He must have Epstein-levels of blackmail on everyone around him.

I mean he has a baby and his wife’s like “that’s fine.” He exposed himself “on accident” (but he winked…) and his boss is like “that’s fine.”

Makes no sense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any chance that CNN was threatened with a lawsuit surrounding his employment? The circumstances surrounding the whole incident seemed legally “iffy” in that I think the employees were technically on break and that it did not happen at CNN. Just curious if there’s anything to this angle? Is CNN completely out of their mind, or were they backed into a corner?

Could be but I doubt it. He has a contract. They may have to pay him off but they do not need to put him on. Putting him back on is odd I agree. More likely he has something on someone or someone owes him.

He is also a bad analyst so I am not sure why he was there to being with.

I’m sure his contract has a “bad behavior” clause that permits the network to let him go. If not, their lawyers should be sued for malpractice.

I bet it doesn't have such a clause because of his long history with screwed up boundaries. I'm betting his employment lawyer demanded no such clause.

Also, the Zoom incident happened with the New Yorker staff, where he was summarily fired. It had no relation to CNN, where he was still under contract. I know it's crazy, but CNN likely doesn't have a case to fire him without a big payout. Can you imagine the headlines: "Toobin walks away from CNN with $XX million payout after exposing himself." Frankly, it's absurd.

And Toobin is the type of narcissist who would back the network into the corner on this. He wants to rebuild his brand and refill the narcissistic supply. He wants to be on air.

Hopefully Jeff Zucker gets sh#tcanned soon.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The basis of his legal analysis is bring critical and judgmental of others’ actions and motives. If he thinks a “I didn’t mean it…. Didn’t think the camera was on” defense is legit, then he will not be an effective at his job.

Also if CNN wants to bd trusted, if I think about this every time I see him or he says something that reminds DS me of this, then he us not being effective.

I think this is a mistake fir CNN. There has to be some thing in his contract where they can legally let him go even tho this happened at another “company” call. It just pay him. Their reputation should be Worth more.

Why isn't he being treated/arrested like others who've been caught exposing themselves?

Sorry -- what? Why would he be arrested? What is the crime? Public Exposure. He was not in public as that law is defined. Anything else requires a state of mind he did not possess. No crime here.

Whether his behavior was criminal isn’t the only issue here. It’s not okay to expose yourself to colleagues depending on your state of mind. Also, unless you are Toobin, PP, you have no authority to tell us what his state of mind was.

PP was responding to a specific question as to why he wasn't arrested. But thanks for letting us know it's not ok to expose oneself to colleagues. If he had only known that sort of thing is frowned upon...

Some people on this thread and elsewhere seem to think it’s excusable as long as it was an “accident” (whatever that means).

Anonymous wrote:Safe bet he and Zucker are personal friends. There's no other explanation. This guy is creepy and in no way impressive or charismatic on screen.

+100

Safe bet he and Zucker are personal friends. There's no other explanation. This guy is creepy and in no way impressive or charismatic on screen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The basis of his legal analysis is bring critical and judgmental of others’ actions and motives. If he thinks a “I didn’t mean it…. Didn’t think the camera was on” defense is legit, then he will not be an effective at his job.

Also if CNN wants to bd trusted, if I think about this every time I see him or he says something that reminds DS me of this, then he us not being effective.

I think this is a mistake fir CNN. There has to be some thing in his contract where they can legally let him go even tho this happened at another “company” call. It just pay him. Their reputation should be Worth more.

Why isn't he being treated/arrested like others who've been caught exposing themselves?

Sorry -- what? Why would he be arrested? What is the crime? Public Exposure. He was not in public as that law is defined. Anything else requires a state of mind he did not possess. No crime here.

Whether his behavior was criminal isn’t the only issue here. It’s not okay to expose yourself to colleagues depending on your state of mind. Also, unless you are Toobin, PP, you have no authority to tell us what his state of mind was.

PP was responding to a specific question as to why he wasn't arrested. But thanks for letting us know it's not ok to expose oneself to colleagues. If he had only known that sort of thing is frowned upon...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any chance that CNN was threatened with a lawsuit surrounding his employment? The circumstances surrounding the whole incident seemed legally “iffy” in that I think the employees were technically on break and that it did not happen at CNN. Just curious if there’s anything to this angle? Is CNN completely out of their mind, or were they backed into a corner?

