Whoopi Goldberg reverses her stance on Bill Cosby: ‘It looks bad, Bill’

Whoopi Goldberg threw a wrench in the Bill Cosby mix on yesterday’s edition of The View. She changed her mind from telling people how Cosby was innocent because he wasn’t in jail and there was no proof that he raped anyone. This is an unexpected move, to say the least. Whoopi previously disregarded the 50 women who came forward with accusations, and even Cosby’s own admission didn’t sway Whoopi.

Whoopi completely reversed her stance overnight on the Cosby situation, which seems odd since she never retracted her Polanski justification of “I know it wasn’t rape-rape.” Whoopi brought Dan Abrams on board to educate everyone on the Cosby matter:

Whoopi: “I have been taking a lot of heat for various reasons. So I asked ABC News chief legal analyst Dan Abrams to come, help me understand a lot of what’s going on, and to help you understand, so we’re all on the same page.”

Dan (on the legal standard upon arrest): “The legal standard would be proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And he would be innocent until proven guilty in each one of the cases.”

Whoopi: “50 women have alleged that he assaulted them and drugged them, and basically as a serial rapist, why is he still on the street? He’s never been arrested or put in jail. How is that possible?”

Dan: “A couple reasons. First of all, there were women who were reluctant to come forward. I think they were ashamed or embarrassed. As a legal matter, the statute of limitations has expired, both on civil and criminal in the states where this is alleged to have happened. That’s a legal technicality.”

Whoopi: “That’s a shock to me. You’re saying all that is left to these women is the court of public opinion.”

Dan: “It is impossible to ignore the consistency of these stories. As practical matter, the remedy against Bill Cosby is the court of public opinion. It’s the pressure; it’s the pulling of his TV shows, it’s the ridicule.”

Whoopi: “There is no recourse for these women except what they are doing. If this is to be tried in the court of public opinion I gotta say, all of the information that’s out there kinda points to guilt. Now, again, I always thought they would have the opportunity to take him to court, but [Abrams is] saying that’s not true. You got a serial rapist, he’s been on the streets for 30 years. I thought, ‘Here’s all the information. Take his a** to jail.’ I find out from you that that’s not possible … So, I can’t say any more ‘innocent until proven guilty’. It looks bad, Bill. Either speak up or shut up, cause people know now there’s a lot more out there than they thought.”

[From Deadline]

Has Whoopi truly changed her mind? She still hedges by saying “all of the information that’s out there kinda points to guilt.” Why does she use the word “kinda” when Cosby flat-out admitted (under oath) to drugging women for sex? The case was already clear before his admission, and it’s even clearer now.

Radar spoke with an inside source that says Whoopi didn’t want to make this statement. She was reportedly pressured into “pulling a 180.” Can we give Whoopi credit for doing a complete about face on her previous Cosby stance? Dan Abrams can be extremely persuasive, but there’s a fair chance that Whoopi only publicly changed her mind because of ABC pressure.

Dan Abrams

Bill Cosby

Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet & WENN

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

167 Responses to “Whoopi Goldberg reverses her stance on Bill Cosby: ‘It looks bad, Bill’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Luca76 says:

    I don’t buy it and she owes the public an apology. Seriously the View needs to be off the air.

    • Kiddo says:

      Why does she need to apologize to the public, though? If anyone, it would seem to be the women with allegations. But if it was her true opinion, that she didn’t believe allegations, I don’t understand the assault against the public per se.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        I get what Luca76 is saying. She was spreading misinformation. I’m not sure she owes me an apology for that, but this goes beyond her opinion, I think. She was victim blaming and giving reasons for her defense that were false because she (claims) she was stupid enough to believe the women could take him to court. She didn’t fully research the facts before giving her opinion. There are presumably people who look up to her and are influenced by her opinion, and she misled them.

      • Kiddo says:

        If the public doesn’t want to educate themselves beyond Whoopi’s opinion, the problem isn’t Whoopi.

        Don’t they have a fact checker on that show?

      • Kitten says:

        She’s been given the platform thus she has a responsibility to be fully-informed, particularly about a sensitive and serious subject that involves accusations about someone she knows on a personal level. Period, end of.

        I don’t think she owes the public an apology, but she’s still a ahole IMO.

      • Kiddo says:

        I think that responsibility also falls to the directors and producers of the show.

      • Josefa says:


        I agree. Whoopi gave a misinformed and stupid opinion and we called her out on it. She called the victims liars and should apologise for it, but I don’t see how we as an audience deserve an apology from her.

      • JenniferJustice says:

        I don’t beleive she thought he could be taken to court. How many times have we all read and been told that the statute of limitations expired? Why did she need a legal analyst to tell her what we already know and what I think she already knew? She owes me nothing. She owes the victims an apology and it would be really something is she publicly took back her support of Cosby in a formal interview or something because at this point, that is the only harm that can come to Cosby – no support, no fandom, no more fame, etc. She was quick to offer support, so if she’s changed her mind, let’s see her take it back. This article doesn’t count bc it doesn’t reach the number of people her show did when she proclaimed his innocence. I’d like to see what he would tweet her then.

      • Carol says:

        @kiddo – I agree with you. Whoopie had an opinion that was contrary to most people’s view of the allegations. She had Dan come on and explain as to why there is no legal recourse for the women. I don’t think an apology is necessary.

        BTW – It’s my understanding that during the deposition Cosby admitted that he drugged women. He, however, did not state that it was NOT consensual – his attorney stopped the questioning just short of Cosby answering whether or not it was consensual. So that might explain why he is still out on the streets.

      • TeaAndSympathy says:

        I was thinking the same thing, JenniferJ. I’m in Australia, yet knew what she’s claiming not to have known about a friend and colleague. I think she realised her stance was making her look really, really bad, and this was the main reason for her turnaround, which frankly, I’ve been expecting. Whether she’s sincere or not, well, only she can answer that.

        Dan: “It is impossible to ignore the consistency of these stories.” As a woman who’s experienced and observed a lot of life – good and bad, I’m sure – that should have been enough to question his behaviour. Patterns and pieces make full pictures.

    • kcarp says:

      I am the a part of the public and in no way does she owe me an apology. She can believe and say anything she wants. The View is boring and ridiculous but it shouldn’t be pulled from the air just because the public may not agree with all of their opinions.

      What happened to everyone having their own opinion? Who cares what Whoopi believes to be true?

      Say Bill Cosby is your friend for like 50 years and you have never seen anything like this behavior and you don’t believe the women. What if you defended him on TV, and you are 100% wrong but you still defend your friend, do you owe the public an apology?

      Does everyone who thinks OJ is innocent owe the public an apology?

      • TrustMOnThis says:

        No one thinks OJ is innocent.

      • jwoolman says:

        There are obviously people who doubt OJ did the deed (that’s why he was acquitted) and I’m one of them, although I think he knows who did it. There are too many oddities about the story and motivation, and it was way out of his pattern to use a knife like that – he abused with his fists, and a friend who is a lawyer dealing with such cases said that when the woman is killed, typically it is by the same method used all along. So if she were beaten to death, OJ would be a prime suspect. My lawyer friend also said the case should have been thrown out just based on gross mishandling of evidence. Still, the evidence should have been overwhelming if he was the one who did it, with modern forensic methods. Police always go for the current or ex spouse in such cases as the easiest way, and except in TV shows they rarely investigate seriously beyond that.

