Michael Bloomberg believes Charlie Rose still has the ‘presumption of innocence’

Michael Bloomberg at arrivals for AMERIC...

I don’t live in New York and I’m not a regular consumer of Bloomberg media, so I really don’t have much of an opinion on Michael Bloomberg. I like the fact that he’s trying to get more Democrats elected. I like that he financially supports gun control campaigns. I like many of his policy stances. Well, Bloomberg is considering a run for president, and he tells the NY Times that if he does run, he would run as a Democrat. The NY Times piece was supposed to be a soft introduction to the idea that Bloomberg could run, a test-the-waters of public opinion, to see if there’s a larger constituency for a Bloomberg candidacy. The problem is that Bloomberg screwed it all up. His aim to be as inoffensive as possible. Instead, he ended up arguing for Charlie Rose’s presumption of innocence. As you may remember, Charlie Rose abused his authority and sexually harassed and abused dozens of women over the years. Here’s what Bloomberg has to say about it:

…And while Mr. Bloomberg expressed concern about allegations of sexual misconduct that have arisen in the last year, he also voiced doubt about some of them and said only a court could determine their veracity. He gave as an example Charlie Rose, the disgraced television anchor who for years broadcast his eponymous talk show from the offices of Mr. Bloomberg’s company.

“The stuff I read about is disgraceful — I don’t know how true all of it is,” Mr. Bloomberg said of the #MeToo movement. Raising Mr. Rose unprompted, he said: “We never had a complaint, whatsoever, and when I read some of the stuff, I was surprised, I will say. But I never saw anything and we have no record, we’ve checked very carefully.”

Mr. Bloomberg said the media industry was guilty of not “standing up” against sexual misconduct sooner, but declined to say whether he believed the allegations against Mr. Rose. “Let the court system decide,” he said, while acknowledging that the claims involving Mr. Rose might never be adjudicated in a legal proceeding.

“You know, is it true?” Mr. Bloomberg said of the allegations. “You look at people that say it is, but we have a system where you have — presumption of innocence is the basis of it.”

[From The New York Times]

Again, for the record, no one has any problem with wanting sexual predators to be found guilty in a court of law. But there are literally dozens of cases FROM JUST THE PAST YEAR where victims have come forward and made statements to the police… and nothing has happened. No charges were ever filed, district attorneys failed to prosecute, all of that. And those are the cases that got attention, which involved celebrities or powerful titans of industry. Imagine what it’s like when it’s just regular men and women without the media attention. Men like Bloomberg – who is a father of two daughters, and should know better – don’t understand that the “legal system” was not built for women, and it wasn’t built for victims of sexual abuse and assault. That we can do everything right, we can be the perfect victim, we can come forward and give statements to the police, and the men who assaulted us still won’t ever face legal repercussions. And still, that’s the standard the Mike Bloombergs of the world will use to justify their support of men like Charlie Rose. “Well, he was never convicted of anything!” GTFO.

Serpentine Gallery Summer Party, Kensington Gardens, London, UK

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

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

9 Responses to “Michael Bloomberg believes Charlie Rose still has the ‘presumption of innocence’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Astrid says:

    It’s been a rough morning for news and celebrity gossip and not getting any better….sigh

  2. Indiana Joanna says:

    Like you, I think there are some things to like about Bloomberg. And there are some not good things about him.

    But even before this statement I just think he would not be a viable candidate. Just like Michael Avanetti, who has been floating the idea that he would be only the only person who could beat drump in 2020 because he’s just as vicious.

    I need to focus on the midterms. Everyone else is a not helpful and possibly harmful distraction.

  3. girl_ninja says:

    Until proven otherwise…men as are trash.

    • Janet says:

      @Ninja You know what? Horrible sentiments like that were what kept me on the side of morons like this joker. The reality is that however horrible the sentiment is, it’s a bloody pragmatic position to take. Why the hell have I wasted so much time trying to be fair when males have consistently demonstrated that they have no place in society? Why am I trying to maintain some semblance of balance? Women are NOT the equal of men; They are superior in every case.

  4. Brooksie says:

    Ugh. This is so disappointing to read. I’ve respected Bloomberg for a long time, it started when my dad’s office got destroyed on 9/11. Bloomberg funded their new office space in Princeton NJ and all hotel accommodations for those (like my dad) whose new commute was too much to handle on a daily basis. He never publicized it which I respected the most. But now I’m just disappointed by this. Ugh. Do better.

  5. Mac says:

    I am as likely to vote for Bloomberg as I am to vote for Trump. And that was before I read this.

  6. INeedANap says:

    Makes me wonder about any skeletons in his closet. At this point, I consider the apologia to be a presumption of guilt.

  7. Lala11_7 says:

    I read he’s considering a run for 2020 POTUS…I need him to sit his rich, entitled, OLD…HORRIFIC PUBLIC POLICIES REGARDING BLACK/BROWN PEOPLE WHEN HE WAS MAYOR OF NYC…Tail DOWN SOMEWHERE…count his ill-gotten monies and leave society as a whole…ALONE!!!!

    I need…ALL OF THEM TO DO THAT!!!!

  8. Dara says:

    Classic CYA. As the excerpt mentions, Bloomberg’s company produced Rose’s PBS show and it filmed in their building. I believe he’s not speaking as a potential candidate, but a former employer who could potentially be named in any potential lawsuits. Even so, not great.