Robert J. Halderman is David Letterman CBS Blackmailer? Robert Joe Halderman Arrested

Robert J. Halderman is the man to who allegedly attempted to blackmail David Letterman for, as Letterman said, having sex with female employees. Halderman is a producer for CBS 48 Hours. He has been arrested in New York City and charged with Grand Larceny. See update 10-5-09 10-6-09, including new Sarah Palin apology.

Robert "Joe" Halderman

The 51-year-old Robert "Joe" Halderman allegedly asked for $2 million, and if he didn't get it, Halderman threatened to write a screenplay about Letterman and his alleged bad behavior over the years. Joe Halderman's CBS "team" were nominated for a 2008 Emmy. He is a long-time CBS employee and is currently on suspension from the network. The photo above is from Joe Halderman's Facebook page.

According to this report, Halderman had sex with one of the women Letterman "had sex" with. That person is said to be Stephanie Burkett. Ms. Burkett is still employed with the Letterman Show.

The affair happened a long time ago, before his son Harry was born, and before he got married, but he was living with his wife to be at the time.

Letterman felt "menaced" by the extortion. He said he worried about "the women" and his "family" and his "job." I remember that Sarah and Todd Palin also wanted to protect their family when Letterman was maligning their daughters - for laughs. David Letterman righteously protects his "own" woman - but others of the wrong political persuasion are mere fodder for late night humor - no matter their age.

Letterman famously once said, "I'm just trying to make a smudge on the collective unconscious." "Smudge" is defined as dirt or a smear, a blemish, a blur, smut or a soiled spot. Halderman was trying to do a little smudging and get paid for it, as does Letterman.

The Late Night host was apparently a single man when these events took place. It is interesting to ponder who, among the non-capitalists in Hollywood or New York would finance, produce and direct a screenplay portraying David Letterman's escapades. Really, who did Halderman think would join him in this venture?

Robert J. Halderman Allegedly Extorts David Letterman 

Update 10-5-09:

A "secret" bedroom above the Ed Sullivan Theater was the place where David Letterman had "sex with some of the women who work on this shows," according to this report in the New York Daily News. This is a staffer telling this story, and it is not Stephanie Birkitt, the staffer you might have suspected. This is Holly Hester, who said she was madly in love with Letterman at the time and would have married him.

Speculations are that Holly Hester is the same Holly Hester who is now a successful producer, possibly living in Sebastapol, California. If this is the same Hester, she has worked on Grace Under Fire, Drew Carey and Ellen.

Who would guess this????

A longtime assistant said he had the ability to cast a spell on the ladies.
"I don't think women ever get over Dave," Laurie Diamond told London's Daily Telegraph.

Birkitt (34) - click here to see photo has not issued a public statement about her affair with both Letterman and Halderman (the Halderman relationship evidently ended recently.

A "Late Show" office worker in 1997, Birkitt quickly developed a role as Letterman's Girl Friday. She went on to appear in several skits as his comic foil. Behind the scenes, their relationship became intimate, sources said.

"The creepy relationship that Letterman maintained with Stephanie was obvious and not normal," an insider said. "She was able to do anything and everything ... It was pretty well known that Stephanie was the one that Letterman was having fun with."

The spell-casting Letterman apologized to his wife, Regina Lasko Letterman, and said she has been "horribly hurt by my behavior." Lasko gave birth to Letterman's son in November 2003. They married in March 2009 in a Montana courthouse.. They began dating in 1986. The approximately two-year Letterman-Birkitt affair ended in 2003 before Letterman's son was born. Lasko is a former Letterman staffer.

Update 10-6-09:

Letterman apologized again last night to Sarah Palin and her family for the comments he made about one of Palin's daughters last June - or maybe two of Palin's daughters. In June, 14-year-old Willow Palin attended a Yankee's game with her father, Todd. Letterman said, on his show that the Palin "daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez." Palin's pregnant 18-year-old daughter, Bristol Palin, was not at the Yankee game. Letterman did everything he could to make his on-air apology a non-apology. You can read it here.

Last night, in light of his own indiscretions against the mother of his son, and his son, he said this:

...once again I'd like to apologize to the former Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin. I'm terribly, terribly sorry. So there we go," he added to cheers from the crowd.

In June Palin's spokesperson responded to Letterman's assault on the Palin family: it would be wise to "keep Willow away from David Letterman."

David Letterman Sarah Palin Apology: Perception or Intent?

David Letterman, host of the CBS Late Show with David Letterman, has decided to issue an apology of sorts to Governor Sarah Palin and her family. If you haven't heard Letterman's comments about the Governor and her daughters, you can find them here. Below is the text of David Letterman's apology to Governor Sarah Palin and her family (after a short commentary).