        Two theories make more sense to me, both would give OJ motive to cover for the true murderer. One theory is that his older son, who did know how to use such knives because of his work, had a psychotic break (he had problems before) and killed them for whatever deluded reason. This kind of thing has certainly happened in other cases and it would also explain the partial DNA matches seen. If OJ didn’t do it, he would feel confident about going to trial and his actions would be intended to distract and focus attention on himself rather than on his son. Another theory is that the killing was a mob warning to OJ (similar killings had occurred before and after). A more remote theory is that her boyfriend’s family had mob connections also, but OJ himself seems more likely to me.

      • kcarp says:


        You are right about that.

        Oprah does those Where are they now shows, she needs to do one on the OJ jurors. Do they still believe he is innocent? Or did they just not believe the prosecutors.

      • mytbean says:

        Trust – lol!

      • noway says:

        People really need to stop with the absolutes. Yes there are people who think OJ is innocent, guilty, framed and you probably name it. Reading even just a handful of comments on this board alone you start to realize opinions are very diverse. I wish we could all agree to just listen to each other and try to understand if not believe in another person’s opinion. Since no one knows with 100% accuracy whether Bill, OJ, etc are guilty, they really are just opinions some more well informed and based in facts and logic than others, but still opinions.

        Now I don’t have a problem with Whoopie the kinda comments, she was a supporter for so long anything else would seem extremely insincere. As it was it still seemed like the network was the one pressing the issue, and changing her opinion. Also, I can’t believe she didn’t know that the statute of limitations on all of these cases has expired, and she is just having this ah ah moment. This doesn’t say much for her knowledge.

        There is a part of me that would understand Whoopie more if she just stuck to her opinion, maybe not so belligerently. She knows Cosby, and maybe feels that he did a lot for African American comedians and entertainers. The man she knows probably shows no signs of the creep that the women are describing. Even though he admitted to the drugs, she lived those times. She knows many in Hollywood were taking quaaludes like candy to relax and release inhibitions. She could think it was consensual. I know people want to believe that serial rapist are visible monsters, in part because it makes us feel like we can spot them. The reality is some are very charming, someone you would probably like to have a drink with go to dinner or a date, this is how they work. I think her new turn seems for her job, and that is sad to me. I don’t agree with her opinion, but she has a right to it and as long as she stopped accusing the victims I can see her point. I wanted to believe Cosby was innocent too, mainly because I knew the statute of limitations had expired and there was no real punishment to be had. It made me feel better to think he didn’t do it if we couldn’t legitimately punish him.

        Maybe I read the Scarlet Letter too much, but I really am not a fan of public shaming instead of a trial. The mob mentality just gets it wrong too many times to make me comfortable. Plus the public opinion bashing just leaves a bad taste in my mouth plus it is an unsatisfying punishment, not how we should deal with a criminal at all.

    • Dee says:

      Seriously. That show is just full of idiots.

      • Aussie girl says:

        I just don’t buy that she has never heard of the statue of limitations before. I’m not even American and I know that this is the case in this country. I’m all for her owning up to this and I don’t think she owes anyone an apology but watching the clip and her acting like she has never heard of the statue of limitations, to me it was just a bit of BS.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Agree, Aussiegirl. What, has she been living under a rock?

    • mytbean says:

      I happen to support where Whoopi was coming from. People are putting a lot of words into her mouth making it sound as if she thought he was innocent when in reality she was simply going to treat him as though he was based on the fact that she didn’t know for certain he was guilty.

      I think she’s like a lot of HW in that her fact sheet is heavily filtered through both a weird set of friends and her own naturally developed wall of cynicism. She can’t look at the media in the same way as we can because she’s seen, first hand, a sh*t ton of misinformation come through the pipe-line about her and people she knows and understands how completely misleading and damaging it can be to people who really have no effective rebuttal.

      So, what she knows/knew was limited and from her perspective she was going to rely on a court of law to draw a solid line for her – and until that happened she was going to go with the constitution’s presumption of innocence.

      Now she’s been told by a legal professional that that isn’t going to happen and realizes that waiting for a court of law to draw a conclusion is futile, that she has to make a decision as to where she stands on this without that legal source to define the terms.

      Frankly I respect this. I respect that she didn’t jump on the bandwagon and adopt a mob mentality but instead wanted it to be handled in a proper way, with all the facts on the table and the details in full light. Unfortunately, it won’t be handled like that… but I respect that she wanted it to be before she started judging him based on what she considered heresay.

      • Kiddo says:

        “with all the facts on the table”, and yet she didn’t bother to look at the facts on the table, such as the statute of limitations. You can’t have it both ways. Either you look at facts, don’t ignore facts, or you do research to discover what the facts are before you state your opinion.

      • Dr.Funkenstein says:

        That seems reasonable enough to me, assuming she didn’t know about the statue of limitations, and I don’t really expect much from these folks on talk shows anymore in terms of “research.” Frankly, I don’t expect much from the news outlets, either.

      • lucy2 says:

        If I felt like that’s what she’d been doing, I would agree more with you. If she’d said “I don’t understand the legal situation so I don’t want to speak on it” or “Let’s discuss the accusations but remember that he has not been charged or convicted”, I’d be more willing to credit her with trying to keep a level head and not rush to the mob mentality.
        Instead her stance seems to have been to put the burden on the victims, essentially “if this happened why didn’t you go to the police?”, and ignoring the complexities of rape cases in general, but even more so when dealing with a powerful, wealthy, famous man. She referred to him as “falsely accused”, and basically said she didn’t believe the accusers. Her whole argument seems to be that because the police didn’t arrest him and he wasn’t convicted, he didn’t do it, and the 40+ women were lying.

        Also, the statute of limitations was discussed in almost every article I read about it. As someone in the media giving her opinion on a public platform, she should have been aware of it, or educated herself on it sooner. I’m glad she had Abrams on and is finally accepting at least the possibility that these women aren’t all lying, but I’m not buying her reasons for it. I think she got tired of being yelled at and looked for an excuse for why it took her so long.

      • strah says:

        @mytbean, I absolutely agree with you. I said a similar things on the last Whoppi post.

    • Sandy says:

      This is soooooo orchestrated! Whoopi has to invite a lawyer onto the show to explain the most basic legal concepts, as if she just couldn’t grasp them before. Please! She’s a reverse racist and she and the show, need to go!

      • Pinky says:

        Stop it with tat “reverse racism” crap. Seriously.

      • MrsNix says:

        Oh, lawdy…what on EARTH did any of this have to do with race? Goodness gracious.

        I don’t think she should apologize to the audience. I just think the audience should see this as yet another example of why the View is not a show to go to for information.

        I tend to enjoy Whoopi most of the time, but she sounded like a rank idiot in this video. It’s the lack of informed commentary, not racism, for which people should choose not to regard the View.

    • Michelle says:

      Back in the fall she was TOLD by Rosie O’Donnell about the statute of limitations and shrugged it off. My guess is she was basically forced by Barbara and ABC to do this 180. Viewers were dropping and advertisers would follow if she continued to stubbornly defend a rapist.

