Bill Cosby admitted in 2005 that he got quaaludes with the intent of giving them to young women he wanted to have sex with, and that he gave the sedative to at least one woman and “other people,” according to documents obtained Monday by The Associated Press.
“Have sex with” isn’t quite the right way of putting what he wanted to do to the luded women.
The AP had gone to court to compel the release of the documents from the deposition in a sexual abuse lawsuit filed by former Temple University employee Andrea Constand — the first of a cascade of sexual abuse lawsuits against him. Cosby’s lawyers had objected on the grounds that it would embarrass their client.
Cosby settled that lawsuit under confidential terms in 2006.
So…there could be more lawsuits in his future?
Cosby, 77, has been accused by more than two dozen women of sexual misconduct, including allegations by many that he drugged and raped them in incidents dating back more than four decades. Cosby has never been criminally charged, and most of the accusations are barred by statutes of limitations.
Criminal accusations; that doesn’t mean civil suits are barred.
Cosby, giving sworn testimony in the lawsuit accusing him of sexual assaulting Constand at his home in Pennsylvania in 2005, said he got seven quaalude prescriptions in the 1970s. The lawyer for Constand asked if he had kept the sedatives through the 1990s — after they were banned — but was frustrated by objections from Cosby’s lawyer.
“When you got the quaaludes, was it in your mind that you were going to use these quaaludes for young women that you wanted to have sex with?” lawyer Dolores M. Troiani asked.
“Yes,” Cosby answered on Sept. 29, 2005.
But it was just a “joke.” There must be no witch hunt.
Cosby resigned in December from the board of trustees at Temple, where he was the popular face of the Philadelphia school in advertisements, fundraising campaigns and commencement speeches.
Witch hunt! Lynch mob! Fired from his job over a joke!
Witch hunt! Lynch mob! Fired from his job over a joke!
From your mouth to Richard Dawkins’ ear…
Donald Trump’s important analysis of this news is that Cosby isn’t handling this very well, and he’s getting bad advice on public relations.
When Trump is trashing your public relations, really, I’m not sure what that means. I look out upon the field where my snark doth grow and see that it is barren.
I think that you detract from the heinous and horrific nature of this by drawing parallel with the Tim Hunt affair. Hunt’s (obviously) misogynistic and stupid utterances were distasteful, and stupid. The public outrage was deserved. Dawkins’ response was over the top (I respect the man greatly, but he is off the rails here). None of this rises to the level of the Cosby crimes. Cosby seems to have committed many, many, many rapes. These are acts of terrible, destructive violence. If we conflate the two we lessen the import of the latter.
Just my opinion in this matter.
Well at least now we know we can believe the story, since we have more than just the claims of a bunch of feeemales.
I didn’t draw a parallel with the Tim Hunt affair. Hunt is only the latest in a long series of accusations of “witch hunts.” Those accusations fly around even when the issue is murder (Elliot Rodger).
I cringe at the comparison to Hunt. …at first.
How parallel are the ‘witch hunt’ howls, with the defense of Cosby’s privilege as a Big Positive Role Model? Only the categorical refusal to perceive bad intent is perfectly matched. From there on, a smorgasbord of status quo rationalizations and preemptory ‘offense-taking.’
Exactly. That’s why it wasn’t about Hunt, it was about the reactions to all of these – including Cosby.
Point well taken. I initially read the “witch hunt” remarks as connected to the Hunt incident. Perhaps I was hasty at drawing that connection.