Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

I'm So Disappointed In You: Celebrity Misdeeds

OtterMommy

By OtterMommy
in Everything Else TV

  • Reply
  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Wiendish Fitch
Wiendish Fitch

You know what I have yet to see? An apology campaign for Sinead O'Connor, who 31 years ago tore up a picture of the Pope on SNL in protest of the Catholic church. Despite the horrific truth about the

Enigma X
Enigma X

Maybe I am missing a piece here, but Majors has appeared on many talk shows to promote his movies, and unless they knew of his alleged behavior beforehand, not one needs to make a statement about havi

Vermicious Knid
Vermicious Knid

Meanwhile, Candace, the last time I went to synagogue in person for High Holy Day services there were: Police Private Security Bomb sniffing dogs All required so we could wors

Posted Images

Annber03

Annber03

1 hour ago, Blergh said:

.BTW, has Mr. Colbert made any statements regretting having this Mr. Majors a platform to spin things? I'm still waiting for Mr. Colbert to express regret over letting Miss Couric's spins all go unchecked and unchallenged even after CBS pulled the plug on her using their platform to pitch said autobio not too long afterwards.

Well, the news just broke within the last day or so, and Colbert's been in reruns since last week, so he may not have even heard the news yet or probably hasn't even had any actual opportunity to say anything, if he even will. He has commented on the #MeToo movement in general on his show before, sure, and shown his support for it and all that, but he usually doesn't get much into commenting on specific actors' crimes. Probably because there's so many it'd take a long time to get through mentioning them all. 

  • Like 12
  • Applause 2
  • LOL 1
Link to comment
  • Popular Post
Enigma X

Enigma X

  • Popular Post

Maybe I am missing a piece here, but Majors has appeared on many talk shows to promote his movies, and unless they knew of his alleged behavior beforehand, not one needs to make a statement about having him on their show. This includes Colbert. Again, maybe I am missing something.

  • Like 38
  • Applause 4
  • LOL 1
Link to comment
Blergh

Blergh

(edited)
6 hours ago, Enigma X said:

Maybe I am missing a piece here, but Majors has appeared on many talk shows to promote his movies, and unless they knew of his alleged behavior beforehand, not one needs to make a statement about having him on their show. This includes Colbert. Again, maybe I am missing something.

Of course, Mr. Colbert et. al. can't have been expected to have been mind readers re guests possibly spinning their misdeeds into bogus fluff.

However, if it has come to light AFTER said interviews that the celebs evidently used their platforms to broadcast misleading statements,etc. the hosts would do well to nail the celebs for having misused the platforms that the hosts had loaned them instead of keeping silent which could get interpreted as the hosts possibly approving of the previous misuse.

Edited by Blergh
  • Like 2
  • Useful 2
Link to comment
Cobalt Stargazer

Cobalt Stargazer

4 hours ago, Blergh said:

Of course, Mr. Colbert et. al. can't have been expected to have been mind readers re guests possibly spinning their misdeeds into bogus fluff.

However, if it has come to light AFTER said interviews that the celebs evidently used their platforms to broadcast misleading statements,etc. the hosts would do well to nail the celebs for having misused the platforms that the hosts had loaned them instead of keeping silent which could get interpreted as the hosts possibly approving of the previous misuse.

Yeah, but that kind of guilt by association leads to "Who knew beforehand, and why didn't they say anything?" Because apparently at least one person knew that Majors is horrible, as referenced by @Spartan Girl's posted tweet, so the onus shouldn't be entirely on Colbert or any other talk show person to release a statement making it clear that they don't give a thumbs-up to him using their programs as a pulpit. Not that it won't be, because that's kind of how this works, but that it shouldn't.

  • Like 4
  • Useful 4
Link to comment
Zella

Zella

5 hours ago, MissAlmond said:

I continue to find law enforcement "sources" tipping off TMZ probably even before someone's lawyer is informed disconcerting. 

It's definitely gross and appalling, but it's also why I tend to trust TMZ scoops on legal proceedings and deaths. 