      • doofus says:

        very interesting about Rosie…I REALLY hope she comes out swinging and calls out Whoopi on her BS about not knowing until now.

      • mytbean says:

        But it wasn’t just this. I still think that, like many people in HW, she was taking every single thing she heard with a mountain of salt because it was all genuinely heresay. Troubling awful heresay but still just voices and words from sources she knew better than to take as stone cold fact.

        Granted – I do think she was getting heat from every direction. And yes, it’s more than probable that she caved and set her own more psychologically convenient parameters to protect her ego (and her job) in this nasty situation – aka a lawyer telling her that waiting for the law to work it out was not going to happen.

        Either way, I just want Cosby to go to jail for a long time. But I feel sorry for his children who now only have this shameful legacy to look back on.

    • LA Juice says:

      I think Barbara told her to get her shit together, and this Dan Abrams conversation was the way they smoke screened it.

    • LeAnn Stinks says:

      This is called backpedaling. Whoopi received so much backlash on social media, and in the press, that the producers of “The View” probably advised her to change her stance.

      Also, it didn’t help that all the women on “The Talk,” were outraged by Cosby’s actions, and neither of the comediennes on the panel (Aisha Tyler and Sheryl Underwood), came to his defense, like Whoopi.

      In this particular case, to say Golberg is moron, would be an understatement.

    • dottie says:

      This is a classic! classic! example of what this very same bunch of women, including dan abrams, have been doing, re the kelly rutherford case!!!!!

      They have kelly onthe show spouting her lies; they have dan abrams on the show with kelly, neglecting to tell the truth as revealed in the court documents that are available online; and then these idle bunch of parrots open their piehole after swallowing everything kelly tells them, and advocate on her behalf!

      Classic, i tell you. This show isnt about fact-based opinions. Its just an idle worthless bunch of gossiping females,

  2. Kiddo says:

    I only watched a clip, but it was all so strange. It felt like children’s educational programing, completely scripted.

    ETA: It takes a big person to change a position on something they once staunchly and unabashedly endorsed. If that is the case, then good for her. But I’m not sure what happened here.

    • doofus says:

      my first thought was “good for her for finally getting it” but my second veryquickfollowup thought was “she was threatened with termination by ABC and this was all deliberate”.

      also not 100% SURE what happened, but I have my (strong) suspicions…

      • Elisa the I. says:

        So many people where calling her out for her previous statement. I agree with you that ABC put her under pressure to “change” her opinion – and she wanted to keep her job.

      • Belle Epoch says:

        The producers must have been overwhelmed with calls and emails about Whoopi’s total disregard for dozens of raped women. Somebody finessed this as “let’s educate everyone” so Whoopi could publicly do a 180 and stop the flow of blood for the network. She’s not a loyal friend, she’s delusional for throwing 50 other women under the bus.

      • Kitten says:

        Exactly, doofus and Belle Epoch–that was my first thought as well.

      • minx says:

        I agree.
        She sounded like a complete idiot, regardless.

    • Shambles says:

      It does take a lot of balls to come out and say, “okay, I was wrong,” after passionately defending something or someone. I just don’t buy it here. Instead of taking a step back and saying, “I may have been misinformed, I’m sorry,” she turned it into, “let me educate you, plebeians.”

      • Kiddo says:

        I think it was a way (the educational priming) for her to save face, whether she genuinely changed her mind, or it was changed for her.

        But I can’t help but feel that she was pressured in a come to Jesus meeting. Which, on one level, makes me feel sorry for her, even if I disagreed with her. On another hand, if she didn’t change her mind, and still felt passionate about her support for Cosby, then she lost integrity to save a job or a show. It’s difficult to know how to feel about all of it.

      • Shambles says:

        Props to you, Kiddo, for making a genuine effort to see the situation from a wide range of perspectives. This is why you are the smarts. It is pretty messy, so I can see why it’s hard to know how to feel. Maybe that’s the place Whoopi is in, too.

      • kibbles says:

        All this shows is that Whoopi’s views have a price and can be changed depending on what her bosses want. It’s embarrassing for her as well as the show because now we all know that despite the purpose of this show, none of the hosts can rock the boat too much without being pressured to take a more neutral or favorable stance based on public opinion. She should have known better not to come out so passionately for an alleged rapist on a show that is targeted to women. I understand all of the hate mail and outrage, but at the same time, people need to realize that Whoopi is entitled to her idiotic opinions. She should have been let go a long time ago, but I’m sure Whoopi will not leave this show without a fight. She knows that this show is one of the few things left going for her to earn a steady and lucrative paycheck.

      • Kiddo says:

        Thanks Shambles, MWAH!

      • Kitten says:

        Kiddo is a big ol’ softie.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      I’m not buying it. Don’t tell me that she didn’t know until NOW that the statute of limitations has expired for these women and that this is their only recourse. She’s not a total idiot. People must have made that argument to her dozens of times. I think her bosses told her to reverse or modify her opinion, or she was out.

      • Snazzy says:

        “she’s not a total idiot” — are you sure?
        Honestly, because I seriously wonder about that …
        I think she really may be a total and complete imbecile

        ETA: Or maybe not considering she was smart enough to do an about-face to save her job…

      • FLORC says:

        I think Whoopi is poorly informed and might have believed those ladies could still filed a civil case.
        Or someone (Cosby?) was telling her they just want Bill’s money. At least now she’s appearing to have a better grasp on this.
        I do believe ABC got a lot of heat for her comments and she got a talking to about how wrong and offensive and ignorant her comments have been.
        And Abrams… Is it hot in here?

      • JudyK says:

        Not buying it, either. If she wasn’t aware that the statute of limitations had expired for these women, she does not deserve to be anchoring The View.

        I’m just generally tired of her and have witnessed her making ridiculous assumptions and jumping to conclusions about many matters she admits to being uninformed about. Don’t speak if you haven’t watched something or don’t know the background, and you don’t deserve your seat if you don’t do the research and investigation before jumping to absurd conclusions and making definitive statements about things you know next to nothing about.

      • Kitten says:

        @ FLORC-“I think Whoopi is poorly informed and might have believed those ladies could still filed a civil case.”

        That’s totally possible. That’s the closest thing to the benefit of the doubt that I can give this woman.

        And Abrams is so cute–always had such a crush on him.

      • @FLORC, Kitten
        I thought it was just me! Dude is sexy. Does he need a trophy wife?

      • Michelle says:

        Rosie O’Donnell informed her of the Statue of Limitations in these cases back in the fall. Whoopi didn’t care then but she is lying now and just using it an excuse.

      • FLORC says:

        He’s really attractive, but how he speaks about the issues at hand. OMG…

        Whoopi has often struck me as a woman who doesn’t fully grasp topics. They have to be willing to accept facts. You can’t tell them facts and expect them to just be absorbed.

      • Decorative Item says:

        Yep! Couldn’t agree more. She changed her stance because she didn’t want her paycheck to go away. I think she has as much integrity as…well, Cosby.

    • Olenna says:

      Agree; it was all too canned and elementary. I believe she was pressured to do this.