Could be but I doubt it. He has a contract. They may have to pay him off but they do not need to put him on. Putting him back on is odd I agree. More likely he has something on someone or someone owes him.

He is also a bad analyst so I am not sure why he was there to being with.

I’m sure his contract has a “bad behavior” clause that permits the network to let him go. If not, their lawyers should be sued for malpractice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The basis of his legal analysis is bring critical and judgmental of others’ actions and motives. If he thinks a “I didn’t mean it…. Didn’t think the camera was on” defense is legit, then he will not be an effective at his job.

Also if CNN wants to bd trusted, if I think about this every time I see him or he says something that reminds DS me of this, then he us not being effective.

I think this is a mistake fir CNN. There has to be some thing in his contract where they can legally let him go even tho this happened at another “company” call. It just pay him. Their reputation should be Worth more.

Why isn't he being treated/arrested like others who've been caught exposing themselves?

Sorry -- what? Why would he be arrested? What is the crime? Public Exposure. He was not in public as that law is defined. Anything else requires a state of mind he did not possess. No crime here.

Whether his behavior was criminal isn’t the only issue here. It’s not okay to expose yourself to colleagues depending on your state of mind. Also, unless you are Toobin, PP, you have no authority to tell us what his state of mind was.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, hand up. I still don’t know why this was a big deal—other than being completely mortifying for him.

The guy wasn’t harassing anyone or trying to JO on camera for a female colleague. He was at his house, had a few spare minutes, and made a monumentally embarrassing mistake. There but for the grace of God.

Why is he somehow toxic from like a “me too” perspective after that?

If you masturbate while you’re on the job, you need to get help.

Nursing mothers get a pumping room. What’s good for the goose…

Yea but it’s also considered socially acceptable for women to nurse in public with one of those modesty covers. If I see a man masturbating under a sheet at a park or restaurant I’m calling the cops.

Off-topic, but "under one of those modesty covers"?! It's acceptable period. What an odd PP.

Stupid asshole.

Anonymous wrote:Is there any chance that CNN was threatened with a lawsuit surrounding his employment? The circumstances surrounding the whole incident seemed legally “iffy” in that I think the employees were technically on break and that it did not happen at CNN. Just curious if there’s anything to this angle? Is CNN completely out of their mind, or were they backed into a corner?

Could be but I doubt it. He has a contract. They may have to pay him off but they do not need to put him on. Putting him back on is odd I agree. More likely he has something on someone or someone owes him.

He is also a bad analyst so I am not sure why he was there to being with.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The basis of his legal analysis is bring critical and judgmental of others’ actions and motives. If he thinks a “I didn’t mean it…. Didn’t think the camera was on” defense is legit, then he will not be an effective at his job.

Also if CNN wants to bd trusted, if I think about this every time I see him or he says something that reminds DS me of this, then he us not being effective.

I think this is a mistake fir CNN. There has to be some thing in his contract where they can legally let him go even tho this happened at another “company” call. It just pay him. Their reputation should be Worth more.

Why isn't he being treated/arrested like others who've been caught exposing themselves?

Sorry -- what? Why would he be arrested? What is the crime? Public Exposure. He was not in public as that law is defined. Anything else requires a state of mind he did not possess. No crime here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Plus she was extremely outspoken about her time at Fox. Now she has to buddy up to this colleague.

You couldn't pay me enough.


CNN ratings since Trump departed have tanked. They have to be desperate to take this creeper back.

Yup. And watch them pump up Trump after his two-year FB ban is over. He was the best thing to ever happen to television. The last time I turned on the TV was Jan 6.

Anonymous wrote:Plus she was extremely outspoken about her time at Fox. Now she has to buddy up to this colleague.

You couldn't pay me enough.

CNN ratings since Trump departed have tanked. They have to be desperate to take this creeper back.

Is there any chance that CNN was threatened with a lawsuit surrounding his employment? The circumstances surrounding the whole incident seemed legally “iffy” in that I think the employees were technically on break and that it did not happen at CNN. Just curious if there’s anything to this angle? Is CNN completely out of their mind, or were they backed into a corner?