Sex, Lies, and Band-Aids: Why Ensign and Polanski Should Have Pulled a Letterman

If David Letterman had to be blackmailed over past sexual misconduct, he could not have chosen a better time. His on-air disclosure of the "terrible things" he'd done, and the subsequent threats he faced from a would-be extortionist, came four days after Roman Polanski's arrest on a three-decade-old warrant and mere hours before the front-page of the New York Times front-page story revealed additional details about the "aid" Senator John Ensign gave to his mistress's husband.

Letterman reportedly makes "well over" $30 million a year. Even if we round down, the blackmail demand was less than 7 percent of his annual salary, the equivalent of about $2,700 for a man who makes 40 grand: not a bad price for silence.

But Letterman, despite whatever idiotic (or worse?) things he may have done with women on his staff, was wise enough to realize that silence isn't permanent and peace of mind can't be bought.

This is a lesson John Ensign could have learned earlier. After all, Letterman's not the first man who's been tempted to pay hush money. Louisville basketball coach Rick Pitino turned to authorities when a woman threatened to accuse him of rape if he did not pay her money demands. So did Bill Cosby when a woman claiming to be his illegitimate daughter threatened to ruin his Huxtable-honed reputation. When faced with a choice, these men manned up. They ripped off the band-aid.

Not Ensign. As facts about the aftermath of his extramarital affair continue to drip, a troubling picture emerges of payments made to Doug Hampton, Ensign's former staffer and the husband of his mistress, Cindy, also an aide. That $96,000 tax-free gift to Hampton's parents -- supposedly made "out of concern for the well-being of longtime family friends during a difficult time" -- was already "hinky," as Letterman might say. But now we learn that the payment came on the heels of Ensign's offer to pay the Hamptons a hundred grand as severance to leave his employ. Hampton's notes from the conversation memorialize another part of the quid pro quo: "No contact what so ever with Cindy!" Even worse? Revelations that Ensign helped Hampton secure a position with a political consulting firm from which he'd go on to lobby his former employer.

Here's another lesson Ensign should have learned: When you choose to buy silence, you tarnish yourself. Once the deal is struck and the payments made, who can tell who hurt whom? Are the Hamptons opportunists who shook down a C Street politician whose career hinged on his squeaky clean image with value voters? Or is Ensign the bully who ended the careers of a couple who were once the Ensign's best friends, casting them off with a pittance of a gift and false promises of future professional help? Who knows. And, really, who cares? They're all tainted by the stench of cover-up.

Roman Polanski could learn something here, as well. He also did bad things. The lurid details of just how bad were never litigated in court, but he plead guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with a thirteen-year-old. Whoopi Goldberg can claim it's not "rape-rape." And that paragon of sexual morals Woody Allen can sign a petition claiming Polanski was treated unfairly by the prosecutor's office and judicial system. But the time to make those claims was more than thirty years ago. When you spend three decades hoping your problems will just go away, you lose the moral high ground. And a $500,000 civil settlement with the victim settles only her private civil case, not the state's separate criminal prosecution.

I don't know what David Letterman did to get blackmailed, but I'm not sure it matters -- at least not on this point. He didn't run away, and he didn't reach for his wallet. He owned up. He didn't allow himself to be controlled. It might be too late for Ensign to learn anything from Letterman's "little story," but I hope Polanski's defenders in the entertainment industry were watching and pass on some advice to their friend: Rip off the band-aid. Stop fighting extradition, come back to the United States, and say what you should have said thirty years ago.

 

Follow Alafair Burke on Twitter: www.twitter.com/alafairburke

Comments

[PatA]

Catherine1234: I hope I misunderstood your statement about people defending Polanski..­......""He (and his Hollywood pals) have spent a lot of energy and money excusing Polanski, and blaming the victim and the courts. He will have to do a lot of backtracking to get to the place you suggest. I doubt he has it in him.""
Are you saying that Dave is supporting Polanski? And you know this, how? Did he say something that I've missed? I watch him religiously and I don't recall his saying anything that was the least big supportive of Polanski.
I think you just like to pile on..please link us to Dave supporting Polanski. Thank you so much.

[NHBill]

You might want to do a bit more looking into the Cosby case.
He refused a blood test to disprove his paternity yet financially supported both the woman and her mother throughout her childhood.

[Catherine1234]

Letterman is accused of having consensual (if questionable) sex with adults. He handled his “outing” with class and character. Still he will no doubt pay for the error of his ways for some time to come. Polanski committed a heinous crime. Is it even possible for someone who would do something like that to act with the type of character that David Lettermen showed? He (and his Hollywood pals) have spent a lot of energy and money excusing Polanski, and blaming the victim and the courts. He will have to do a lot of backtracking to get to the place you suggest. I doubt he has it in him.