    • belle de jour says:

      “It felt like children’s educational programing, completely scripted.”

      Exactly my impression and my instinct.

      Especially this line: “You’re saying all that is left to these women is the court of public opinion.”

      Scripted, scripted, scripted. Written to steer towards a pre-determined explanation while hinting at a false sense of revelation; delivered with a career-threatening ultimatum pointed at her head.

    • chaine says:

      “and now for a very special episode of Sesame Street…” yikes.

  3. Shambles says:

    She gets zero credit from me. The entire thing comes off as gross and condescending. She’s decided we need Dan Abrams to educate us, even though we all knew the only reason Cosby was never charged was an expired statute of limitations– she was the idiot that couldn’t quite grasp that concept THREE DAYS AGO. Her change of heart obviously isn’t genuine, and she still comes off like an a$$hole.

    • doofus says:

      “we all knew the only reason Cosby was never charged was an expired statute of limitations– she was the idiot that couldn’t quite grasp that concept THREE DAYS AGO.”

      or, three months ago…every article has mentioned that fact, which is why (as I said above) my second, and stronger, suspicion is that this was meant to save her job.

      • Shambles says:

        Precisely, Doofus. I only stressed “THREE DAYS AGO,” to emphasize the fact that she was just defending the sh!t out of this man very very recently, which makes the whole thing seem much less than genuine.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      Yeah, she wants us “all to be on the same page,” like we were all where she was, instead of saying “I was dead wrong.” If she really didn’t know about the statute of limitations, which I don’t believe, she’s a moron.

      • Shambles says:

        Yup, GNAT, the “lets all get on the same page” junk just sounds like a way to avoid being held accountable for her own opinion. Don’t put words in my mouth, Whoopi, I was already on the page that said “Cosby is a twisted, nasty monster.” You’re the one who was a few chapters behind.

      • Kitten says:

        Exactly! She sucks.

    • PhenomenalWoman says:

      Whoopi “changed her mind” because her job depended on it. You don’t go from the virulent defense stance she was taking (“back off me!”) to be totally reasonable. She was threatened with termination.

    • Kloops says:

      Exactly. The vast majority of the public has been “on the same page” for months and has a fairly clear layman’s understanding of the legal predicament the survivors are in. The only person who needed educating is Whoppi. Whatever. I haven’t watched the View in years entirely because the hosts are idiots.

    • Original T.C. says:

      She is parsing her words using politician speak while still on Cosby’s side. So she’s still not even changing her mind. Sad. If you re-watch the clip she’s essentially saying:
      1)He hasn’t been tried in a court of law because the women failed to report the rapes (not true)

      2) He can only be judged by the court of public OPINION.

      3) He LOOKS guilty to the public (not actually guilty even though he heard his confession) so “BILL put up or shut up. Do an interview”. Translation: Bill my friend, you are still good it’s only public opinion, so find someone you trust to do a soft interview and begin the charm offensive to win OPINION.

      She was forced to do this but found a way around admitting that HER opinion of his guilt was and will never be changed because he won’t get his chance in court. Whop pie does not care about opinions from the masses. Old Hollywood stars just don’t.

  4. Wooley says:

    More like the higher ups at the View (or Barbara Walters herself) had a talk with her.

  5. lisa2 says:

    I totally believe she was pressured; because he didn’t say anything that others have not said. I think something is going on and Whoopie is losing her mind or something. I understand she and others; have had great respect for Cosby and what he has stood for. It is hard to see someone you respect be revealed as someone who has done something so horrible.
    It makes you question your judgement. I think the people that continue to support Cosby do so more for themselves than him. Because as I said it then becomes about how could you like someone like this and how could you not know.

  6. Bridget says:

    “And I’m totally not saying this because my bosses made me and I don’t want to lose my job because no one else will pay me this kind of money to just sit here and say whatever pops into my head and phone the rest in”

    • Giddy says:

      Yes! I believe that some major advertisers must have threatened to pull out, so ABC gave her an ultimatum. Whoopi has not changed her mind and is probably furious that she was forced into this. However, no way was she going to issue a mea culpa; instead we get a “teachable moment” with Dan Abrams that was ridiculous. Anyone who was fooled by this needs work on their bs detector.

    • Michelle says:

      She ironically mentioned she felt bad for the other actors on Cosby’s shows because there would no longer be royalties. Well Whoopi, what about the other people sitting next to you on the View? The View could very well be in jeopardy of being cancelled because of the aftermath of her defending a rapist. Did she think about the other women losing their jobs on the View because of her? You know the ones right in front of you? Not actors from an 80s show still getting royalties.

  7. GiGi says:

    I think Whoopi has been ridiculous about this entire thing. However… if you hadn’t been paying attention to the details of this and all these women are just coming out publicly, without filing suit, I can see why *some* people could think they were just looking for attention. But once a person (Whoopi) learns that this is the only avenue for these women… I think it would change a person’s mind. Instead of thinking, “Why aren’t these women taking legal action?” one would hopefully understand that this was their only avenue and they’re not being attention-seeking.

    I hope this very rudimentary commentary on The View really did open the eyes of some people!

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      But if you are a commentator about public events, shouldn’t you be paying attention before you open your big mouth? How dare she ignore the testimony of over 40 women and come out against them without doing the most basic research? I know she’s not a reporter, and I certainly don’t get my opinions from her, but she has some influence, and I think that brings with it some responsibility.

      • Kiddo says:

        I think this is a problem with the show. As you mentioned above, she had done no research or was flying in the face of certain facts. Maybe one of them should be required to actually read details of the case aloud onset before starting the discussions.

      • jwoolman says:

        The View isn’t that serious a show. The panel is just supposed to talk about their opinions, not research them. It’s not a news commentary show in the usual sense. It’s a gab fest.

      • lucy2 says:

        Absolutely – if you are going to speak on a public platform like this, you have a responsibility to either learn about what you’re talking about, or be honest and say you’re not informed enough to make an opinion.

      • Bridget says:

        The View isn’t that serious of a show anymore because they populated it with idiots. Over the years they have put together panels of some of the most unlikeable and ill-informed women that I wonder if they actually WANT viewers to flee.

    • GingerCrunch says:

      Rudimentary, elementary, educational….it’s all of those things. But your point shouldn’t be lost GiGi. Hopefully this explanation will silence the other whack-jobs out there who still think these women are attention-seekers! Whoopi’s not even worth a second thought, imo.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Yes, I agree, Gigi is correct that if this opens a few eyes, it’s a good thing.

  8. Colleen says:

    And her final comment to women not to wait rubs me the wrong way. It would be so much easier, sure, to get rapists off the street, but it’s just not right to push someone who’s been through such a trauma to deal with it when you want them to deal with it. As anyone who has been a victim of sexual crime can tell you, it just doesn’t work that way. The guilt, shame and all the other emotions that surface in the aftermath can really incapacitate one.

    • Kiddo says:

      Yeah, women who were assaulted do not need advice from a person who is a skeptic about their trauma. The reason many women do not come forward, especially with wealthy, powerful men, is the fear that they won’t be believed and that their sexual history, motivation, etc will be dragged through the mud. So Whoopi telling them to report earlier is like a massive f_ck you in a circuitous catch 22.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      Very much so, both of you, and don’t forget, it was Bill Cosby, America’s dad. He was so powerful in the industry at that time. They would have been ripped to shreds.