  • Like 4
  • Applause 1
Link to comment
Trini

Trini

This just seems wild to me:

'Pras Michel stands trial in Washington, D.C., for conspiracy and other charges'

Quote

Jury selection in the trial of Grammy-winning musician Pras Michel kicks off Monday in the federal courthouse in Washington, D.C., marking a pivotal moment in a case filled with allegations of political maneuvering and international intrigue.

Michel faces charges including conspiracy, witness tampering and failing to register as an agent of China, in a case that could send him to prison for decades if he's convicted.

He came to worldwide attention in 1996, when his band Fugees released The Score, which remains one of the best-selling and most-streamed albums of all time.

 

  • Mind Blown 10
Link to comment
MissAlmond

MissAlmond

(edited)
17 hours ago, Trini said:

'Pras Michel stands trial in Washington, D.C., for conspiracy and other charges'

Damn! Pras went from bestselling albums, Grammy's, and singing with Lauryn Hill, to standing trial for alleged conspiracy, witness tampering, and not registering as an agent of China. When's the movie?  

Edited by MissAlmond
  • Like 3
  • Useful 3
Link to comment
Fukui San

Fukui San

4 hours ago, MissAlmond said:

Damn! Pras went from bestselling albums, Grammy's, and singing with Lauryn Hill, to standing trial for alleged conspiracy, witness tampering, and not registering as an agent of China. When's the movie?  

Wyclef probably working on the screenplay. 

  • LOL 7
Link to comment
Bethany

Bethany

Quote

Paltrow's attorneys described the complaint against her as "utter B.S." and painted the Goop founder-CEO as uniquely vulnerable to unfair, frivolous lawsuits due to her celebrity.

Uniquely isn't the word I would use but I get what they are saying and it's valid.  

  • Like 13
Link to comment
Bethany

Bethany

^A work colleague of my husband's got sued because of a minor fender bender where the other driver insisted she had seriously injured her back to the point where she couldn't work.  Unfortunately for her she didn't let that serious injury stop her from water skiing on a vacation to Mexico and then posting the pics on her FB page.  

  • LOL 8
Link to comment
merylinkid

merylinkid

The Plaintiff actually said in his butthurt way after the verdict "She came in with a lot of goodwill, I had to overcome that."   Dude, did you KNOW who you were suing?

I think the jury was out as long as it was because they were going "but, its Gwyneth Paltrow, she's so annnnnnnoying, do we really have to find in her favor?"  

As she left court, she did tell Sanderson she wished him well, according to Sanderson.   It was seen on the live feeds that she touched his shoulder and said something to which he said thank you.   But he is the one who said what she said.   Gwyneth gave no interviews.   But she looked about to cry with relief when the verdict came back 100% in her favor.

He is saying he doesn't accept the verdict and doesn't understand why this was about anything but a ski crash.   Dude, it went into your life before and after the crash because you said the crash totally changed your life.  So yes, there has to be a comparison between before and after.   They aren't going to just focus on what happened in mere seconds on a ski slope (or minutes if you believe his story about being unconscious for 5 to 10 minutes).   I hope his attorneys have sat him down and said, do not appeal this.   You aren't likeable, your story is not believable because you OVER EXAGGERATE everything.  This is 100% the expected verdict.  

One of my favorite parts is where he said he found out after the crash he couldn't travel alone anymore because when he was alone in Germany, he fell off the curb because no one was assisting him.   Dude, I fell off the curb last week, it is was 100% my fault and it does not mean I need assistance.   He also forgets that he was 69 at the time of the crash.   This was about him getting old and he doesn't like it so it has to be someone's fault, coupled with a little "I'm the guy who sued Gwyneth Paltrow."

  • Like 21
  • LOL 1
Link to comment
MissAlmond

MissAlmond

1 hour ago, merylinkid said:

He is saying he doesn't accept the verdict and doesn't understand why this was about anything but a ski crash.   Dude, it went into your life before and after the crash because you said the crash totally changed your life.  So yes, there has to be a comparison between before and after. 

