual partners  and banishing them if they refuse is not an isolated thing but an overarching cultural issue at Fox News.

This is lent credence by the fact that, in the complaint against Henry, they clearly outline how Fox News tried to, essentially, cover it up and fire Henry as a means of concealing their cultural problems.

I agree that the complaint against Tucker is very weak and likely won't stick outside of the aforementioned cultural problems at the network.

The Henry stuff, on the other hand, is absolutely disgusting and they seem to have texts and other things to back them up (possible existence of photos that he took as blackmail fodder may be something an investigation could uncover).

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-22-2020, 09:20 AM)GMDino Wrote: Does that not go to show details of the event?  For example a lot of people attacked Ford for not remembering every detail about Kavanaugh assaulting her (allegedly).  This accuser has very specific memories.  Doesn't make her right or him guilty but if she couldn't even remember what he was wearing she would probably be ripped for "not remembering such a traumatic event".

Actually, it makes her allegation even weaker.  She can remember details like this but cannot provide specifics as to what Carlson said?  The complaint alleges that it was "abundantly clear" that Carlson was propositioning her.  If it was so clear what did he say that made it so?  One would think that his words would be of key importance, yet the allegation contains not one direct quote from Carlson.  The way it is worded Carlson could easily have been lamenting that he was stuck in the city away from his wife and kids, not offering the information as a hint that he's by himself and would like to sleep with this woman.

(07-22-2020, 09:41 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I think the purpose of linking them all together is to show that treating female correspondents and guest speakers like potential sexual partners  and banishing them if they refuse is not an isolated thing but an overarching cultural issue at Fox News.

Quite honestly, if this story was released at a time other than right after, and before, other negative pieces of Carlson came out I'd tend to agree with you.  The other reason is no one knows who Henry is and Hannity and Carlson are big names that will attract readers.

Quote:This is lent credence by the fact that, in the complaint against Henry, they clearly outline how Fox News tried to, essentially, cover it up and fire Henry as a means of concealing their cultural problems.

Agreed, but I don't think the inclusion of Carlson and Hannity actually does that as neither allegation against them is particularly compelling. 

Quote:I agree that the complaint against Tucker is very weak and likely won't stick outside of the aforementioned cultural problems at the network.

Thank you for actually being objective.  I honestly don't see how anyone can read the complaint against Carlson and finding it damning in any way.

Quote:The Henry stuff, on the other hand, is absolutely disgusting and they seem to have texts and other things to back them up (possible existence of photos that he took as blackmail fodder may be something an investigation could uncover).

For sure, and I said as much from the very first post in this thread.  The Henry stuff is absolutely vile.  

[GMDino]

(07-22-2020, 10:26 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Actually, it makes her allegation even weaker.  She can remember details like this but cannot provide specifics as to what Carlson said?  The complaint alleges that it was "abundantly clear" that Carlson was propositioning her.  If it was so clear what did he say that made it so?  One would think that his words would be of key importance, yet the allegation contains not one direct quote from Carlson.  The way it is worded Carlson could easily have been lamenting that he was stuck in the city away from his wife and kids, not offering the information as a hint that he's by himself and would like to sleep with this woman.

That is why they interview and have investigations and (possibly) trials. I didn't convict Carlson based on this. I also don't exonerate him on it.

(07-22-2020, 10:26 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quite honestly, if this story was released at a time other than right after, and before, other negative pieces of Carlson came out I'd tend to agree with you.  The other reason is no one knows who Henry is and Hannity and Carlson are big names that will attract readers.

There are always negative pieces about celebrities. Timing is a moot point in that regard.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-22-2020, 10:38 AM)GMDino Wrote: That is why they interview and have investigations and (possibly) trials.  I didn't convict Carlson based on this.  I also don't exonerate him on it.

I would hope no one would do either, but we can comment on the apparent strength and validity of the allegations.  Contrast the dearth of detail in the Carlson allegation with the overwhelming amount of evidence against Henry.  Why do we have literally pages of factual evidence against Henry and a single page of "it was abundantly clear" allegations against Carlson with no details other than Carlson put on a leather jacket and was going to the office Christmas party?  Was the investigation against Henry more thorough?  I can't imagine that's the reason.  

Quote:There are always negative pieces about celebrities.  Timing is a moot point in that regard.

Nah, I don't think dismissing this as yet another negative piece against celebrities is a very compelling argument for reasons I've explained in this thread.

[fredtoast]

(07-22-2020, 11:03 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I would hope no one would do either, but we can comment on the apparent strength and validity of the allegations.  Contrast the dearth of detail in the Carlson allegation with the overwhelming amount of evidence against Henry.  Why do we have literally pages of factual evidence against Henry and a single page of "it was abundantly clear" allegations against Carlson with no details other than Carlson put on a leather jacket and was going to the office Christmas party?  Was the investigation against Henry more thorough?  I can't imagine that's the reason

It is not required that every detail is listed in the warrant. The complete evidence often includes hours of testimony from dozens of witnesses. Warrants would be several hundred pages if it was required to include all of that.

In fact there are often strategical reasons for not including every single piece of evidence in the warrant. Cases are often settled because the defendant does not want all the details to become public.

[CJD]

(07-22-2020, 10:26 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Actually, it makes her allegation even weaker.  She can remember details like this but cannot provide specifics as to what Carlson said?  The complaint alleges that it was "abundantly clear" that Carlson was propositioning her.  If it was so clear what did he say that made it so?  One would think that his words would be of key importance, yet the allegation contains not one direct quote from Carlson.  The way it is worded Carlson could easily have been lamenting that he was stuck in the city away from his wife and kids, not offering the information as a hint that he's by himself and would like to sleep with this woman.


Quite honestly, if this story was released at a time other than right after, and before, other negative pieces of Carlson came out I'd tend to agree with you.  The other reason is no one knows who Henry is and Hannity and Carlson are big names that will attract readers.



Agreed, but I don't think the inclusion of Carlson and Hannity actually does that as neither allegation against them is particularly compelling. 



Thank you for actually being objective.  I honestly don't see how anyone can read the complaint against Carlson and finding it damning in any way.


For sure, and I said as much from the very first post in this thread.  The Henry stuff is absolutely vile.  

Well, I'm not exactly objective. I don't think anyone really is. I would more consider myself rational :).

I agree with you that tying Carlson and Hannity into this is a means of getting more exposure because very few know who Henry is. Before all this, I had never heard of him. I don't think I'd even have recognized him outside of this controversy. Whereas everyone knows who Carlson and Hannity are, even the people who wish they didn't, like me.

And, to clarify my stance, while I don't think the complaints against Carlson and Hannity are criminal or even legally actionable (outside of maybe some sort of NDA and payment to make them drop the lawsuits, as lawsuits look bad even if you don't think they'd actually win in court), I do think they're slimy and worth bringing to light. Attempting to pay men to take a woman on a date, as Hannity allegedly did, even as a joke, is still demeaning and we shouldn't look at interpersonal behavior simply on the scale of legal to illegal. I think behaviors should be measured on that scale as well as the scale of socially acceptable to socially unacceptable. And on that scale the allegation against Hannity is right up near the top, whereas Carlson's is somewhere between the middle and the top. I just don't think either will face any consequences for their actions, either from a legal standpoint or a company accountability standpoint.