      I was sexually assaulted bout a year and a half after my divorce. I wasn’t raped, but I was molested and held prisoner for hours. I never went to the police because I knew nobody would believe me. I was on a first date, a blind date, and he was driving (my first mistake) and he just drove to his house to “show it to me.” I wouldn’t go in for a long time, but he kept insisting, so I did (second mistake) and he held me there for hours, groping me, tearing at my clothes, threatening me and insisting I wanted sex with him. He would have raped me, but I kept threatening to tell our mutual “friend” what he was really like, and that would calm him down for a bit. Anyway, I was very lucky that it wasn’t worse, but my point is I understand why you don’t report something you know nobody will believe.

      • doofus says:

        jaysus, GNAT, I’m so sorry that happened to you.

      • Louisa says:

        I’m sorry you went through this. It makes me so mad that you and so many women have to feel that they won’t be believed after an assault like this. Hope you’re doing okay.

    • Michelle says:

      I also didn’t like that she was upset the Cosby Show was cancelled from all syndication , “for the other actors on the show”.

  9. KIKI says:

    At this point I stil Whoopi but I just don’t what she say at this time, that gravy train has sailed. The point is the Bill Cosby is a scumbag, along with Paula Dean and Donald Sterling. They should just go and do not comeback.

  10. Neelyo says:

    Maybe she saw the montage from John Oliver’s show and was belatedly trying to save face.

  11. TX says:

    If she *truly* did not realize that these women were out of legal options, and therefore assumed they were out for money/attention only, I can see how finding that out would change her mind very quickly.

    She doesn’t strike me as the kind to look up articles on this, and it’s my understanding that they are friends at least casually. And frankly, maybe she’s just not that smart. Celebrities live in a very strange bubble, and with that lense, I can see how she would believe her friend and not investigate further, especially when she has probably seen people take advantage of a famous name before.

  12. kibbles says:

    Whoopi is a complete idiot and a rape apologist. I don’t trust that she has the wisdom and intelligence to see the error of her ways. I don’t believe that she has completely changed her opinion on Cosby, Polanski, or other rapists and woman beaters (she defended Chris Brown and Mel Gibson too) roaming around Hollywood or anywhere else on this earth. Dan Abrams was invited on The View with the sole purpose of giving Whoopi a chance to do a 180 on the show. This farce was clearly staged. She was pressured by the producers to change her opinion and she only did so to keep her cushy job.

  13. Colleen says:

    Was this arranged by her PR people?

  14. feebee says:

    She didn’t bring on Dan Abrams. He was sent by ABC to assist Whoopi’s public transition to the right side of this issue. She hasn’t privately changed her mind. “It looks bad, Bill” sounds like a echo of what she heard earlier… “It looks bad, Whoopi”. I think it got bad for ABC. It’s one thing when people criticize Whoopi for being stupid (and other things I won’t say) but it’s another when the show and network get pulled under with her. So something had to change. While it would have been perfectly understandable and acceptable to most if they got rid of her, it may have created a firestorm if she decided she wasn’t going quietly. Looks and sounds like they came to some agreement.

  15. Loopy says:

    No Whoopi is very stubborn and head strong, she may have felt the pressure of losing her job. This was obviously a coercion which defeats the purpose of the view.

  16. aquarius64 says:

    It sounds more to me that Whoopi was pressured by the brass from ABC. Ratings were probably taking a hit because of her defense of Cosby (as in straw that broke the camel’s back) and advertisers were probably threatening to bail.

    • We Are All Made of Stars says:

      And so we’ve learned something very important about her here: that despite her idiotic unrelenting defense of a veritable casting call of scumsuckers, what matters most to Whoopi is her own bottom line. She’s every bit as willing to violate her fake friends when it’s good for her as her friends are willing to violate others in turn. These people deserve each other.

  17. Tara says:

    Seems staged by the higher ups. Having Dan Abrams there to educate us and help us understand? Seems so fake and contrived. No Whoopi, we didn’t try to discredit 50 victimized women and protect a serial rapist. I think ABC and the producers on the show were receiving so much hate from Whoopi’s stupid excuses that they had to step in.

  18. NewWester says:

    It sounds like someone( Barbara, ABC or her agent) had a talk with her. I also think within the next few months there will be a statement like this from Whoopi and The View/ABC:
    ” Due to personal reasons Whoopi Goldberg has decided to leave the View. All of us at the View wish Whoopi all the best in her future endeavours .” No response from Whoopi’s rep at this time”
    Whoopi has had and made very extreme and shocking statements in the past as moderator on the show. You can be sure she has ruffled a few feathers and this latest round has probably been it for the suits at ABC.
    Her statement sounds like a employee who was just given a final warning by their employer.

  19. Regarded says:

    I don’t understand this woman at all. Even if, for some ridiculous reason, you believe that Bill Cosby has been wrongfully accused, how could you not know that the statute of limitations for these accusations makes it impossible to get justice in a court of law?

    I’m no expert on criminal proceedings, but years of watching Law and Order: SVU helped me understand this concept. How does Whoopi not know that there is an expiration date on crimes committed, after a certain amount of time? I think it’s terrible that someone with such little knowledge would go and give her uneducated opinion to the masses. If you’re in that kind of position, the least you could do is read an article or two to make sure what you’re saying is valid.

  20. suki says:

    i was going to link John Oliver too..i see that someone beat me to it!

  21. Amy Tennant says:

    I looked up the statute of limitations in my state, and there is good and bad news. The good news: in 2012 Georgia removed the statute of limitations on child molestation if the child is younger than 16. The bad is that prosecutions for rape of an older individual is 15 years (with an extra 7 years tacked on if the victim is under 18). Interestingly, from what I’m reading it seems that if DNA evidence is available, there is no statute of limitations.

    I am writing my state legislature today. I’m glad that Georgia has taken the steps to protect our youngest and most vulnerable, but I’d ultimately like to see the statute of limitations be removed for any victim of a sex crime. Why not? I heard someone say that the statute is there because it is very difficult to prove allegations if a lot of time has passed. If that is the case, it makes no sense to me, and if someone can help me out I would appreciate. So it increases the burden on the state to present evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. So what? Does that mean we can’t even try?

    • Kiddo says:

      I agree. The longer the time has passed for homicides, the more difficult a case it is as well, but they have no expiration date on those.

  22. Frank says:

    Too late, after she defended the other rapist, I lost every respekt for people like her and she was not alone defending that rapist.

  23. Jaygee says:

    Does anyone watch the View regularly? I don’t but I find it hard to believe the statute of limitations subject never came up on the show in the context of Bill Cosby before.

    • Colette says:

      Well I watch the show everyday and no , none of the other hosts or guests have ever brought up the fact that there was a statue of limitations .They have discussed the fact that a few ladies are currently suing Cosby including Janice Dickinson.I believe Whoopi did not know he couldnt be sued or tried for rape until recently.On several occasions she said I will wait for the trial.Whoopi always says lets wait for the evidence.She even said that regarding high profile police brutality cases like Mike Brown its not just cases involving women as victims.She pissed off Black people when she said racial profiling is not a form of racism.So its par for course.