Did he really not think Paltrow's attorneys would search for evidence of his life after the accident? This man must not watch/read legal dramas. 

  • Like 15
Link to comment
Shannon L.

Shannon L.

And what was this b.s. about?! 

Watch: Plaintiff in Gwyneth Paltrow lawsuit compares actress to Jeffrey Epstein

“This is obviously an issue that someone needs to be accountable for and if they're never accountable, what are they going to do? They're going to do it again,” Sanderson said Wednesday during testimony, a video of which is circulating on social media.

“Now we have the molesting of young children on an island.”  Paltrow appeared to be in shock as her attorney Stephen Owens fired back saying “this is ridiculous testimony” before Judge Kent Holmberg ordered the jury to disregard Sanderson’s remark.

  • Mind Blown 12
Link to comment
PrairieDogBaby

PrairieDogBaby

4 hours ago, Shannon L. said:
  Quote

“This is obviously an issue that someone needs to be accountable for and if they're never accountable, what are they going to do? They're going to do it again,” Sanderson said Wednesday during testimony, a video of which is circulating on social media.

This is absolutely hilarious.  All skiers better watch out!  Gwyneth Paltrow is just waiting to crash into you.  She loves it!

  • Like 14
  • LOL 6
Link to comment
Blergh

Blergh

1 hour ago, RealHousewife said:

She's small but mighty!

To say nothing of Miss Paltrow doing her best to shill pricey products few would have ever imagined any humans could have possibly had any use for beforehand.

All kidding aside, I'm actually glad that she appears to have vindicated her claim that the accuser was trying to claim grievous injuries to get monies.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
merylinkid

merylinkid

Apparently having a second child is not enough to keep you out prison on appeal.   I think the judge just saw it as more manipulation which was what she was convicted of.   So yeah, continue your lying scammy ways does not work with federal judges.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
bluegirl147

bluegirl147

9 hours ago, Zella said:

Good. I read a lot of true crime, and she is probably the most pathological person I've ever read about who never personally killed anyone. 

She might not have personally killed anyone but how do we know her blood testing machines that didn't work correctly didn't miss a diagnosis that led to a person's death?

She is a truly awful human being.

  • Like 16
  • Applause 1
Link to comment
Zella

Zella

2 hours ago, bluegirl147 said:

She might not have personally killed anyone but how do we know her blood testing machines that didn't work correctly didn't miss a diagnosis that led to a person's death?

She is a truly awful human being.

I am well aware. She also seems to have caused at least one person to commit suicide. I clarified "personally" for that reason. 

  • Like 15
  • Mind Blown 1
Link to comment
Vermicious Knid

Vermicious Knid

Oof. The Fugees' Pras Michel took the stand in his own defense for his conspiracy trial and it doesn't seem to be going well.

Quote

 

Grammy-winning musician Pras Michel told a jury that millions of dollars he accepted from a fugitive billionaire amounted to "free money" he pocketed for trying to get the man a photo with then-President Obama.

Under withering cross examination, Michel acknowledged he used some of that money to pay for friends to attend $40,000-a-plate fundraisers for the Obama campaign in 2012, essentially funneling illegal foreign funds into the American election system.

Years later, after FBI agents visited his friends, Michel sent the friends letters characterizing those gifts as loans and demanding repayment amid threats to sue them. He said he relied on advice from an attorney at the time, and that he depended on his financial adviser for advice regarding the billionaire's money, which he reported as a gift to avoid paying taxes...

Trouble started after he sought to reinvent himself as a political insider. The Justice Department says he collected nearly $100 million from Low to influence the Obama and Trump administrations--first to buy access and secure a photo of Low with President Obama, then to try to press the Trump administration to abandon civil and criminal probes of Low.

Michel initially told the jury that he didn't know it was illegal to pay for others to attend political fundraising events. But prosecutor Keller showed him language on an Obama campaign form that spelled out the federal election rules. Michel said he hadn't read the document.

 

It's really just going to be a matter of how much jail time he gets at this point. 