Read this blog for a good overview of the Hollywood’s defense of Polanski

http://johnshore.com/2009/10/05/hollywood-go-polanski-yourself/

[Sumocat]

"I don't know what David Letterman did to get blackmaile­d..." -- Blame the victim.

[brijit]

Another high-profile man who should have taken the Letterman path is Bill Clinton. Imagine in he had said,"Yes, I DID have sex with that woman." He might have had his whole second term to accomplish things rather than spend it defending himself.

[TRYKER]

False equivalencies seem to be abounding. Nothing in the Letterman issue equals Polanski's CRIME and Ensign's illegal activities, from C Street to hush-money crimes.
Ensign is in so deep , trouble on every front, nothing honest about the man. He should have quietly resigned. How embarrassing for a Senator to have daddy pay off his mistress!
Letterman's delivery of his "confession" was hilarious and pointed out the silliness of Mr. Halderman's hoped for big payoff. I like how Dave stands up and handles things, like he did with Palin and McCain. No dumb one he.
The things that Halderman was threatening to destroy for Dave with this revelation, was extensive and imaginary.­..methinks the man is in withdrawal from some exotic expensive drug that he can no longer afford.
If Mr. Halderman ends up in prison, it could be the best thing that ever happened to him. He would get sober/straight and have time to write a good book and come out the other side with his life ready to begin anew. It is obvious he was mistaken in his attempt to score big money fast, he knows that now.
As for Polanski, we await his arrival to face the charges he ran from 30 years ago...mayb­e he'll go to jail too...hey Roman, you can always write in prison too, make good use of your time. He might get a taste of what forced sex leaves you feeling for the rest of your life.

[StevenM]

Obviously Letterman did something wrong, otherwise there would be anything to blackmail. But Roman Polanski has nothing to learn from the Letterman affair. And the suggestion that Polanski “also did bad things” looks like whitewash. Call it what it is, Polanski raped a young girl, “he plead guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with a thirteen-year-old” (when he was 44 years old), that’s rape, the details don’t matter. The only thing left should be his sentencing. And in his case (since he fled the United States), it should be the maximum sentence without any chance of parole.

[Alafair Burke - Huffpost Blogger]

To be clear, my statement that Polanski also did "bad things" was intended as a severe understatement. And Whoopi was wholly uninformed when she said it wasn't "rape rape." Despite what many people think, most plea bargains are not so-called conditional pleas, which permit the defendant to withdraw his plea if the judge does not follow the sentencing recommendation. Instead, most plea bargains - like Polanski's - do not bind the judge's sentencing discretion. Although most judges choose to follow the parties' joint agreements, they are not required to. And a judge's indication that he might depart from the agreement does not entitle the defendant to flee the jurisdiction. Like I said, if Polanski wants to argue that the judge acted inappropriately, our legal system entitles him to do so, but he needs to get back here to face the music.

[StevenM]

You wrote: "if Polanski wants to argue that the judge acted inappropriately, our legal system entitles him to do so, but he needs to get back here to face the music".

I would concur.

FWIW ... I left a "not" out of my first statement: "otherwise there would NOT be anything to blackmail"

[Bloggerrogr]

Terrific post, Alafair!
I might also add that Letterman's contrition expressed on his Monday night show seemed to be sincere. That gets the spotlight off him and where it belongs on the blackmailer.
Contrition on the part of Polanski ("manning up") couldn't hurt him. And, yes, he does need to return to the US.

FWIW

[JBS]

Sorry Whoopi, it WAS "rape" rape. His money and his position already bought him the breaks when they let him plead to the lesser charge.

He became a fugitive from justice AFTER pleading guilty.

[redsongia]

But Letterman, despite whatever idiotic (or worse?) things he may have done with women on his staff, was wise enough to realize that silence isn't permanent and peace of mind can't be bought.


....and no way was he going to play ball with this guy. Too stubborn.

[redsongia]

It's easy to pull a "Letterman" if you haven't broken any laws.

The only person really hurt by his revelations are his wife (and who really knows what she already knew). Still, it can't feel good to be a newly wed, with this on the news 24 / 7.

[S1m0n]

Thirty years ago, that's exactly what Polanski did when he accepted the plea bargain offered by the prosecuting DA. It wasn't until the Judge presiding over the sentencing hearing made it clear he intended to pass a sentence substantially different from the joint submission made by the DA and defendant's counsel, which was a sentence of 'time served + a psych assessment' .