      • Michelle says:

        Rosie ODonnell sure did bring up the Statue of Limitations back in the fall. Whoopi brushed her off.

  24. AlmondJoy says:

    “…all of the information that’s out there kinda points to guilt.”

    No Whoopi, not KINDA. How about DEFINITELY.

    “It looks bad, Bill.”

    It LOOKED BAD when we heard the first accusation. At this point it’s beyond bad. This whole situation is horrific.

    • Michelle says:

      Also her statement, ” Either speak up or shut up” was weird. Bill is NOT talking about this. I guess she meant to address it to herself.

  25. jwoolman says:

    Whoopi doesn’t owe anybody an apology. She was being cautious about leaping to judgment, and that’s never a bad thing (as you will know if you ever become the one who is an innocent target). Innocent until proven guilty is an extremely important principle that is too often ignored. I prefer to be cautious also, since a neighbor was falsely accused of rape (not maliciously, it was a mistaken identity thing) and it was awful for him and his family – they ended up moving out of town after he was acquitted. But there is too much of a pattern in the Cosby case, going back years – it isn’t just one woman accusing him plus a few copycats, and the stories make sense from quite credible people.

    There is no reason for her to retract her statements about Polanski, though. That case was entirely different and I understand why she wants to put it in a different category than typical rape even though by law it was statutory rape because of the girl’s age. I assume that’s what she means by the curious phrase “not ‘rape’ rape”. The phrase “statutory rape” is used precisely because it is not uncommon for a consensual act to be considered illegal because of age, not because the guy actually assaulted the girl in the moral sense. In the Polanski case, the mom and the daughter quite deliberately lied about her age. The mom was quite deliberately pimping out a 13 year old to get the kid a role in a movie. Plan B was also quite obviously to get money from the guy after revealing the kid’s true age. The girl knew what drug she was taking and what they did (quaaludes were popular at the time for relaxed sex) and she quite definitely wanted to have sex with him. She had been posing for topless photographs or something of that nature more than once with him (mom cheerfully sent her off alone, this was the bait). She said she had had at least three sexual relationships before, so she knew what that was about also. I can believe she didn’t have anal before and didn’t like it, but we can’t be sure that she actually asked him to stop – that could have been mom’s fabrication after the fact, since they already were lying about other things and the girl wanted to get into a movie pretty bad so I would have assumed she’d put up with a lot. A trial might have been able to sort that out, although both were high by that time which also can make it a tad murky even though no does mean no and withdrawal of consent matters. But the credibility of the accuser matters, also, and considering what she and her mom were doing – her credibility is dubious. It’s always a more difficult problem when consent to sex is initially given, things are just not simple sometimes, and use of alcohol and other drugs makes it especially difficult because judgment is affected. The mom contacted the police because she wrongly thought she could maintain control of the process and get more money out of Polanski. I imagine mom was pretty panicked at the thought of a real trial- not because she cared about her daughter (who fortunately was a pretty tough kid) but because if the truth came out, mom would be in jail for pimping out her underage child. Mom knew how old that girl was but we have no evidence that Polanski did or that he goes after girls younger than the legal limit for consent. He certainly hasn’t since then, so there is no pattern established (the age of consent is younger in France, however, it was 15 at the time). If the sleazeball kept closer to his own age, of course, he wouldn’t have had any problem at all. But when everybody else is lying about the girl’s age and the girl is deliberately playing older and her plan is to have sex with the guy – I do believe that makes a real difference in culpability. I also don’t believe that grandstanding judges should undermine any agreements made with the DA, which is what was happening when Polanski decided to skip the country and go back to Europe. He had cooperated with everything else up to that point and had spent time in jail and had a psych evaluation. He skipped when the judge started making public statements about ignoring the deal and putting him in prison for a long time instead. It’s appropriate to bar him from the U.S., but it’s also appropriate to feel he isn’t a danger to the nation’s youth. He was set up and took the bait. There is no reason to believe he will wander the streets looking for a victim. He’s still sleazy, but that’s not illegal.

    • Kiddo says:

      I can’t believe you are making excuses for Polanski. The girl was a victim of both her mother and Polanski.

      • jwoolman says:

        I can’t believe you think I’m just making excuses for him. I think he’s sleazy and should stay away from teenagers, but the DA, who had good access to all parties concerned, felt that they didn’t need to put him in prison and was satisfied with lesser charges and pretty much time served. If he didn’t know her age, it does make a difference. If her credibility is suspect because she and her mother were already lying, that does make a difference concerning whether or not she asked him to stop. That’s why we have trials, to try to sift truth from lies. He agreed to the charges in return for the deal offered by the DA, which the judge was threatening to toss away. Judges in the U.S. are elected and some do such things for political purposes. It’s a sad story, because no 13 year old should be used this way by her mother. But Polanski is hardly the first man to be sexually attracted to teenagers. I just greatly doubt he would have done anything if he knew she was 13 years old, and that does make a difference. That’s why mother and daughter were careful to lie about her age.

      • Kiddo says:

        No one has any way of knowing whether he perpetrated or has ever been interested in perpetrating similar acts since then. I’ve seen photos of her from that time, she looked very young, not remarkably mature for her age. And in case you haven’t noticed, prosecutors are notoriously lighter on famous people, especially white ones, and especially during this time frame. Lesser charges does not always equal less heinousness, it’s about winning or losing a case. Unless he thought she was over the age of majority, he was still using a teenager for sex. I don’t give a rat’s ass if she was enticing him. Victims of abuse may use heir sexuality because they see it as their only worth. He was the adult there. It was up to him to use due diligence. Do you realize how many prostitutes are underage and trafficked by adults?
        Poor, poor ‘set-up’ guys don’t really give a shit, do they?

        Both the mother and Polanski should have gone to jail.

      • doofus says:

        OJ and Polanski.

        on a roll today…

      • FingerBinger says:

        @jwoolman Polanski knew she was 13. He had a history of dating teenage girls. He was with Natasssja Kinski when she 15 while he was in his 40s. Saying he wouldn’t have done anything if he’d known how old she was is ridiculous.

    • Original T.C. says:

      Wow JWOOL

      Now I know how the 13 year old victim was attacked by Poliniski apologists all those years ago and why there is an entire movie made by Hollywood in his defense and the victim no longer wants to deal with the headache. Your post is filled with misinformation.

      1) If someone WANTS to have sex with you, is trying to seduce you they do NOT need to be drugged with quaaludes and alcohol which are both sedatives. LOL

      2) See #1 X10000000000

      3) If someone is trying to seduce you, you don’t need to GROOM them by doing an innocent photoshot then telling them to come back another day so that you can take more but you need to do it at your home studio.

      4) Polinski was in his 40’s at the time, you are telling me a 40 year old man cannot recognize the difference between the body of a young teenager and an adult woman? Even if he might not have know her exact age, once you see her topless (his all so professional pictures on day 2, eye roll) the breast buds give it away. No matter who early developed a teen might be there breasts still look different that’s actually why a lot of the men who like teenage girls seek them out. As do pedophiles seek out preteen kids for the same reason-specific condition of their body including breast development stage. Reason why guys trade in their wives for a young version.

