White men can get away with literally anything.

Anonymous wrote:As cringeworthy as it is, I am mostly happy about it because maybe it will finally mean heads don't have to roll over every little thing. So many people have had their careers ruined by MUCH LESS BAD transgressions.

As for his situation, it's just weird and I will always think about the incident when seeing him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNN used to be news...now they count among their staff a guy who literally can't keep it in his pants. sad.

Hoping CNN+ takes all the talk shows and CNN gives us news. Late night coverage of Ukraine has been phenomenal.

Apparently CNN+ is already failing.

Anonymous wrote:I would be tempted to have him back on-air, but voice only. No video. He cannot behave himself.

Anonymous wrote:CNN used to be news...now they count among their staff a guy who literally can't keep it in his pants. sad.

Hoping CNN+ takes all the talk shows and CNN gives us news. Late night coverage of Ukraine has been phenomenal.

I would be tempted to have him back on-air, but voice only. No video. He cannot behave himself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The incident happened at the New Yorker, not CNN.
I’m guessing that CNN was contractually obliged to keep Toobin on, or they’d have to pay him a giant severance. Nothing happened while Toobin was on the job for CNN.

False. He was working for both companies at the time. cnn merely suspended him. He was back in a few months.

My point is that CNN likely couldn’t fire him since the incident didn’t happen at CNN. There was probably a very large breakage fee, if CNN tried to end the relationship absent committing a crime or malfeasance at CNN.

If you are a media personality working for a media company there's definitely a morality clause in your contract that would allow you to be fired for something that happened outside of the workplace if it reflects poorly on the company to keep you on.

1. There is no doubt but even if he did something really bad it is a toss up if litigated
2. What he did was a mistake. If he intended to expose himself that is one thing but it was a mistake -- no crime. Really doubt they could cut him without paying him They could keep him off air but pay him.
3. He was and is popular. That will always control these decisions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The incident happened at the New Yorker, not CNN.
I’m guessing that CNN was contractually obliged to keep Toobin on, or they’d have to pay him a giant severance. Nothing happened while Toobin was on the job for CNN.

False. He was working for both companies at the time. cnn merely suspended him. He was back in a few months.

My point is that CNN likely couldn’t fire him since the incident didn’t happen at CNN. There was probably a very large breakage fee, if CNN tried to end the relationship absent committing a crime or malfeasance at CNN.

If you are a media personality working for a media company there's definitely a morality clause in your contract that would allow you to be fired for something that happened outside of the workplace if it reflects poorly on the company to keep you on.

Anonymous wrote:That disgusting pig being on CNN and Chris Cuomo not being on is why I stopped watching CNN.

Screw them.

Yes, agree, I'll never watch CNN again.

Anonymous wrote:As cringeworthy as it is, I am mostly happy about it because maybe it will finally mean heads don't have to roll over every little thing. So many people have had their careers ruined by MUCH LESS BAD transgressions.

As for his situation, it's just weird and I will always think about the incident when seeing him.

Didn't he also have an affair with a "friend's" very young daughter, then tried to pressure her to abort the baby? She didn't. Then he was difficult about child support? The details are fuzzy. Long story short, he is a repulsive scummy creep.

Unbelievable what a jerk he is. He had a baby with a mistress and the baby mama had to go to court for child support, and there was a court ordered paternity test.
And his wife stayed with him!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The incident happened at the New Yorker, not CNN.
I’m guessing that CNN was contractually obliged to keep Toobin on, or they’d have to pay him a giant severance. Nothing happened while Toobin was on the job for CNN.

False. He was working for both companies at the time. cnn merely suspended him. He was back in a few months.

My point is that CNN likely couldn’t fire him since the incident didn’t happen at CNN. There was probably a very large breakage fee, if CNN tried to end the relationship absent committing a crime or malfeasance at CNN.

Anonymous wrote:The incident happened at the New Yorker, not CNN.
I’m guessing that CNN was contractually obliged to keep Toobin on, or they’d have to pay him a giant severance. Nothing happened while Toobin was on the job for CNN.

False. He was working for both companies at the time. cnn merely suspended him. He was back in a few months.

He’s been back for a few months now. Lubing toobin doesn’t give any effs. Then again, it’s the same network who hired Chris Cuomo and the sexual assault known as Don Lemon.

Ugh, apparently he's also a cheating pig and his delusional wife has decided to stay with him through everything:

https://www.the-sun.com/news/1658704/jeffrey-toobin-wife-amy-bennett-mcintosh-new-yorker/