That's a low sentence, considering the charges. The commonest reason that drives prosecutors to accept such a low sentence is the knowlege that the case has some substantial weakness and and that DA knows that if the accused pleads innocent and defends the case, there is a strong likelihood of a complete acquittal.

In a rape case, that weakness can be a desire to putting the victim the trauma of testifying and being cross examined by the accused's lawyers (often the case when the victim is a minor), but in general it's as likely to be a lack of clear evidence, or a 'he said / she said" dispute.

If that was the case, then it's likely Polanski felt that he'd been tricked out of offering a defense by a legal system that was reneging on a deal made in good faithe after Polanski had already fulfilled his end of the bargain.

[Alafair Burke - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks, Simon, for the post. Really good points. I don't think we know why the prosecutors was willing to cut him such a break. It could have been problems of proof, as you suggest, but it could also have been sympathy for Polanski because of his wife's murder, concern (as you mention) about the impact on the victim (see Anjelica Huston's potential testimony that the victim was a "sullen"-looking "chick" who could have been up to 25 years old), uncertainty about securing the victim's testimony, or any number of reasons that prosecutors never have to articulate given their discretion in the plea bargaining system.

But unless a plea agreement is conditioned on the judge's willingness to follow it, judges retain sentencing discretion. Although they almost always follow the parties' agreement, they're not required to. And a judge's indication that he might impose his own sentence does not entitle the defendant to flee the jurisdiction. He should agree to extradition, come back here, and resolve this case.

[Deli]

This article is based on a totally false premise.

Letterman didn't do anything foolish. That is the joke and why, in his "confession" he said, tongue in cheek that he was "accused of having sex with women who work here." And he said, deadpan "And the answer is, yes, I did." Like, no big deal. So David Letterman has a sex life. Geez. 'Not at all equivalent to any of the article's other examples. Dave's is a total non-story, except that the prudish need to live vicariously through people like Dave, and Dave had the ba.l.l.s to out the guy, simply because you just don't f&#$ with Dave.

[LittlePurpleUSA]

I cannot understand what is so great about Woody Allen and his films, but I'm getting really tired of the false equivalency when it comes to him and Polanski.

Woody Allen fell in love with his girlfriends adopted daughter, and they got married when she was an adult.

Polanski drugged and raped a girl.

There are no similarities. We can discuss the "creepy" factor of Allen (being that he knew a girl since she was about 7) but he did nothing illegal. It's creepy, yes, but who am I or anyone to judge their relationship?

[lakat]

Soon Yi wasn't Woody's "girlfriend's" daughter, she was HIS daughter too. He didn't "know" her since she was 7, he was her FATHER since she was 7. You can excuse him if you like but me, I'm still judging the hell out of him and haven't seen one of his films since he did that. Not even the re-runs on TV.

[LittlePurpleUSA]

Uhm... Mia Farrow and Woody Allen never married. Soon Yee is the adopted daughter of Farrow and another fellow. Woody Allen never adopted her. Still, comparing it to Polanski is not even remotely fair.

[CanadianinNY]

I cannot you are comparing someone who raped a child to someone who had affairs with adult advisors. The rape and drugging of a 13 year old child cannot compare to office affairs even if supervisory relationship exists. I cannot believe this concerted effort by some to deminish the harrowing experience of a child who was raped by a 40 something man.

[StayClassie]

What would our world looked like if Bill Clinton had said just like Letterman said, "Yes I did." Instead of his infamous denial?

[satyriasis]

The right wing would have stilled continued their smear campaign with help of the MSM and impeached Clinton anyway. It wasn't about sex, it was about destroying a Democrat president.­Either by attacking his character and integrity or by destroying him politically.

[Catothemuchyounger]

You can say that all you want, the fact is, for me and many others, the Clinton thing was about lying under oath.

Though the fact that he went on National television, looked us all straight in the eye, and lied to us, did not help.

[redsongia]

Agreed, Clinton SHOULD have pulled a Letterman.

Ensign has too much to hide and Polanski is a vicious criminal.

Maybe Ensign could have pulled a Spitzer and confessed/resigned. He has plenty to hide, but I'm sure he would escape a lot of scrutiny if he went home, like Spitzer did. He broke the law, so he cleared out of town faster than a guest who stuffed up the toilet in the guest bathroom.

Polanski broke the law, once when he raped a child and a second time when he plead guilty then split and lived a fairly high profile life in France, making movies and rubbing it in everyone's face that his criminal issues were never brought to a conclusion.