      5) Polinski never went to a real jail nor was he treated like any regular joe arrested for rape. He went to a cushy psychiatry facility to take psychological tests. Not jail.

      6) Roman Polinski a world famous director at the top of his game in Hollywood, in his mid-40’s has NEVER faced women and mothers with teenagers pushing themselves onto him to get a role? How long does your IQ need to be to not figure out that a teenager just wants a movie role.

      No, Roman Polinski world famous director had everyone kissing his butt and like current Hollywood White men with power thought he can have anything he wanted without consequence. He was a god and can vaginally and anally rape a young girl with no money or power and get away with it just like Bill Cosby. All the proof you need of his arrogance was getting on a plane, sticking his middle finger at our laws and flying to a safe haven in France where they literally worship film directors. And his further insults when rightfully arrested decades later with everyone in power sending apologies to him and a signed petition by Hollywood elites demanding his freedom.

    • Original T.C. says:


      I’m sure you are genuine in your attack on specific aspects of the law but many Polinski apologists just use the Judges changing his mind as another grasp to excuse his behavior (but it IS legal for a judge to decide against a settlement and the judge’s mind change was to stop treating Polinski like a special snowflake and treat him like any criminal who confesses to statutory rape).

      Other excuses have included:
      1) what about the Holocaust? Polinski was a childhood holocaust surviver so you can’t arrest him if he commits a crime. Natalie Portman should apologize to every Holocaust surviver for using their horrible situation as a reason they would commit crimes.

      2) Well his pregnant wife was butchered to death by a madman so that messed him up, it’s not his fault!

      If he was mentally unstable and going after 13 year olds to soothe his pain isn’t that MORE reason for locking him up from society or putting him in a mental facility so he can serve the time and get help?

      Just excuses IMO. If Polinski was Joe Bob your next door neighbor, none of these people would think he didn’t deserve jail time.

    • Kitten says:

      “But when everybody else is lying about the girl’s age and the girl is deliberately playing older and her plan is to have sex with the guy – I do believe that makes a real difference in culpability.”


  26. Kyre says:

    Roman Polanski was convicted in a court of law of anally raping a child (13? 15? something like that) and she never changed her mind. Clearly she is being told to change her opinion. Maybe because of race (I hope not), maybe because of ratings, but I don’t buy her change of opinion one bit.

  27. meme says:

    I can’t with Whoopi. I don’t know why anyone listens to her and/or watches The View. Bunch of shrieking hens talking over each other.

  28. funcakes says:

    The other ladies seem to back down when Whoopie defended Cosby. Even though I hate Ann Coulter I would love for her to be on there for a day. I bet she would make Whoopie’s head explode.
    And I heard Sherry’s returning. Wasn’t she unsure if the world is flat?
    Good God, just pull the plug on this show already.

  29. amp122076 says:

    Cosby’s gross, Whoopi’s gross. The end.

  30. NGBoston says:

    I agree it seemed both gross and condesending to me. Also– you can not be in the entertainment business as long ad Whoopi has and not know about legal Statute of Limitations.

    Certainly both ABC and Goldberg can’t believe the American Public is buyig what they are now attempting to sell. PUHLEEZE.

    And Cosby is never going to publicly comment as he has been advised to continue to deny, deny, deny. That speaks volumes to me and thr other interciew that went viral in to which he was bullying the Reporter and literally threatening him.

    All the victims get my support— not this vile excuse of a Man, his delusional Wife/Manager or the very few left that support him.

    The writing has been on the wall for awhile now. Hang it up, permanently, Bill and prepare to disolve your wealth from the numerous civil suits coming your way. In plain English- BILL COSBY SUCKS.

  31. Jaded says:

    Whoopi you can’t put toothpaste back in the tube – what you’ve done sounds completely disingenuous and only done under pressure from the TV executives who, for some mysterious reason, have decided to let you stay on that pathetic hissy-fit of a show.

  32. Bapril says:

    Okay, how did she not already know this? She has a job in media and didn’t realize what has been printed and talked about over and over – that the statute of limitations has run (in all but one case, I believe) and THAT’S why he hasn’t been arrested? She doesn’t look like she’s in a coma so what the hell?

  33. The Original G says:

    Let’s NOT pretend that The View itself is not COMPLICIT in letting Whoppi run with this. There are only eleventy billion topics they could have discussed instead of the victimization of a lifelong serial rapist.

    This changes nothing for me. I just don’t find Whoppi interesting in this role on The View. This show jumped the shark back when people still said *jumped the shark*. All recent attempts to re-invent it have been painful to watch. Trotting Whoppi out for this farce makes them seem more contrived and out of touch than ever.

  34. BNA FN says:

    Whoopi does not owe me an apology. IMO, she should apologize to the dozens if women who came out with their story, some crying because of the pain this coming owe has caused them. I remember when the women went to give their deposition about ten years ago. This is nothing new. There were also some report, years ago about Bill Cosby having a love child. That was a big scandal when BC filed charges about the child and his daughter? If I’m not mistaken he put the child and mother through he’ll. Can’t remember exactly what went on but I believe the mother or daughter ended up in jail,not positive. BC is a scum ball with lots of money and those women would have been eaten alive, just like how Whoopi disrespected them and would not give them the benefit of the doubt, like she gave BC.

    • Mixtape says:

      This. Had to read clear down to here to find someone who stated it the way I would have, but you’re right.

      Whoopi is entitled to stick up for her friends, even when it involves an unpopular opinion or faulty logic. She doesn’t owe the audience an apology for disagreeing with them. They can always vote against her through ratings and dollars spent.

      However, I think Whoopi stepped over the line when she used her clout and public forum to debunk the victims’ narrative. By doing so, she re-victimized them because so much of their inability to bring charges while they were possible has to do with Cosby’s fame, reputation, and powerful friends compared to their lack of all of the above, and the shame that, in most instances, the rape occurred while they were pursuing a bit of that fame themselves (i.e., preparing for a role on his show, etc.) The very thing that they worried about (that nobody in Hollywood would believe them) proved true when Whoopi said the things she did about them. So yes, to them she owes a sincere apology.

  35. kri says:

    No. No credit for her. Too little, too late. she is gross and stupid.

  36. Justaposter says:

    Has Whoopie changed her mind? Um no. Whoopie is feeling the heat that ABC is getting. I think this is more along the lines of, “say this, or there is the door”.

  37. Friend says:

    Friends stand by friends.

    • anne_000 says:

      It’s not such a good thing when your friend is (allegedly) a serial rapist.

      • Kitten says:

        Exactly. If I had a “friend” who was accused of raping almost 50 women I think I’d be ok with severing all ties with him..

    • Vampi says:

      …and FIENDS stand by FIENDS…
      But when the evidence is clear, and DOZENS come forward with their pain, with nothing to gain, a real FRIEND either encourages that person to get help or backs the hell away from the evil. If not? Fiend it is.
      Hello Fiend.