  • Mind Blown 1
  • Useful 3
Link to comment
Cobalt Stargazer

Cobalt Stargazer

As per the comments, the prosecutor went on Sean Hannity's show after the charges were filed, which was a bad move. This probably means the armorer is going to be facing these charges alone, at least if dropping things entirely against Baldwin doesn't affect her case.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
roamyn

roamyn

12 minutes ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

As per the comments, the prosecutor went on Sean Hannity's show after the charges were filed, which was a bad move. This probably means the armorer is going to be facing these charges alone, at least if dropping things entirely against Baldwin doesn't affect her case.

Can I ask why it was a bad move? Did he say anything that would compromise the case?  

  • Like 1
  • LOL 2
Link to comment
Guest

Guest

According to the New York Times the charges are being dropped because the new prosecution team found new evidence that the gun had been modified before filming. They felt it could undermine their argument that the gun couldn’t have gone off unless Baldwin pulled the trigger. 

Quote

It is possible that prosecutors could decide to file new charges against Mr. Baldwin.

“New facts were revealed that demand further investigation and forensic analysis in the case against Alec Baldwin,” Kari Morrissey, one of the new special prosecutors, said in a statement. “Therefore, we cannot proceed under the current time constraints and on the facts and evidence turned over by law enforcement in its existing form. This decision does not absolve Mr. Baldwin of criminal culpability and charges may be refiled.”

 

Link to comment
andromeda331

andromeda331

5 hours ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

As per the comments, the prosecutor went on Sean Hannity's show after the charges were filed, which was a bad move. This probably means the armorer is going to be facing these charges alone, at least if dropping things entirely against Baldwin doesn't affect her case.

Very bad move. I'm more suspicious now that the prosecutor went on that show. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
merylinkid

merylinkid

(edited)

The charges against Baldwin were always iffy.   By that I mean did it meet the statutory definition.   They already had to drop one charge as over reach.   Then there is the whole "protocol says actors do NOT check guns" which seems to vary as to whether that is a hard and fast rule or not.   But it put the charges against Baldwin on shaky ground.

The armorer, yeah she is toast.   Why were live rounds ANYWHERE on that set?

Yes it says charges may be refiled.   But its unlikely.   Once you drop them, even though you CAN refile, it really is a high hurdle to overcome.  If the charges are so strong, why'd you drop them?

Edited by merylinkid
  • Like 10
  • Applause 1
  • Useful 4
Link to comment
Guest

Guest

10 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

Very bad move. I'm more suspicious now that the prosecutor went on that show. 

To clarify, the prosecutor who went on Hannity stepped down last month. It’s a new prosecution team that is now dropping the charges. Most likely they saw the case against Baldwin, realized it was a long shot they could get a conviction and decided to drop it citing new evidence.

I’m sure they were also receiving pressure from entertainment lobbies who didn’t want this to set a precedent.

Link to comment
Bethany

Bethany

(edited)
1 hour ago, stonehaven said:

...and the below the line worker takes the fall while the producer and one holding the gun walks away.

To be fair the worker in this case is the one who is specifically tasked with making sure accidents like what happened on set do not happen.   

I do agree with you though that Baldwin, as the producer, bears some responsibility - I don't know what charges are appropriate but Baldwin, the producer, should face consequences, that IMO, Baldwin, the actor, should not.

Edited by Elizabeth Anne
  • Like 19
Link to comment
Irlandesa

Irlandesa

(edited)
2 hours ago, Elizabeth Anne said:

I do agree with you though that Baldwin, as the producer, bears some responsibility - I don't know what charges are appropriate but Baldwin, the producer, should face consequences, that IMO, Baldwin, the actor, should not.

I think that's the purpose of a civil court and that was handled already. It was settled last year. 

I'm not a lawyer but criminal charges always felt like an overreach and done because of how high-profile the incident was. 

Or, in most circumstances where people don't have the means to put up a vigorous defense, a deal is quickly made. 

Edited by Irlandesa
  • Like 6
  • Useful 1
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...