    • Amy Tennant says:

      Friends stand by friends to an extent, but when you’re presented with enough evidence that your friend is a scumbag you have to reevaluate if you were really friends or if you just didn’t know the guy at all. I’ve mentioned before on this site that I had a boss and mentor who was arrested for child pornography. I was so determined to be loyal to the guy, I truly believed his denials and that he had been set up. It wasn’t until I was interviewed by the detective in the case that I finally had to accept that he was guilty, and after protesting his innocence for months, he finally pled guilty. I was crushed for a long time and hated myself for believing in him and falling for his lies. I felt like a fool and couldn’t trust myself as a judge of character anymore. This was more than 3 years ago, and I’m still not over it.
      I do think Whoopi is being disingenuous when she acts like she didn’t know about the statute of limitations. I don’t see how she could not have known. I don’t buy her sudden about-face either. Truth be told, I do not like the woman. But I know how crushing it feels to have put your trust in the wrong person.

  38. NOT buying it–Whoops change of mind is soo obviously scripted and pc. People like her are the reason that victims don’t come forward! I’m not changin my mind–boycott EVERY product and service they advertise!

  39. lucy2 says:

    On a side note, I just read a blog post written by Joseph Phillips, the actor who played Denise Huxtable’s husband on the show. It’s really interesting, and comes from the perspective of someone who knew him, worked with him, and idolized him. He also had a hard time believing the accusations, but as the story grew, began to, and then ran into an old friend, a woman who had looked up to Cosby as a mentor. You can guess what happened to her.

    • Josephina says:

      Also to add:

      Vanessa Huxtable, played by Tempest Bledsoe, is ONE of the accusers of sexual misconduct. She clearly was not an adult yet when he touched her. I will summarize what happened:

      Bill asked her to follow him to his trailer in between takes for some one on one mentoring. Tempest sat down and ate some pudding that he offered her. He asked her if he could have some. She thought he was referring to the pudding. No, in fact, he was referring to her “Puddy Tat” and placed his hands on her thighs. She ran out of his trailer, afraid to speak about it until the other women began to come forward. There really is strength in numbers.

      She said that pretty much all the female actors on the show (guest appearances included) had some sexual misconduct or encounter with Bill. She also implied that Lisa Bonet could testify about his misconduct.

      I do not think Whoopi would defend Bill if she had read about Tempest’s creepy experience with Bill. Camille’s behavior — her silence and indifference– IS part of the problem. He never had a fear of discovery or any sense of loss — until now.

      • Kiddo says:

        Do you have a link on Tempest Bledsoe? I have never heard this before and a rudimentary search yielded no results.

    • Amy Tennant says:

      I read that blog post too. Very interesting read and a unique perspective. And you know, I think a lot of us really didn’t want this to be true.

      I didn’t know about Tempestt being one of the victims. 🙁 she and I are the same age, so I always identified with her on the show. It makes sense though. I recently reread a Post on here about a Cosby show cast reunion appearance on something. (It is so creepy to read everyone’s comments on it now– we were all saying things like “Bill Cosby is a national treasure, and we need more like him.” ). Anyway, a lot of people were wondering why the actresses who played his older daughters weren’t there. No Sondra, no Denise, no Vanessa. It makes sense now.
      I was also surprised to see a post from many years ago, 2006 maybe? That story involved some women saying Bill assaulted them. That was way before I ever discovered this site. I’m surprised I hadn’t heard about it before Burress did his act, because some of that information was out there.
      I also wonder about the actresses on A Different World. I’m sure Cosby was some kind of a producer of that show too. It wouldn’t surprise me to learn that he assaulted some of those young women as well. 🙁

  40. Vampi says:

    Final point for me:
    She can suck it because it DOES NOT MATTER if she just now “got” that the women couldn’t sue. That has NOTHING to do with you DISMISSING the accounts of roughy 50 victims, Whoopi…. 50!!!!
    You could have worded things differently so…fess up WHOOPI GOLDBERG!
    You never believed those women. You STILL don’t! You hypocrite!
    The statute and your knowledge or lack thereof has NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR CONSTANT DISMISSAL OF THE VICTIMS! Nice try at deflection Whoopi. We see through you.
    /end rant…sorry

    • Josephina says:

      She feels they deserve to be dismissed, discounted AND discredited because she thinks they willingly played around and “flirted” with a married man.

      She thinks they are nothing more than crafty, desperate women that are so thirsty for fame that they made themselves “available” for sex in exchange for stardom and/or just to feel desired by such a powerful and influential man. Camille and Phylicia Rashad (TV wife) feel the same way— these women threw themselves at Bill and he “obliged.”

      This demented attitude usually comes from wives/girlfriends that have had their husbands/S.O.’s cheat on them consistently over time. They secretly enjoy the fact that the “other” women were hurt and did not succeed in taking their man away from them. As far as they are concerned, these women (the rape and sexual assault victims) are tramps and deserve the ridicule.

  41. Marianne says:

    But does she really feel this way? Or is this her just trying to salvage her career.

  42. AnotherDirtyMartini says:

    I didn’t “need help understanding”, but thanks anyway, Whoopi. 😡

  43. shi_gatsu says:

    I’m glad she’s FINALLY understood. There’s no need to vilify her. She’s learned, she’s fixed it. We can all move on

  44. shi_gatsu says:

    And down with the view

  45. katielouisiana says:

    This is why Whoopi owes the viewing audience and the victims an apology. Whoopi told us every day that she did not want us to tweet her about this or email because she does not care. She refused to listen to any of the evidence or anything that anyone had to say on the subject. She clearly did this skit with Abrams to save her job and the failing show. Check out this compilation of Whoopi telling the audience she does not care:

    • Vampi says:

      Yep! She has issues. Too bad she has a platform to spew her thoughts. She should resign…and I actually think she will and soon. Peeps are NOT happy with her.
      A show called the View..aimed at women..and Whoopi dismisses us. All I can say is that she makes me ill. How dare she! I never came forward…it’s been OVER 30 years…so I guess I’m a liar, huh Whoopi? Since I never reported it? Yeah. Fug you Whoppi. Fug YOU! You have NO idea!!!!!!!!! Rape is rape Whoopi! You asshat.

  46. JRenee says:

    I was going to say no one believes she’s being sincere, but I guess some do. I am not a believer. The damage is done!

  47. Malak says:

    At the end of the video, Whoopi said, ” People know now…….”
    No Whoopi, it’s you who know now. People knew about it wayyy before you. You’re just slow, and your outburst a while ago was embarrassing, and when you were going on and on, none of the others at the table said anything.

  48. rose says:

    Seems to me that Whoopi wanted to protect her paycheck — and that is why she flip flopped on Bill Cosby. I confess I used to respect Whoopi until I saw how skewed her views are on rape and women’s rights. I thought she had integrity. Not so much now. I hope she is asked to leave The View by her bosses. I’m tired of wondering what her motivations are and whether she’s being misleading or lying or just being self-serving.

    in yesterday’s Daily Mail:
    Whoopi Goldberg’s decision to stop defending Bill Cosby after accusations that he drugged and raped over 30 women may have been less a change of heart and more a network demand.
    ABC reportedly asked the daytime host to stop defending Cosby and to admit that he was likely guilty.
    The reason it seems was the overwhelming number of complaints the network was receiving from fans that were upset with Goldberg’s vocal support of the disgraced actor.