David Letterman

He finally "got it," he said, when he realized it was the" perception" of the "joke" and not his "intent."

So that's the distinction that he thinks matters. The fact is, the "intent" of his "joke" was to say that Palin's 18-year-old daughter got knocked up - again - at the ballpark that evening." That was his intent.

On the way to attacking a young woman, he mentioned that Sarah Palin dresses like a "slutty flight attendant," but the "slutty" comment isn't what has everyone so repulsed. Letterman thinks that we "preceived" that he was telling the "joke" about Palin's 14-year-old-daughter (not the 18-year-old) who actually attended the ball game that night.

He's cheeky enough to tell the audience "it's not your fault that it was misunderstood, it's my fault." What!? No one misunderstood. We "got it" from the beginning - no matter which Palin daughter he was referring to. Either way, perception and intent are one-and-the-same: the smearing of Sarah Palin and her family in a particularly ugly and vile way. Here's the question: why was he talking about Sarah Palin's daughters? Transcript:

Letterman: "All right, here - I've been thinking about this situation with Governor Palin and her family now for about a week - it was a week ago tonight, and maybe you know about it, maybe you don't know about it. But there was a joke that I told, and I thought I was telling it about the older daughter being at Yankee Stadium. And it was kind of a coarse joke.

There's no getting around it, but I never thought it was anybody other than the older daughter, and before the show, I checked to make sure in fact that she is of legal age, 18. Yeah. But the joke really, in and of itself, can't be defended. The next day, people are outraged. They're angry at me because they said, 'How could you make a lousy joke like that about the 14-year-old girl who was at the ball game?'

And I had, honestly, no idea that the 14-year-old girl, I had no idea that anybody was at the ball game except the Governor and I was told at the time she was there with Rudy Giuliani…And I really should have made the joke about Rudy…" "But I didn't, and now people are getting angry and they're saying, 'Well, how can you say something like that about a 14-year-old girl, and does that make you feel good to make those horrible jokes about a kid who's completely innocent, minding her own business,' and, turns out, she was at the ball game.

I had no idea she was there. So she's now at the ball game and people think that I made the joke about her. And, but still, I'm wondering, 'Well, what can I do to help people understand that I would never make a joke like this?' I've never made jokes like this as long as we've been on the air, 30 long years, and you can't really be doing jokes like that. And I understand, of course, why people are upset. I would be upset myself. "

And then I was watching the Jim Lehrer 'Newshour' - this commentator, the columnist Mark Shields, was talking about how I had made this indefensible joke about the 14-year-old girl, and I thought, 'Oh, boy, now I'm beginning to understand what the problem is here. It's the perception rather than the intent.' It doesn't make any difference what my intent was, it's the perception. And, as they say about jokes, if you have to explain the joke, it's not a very good joke. And I'm certainly - " (audience applause) "thank you. Well, my responsibility - I take full blame for that. I told a bad joke. I told a joke that was beyond flawed, and my intent is completely meaningless compared to the perception.

And since it was a joke I told, I feel that I need to do the right thing here and apologize for having told that joke. It's not your fault that it was misunderstood, it's my fault. That it was misunderstood." (audience applauds) "Thank you. So I would like to apologize, especially to the two daughters involved, Bristol and Willow, and also to the Governor and her family and everybody else who was outraged by the joke. I'm sorry about it and I'll try to do better in the future. Thank you very much." (audience applause) End Letterman transcript.

If you watch CBS, leave a comment here and let me know why you would do so. This week, CBS republished a New Republic article titled Meet Iran's George W. Bush, referring to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Read the article as well as some commentary here. CBS lost the last shred of credibility when they said that Ahmadinejad is Iran's George W. Bush.

Letterman Advertiser Lists: Boycott Letterman: Olive Garden Pulls Ad

There is an effort to boycott David Letterman. If you do not know about Letterman's vile comments about Sarah Palin and her daughters, you'll find the story here. In the meantime, many of us are hoping to cause the man some grief. Olive Garden restaurant has pulled their ads on the Late Show with David Letterman for the remainder of this year in response his ugly screed and comments from customers. Bloggers are compiling advertiser lists of those continuing to support the program...as well as those who have pulled their support. The boycott of Letterman is underway. The idea is to focus the boycott on those with a portfolio of "family friendly" products, especially the things our kids love - those products that we purchase on nearly every trip to the local market. HillBuzz suggests we start with this list of four: 1) Hellmann's Mayo: includes Dijonnaise Mustard, Deli Mustard, Honey Mustard, Tartar Sauce, Sandwich Spread 2) Kelloggs: includes Rice Krispies, Cocoa Krispies, Corn Flakes, Frosted Flakes, Keeblers, Crispix Mix - to mention just a few. 3) Mars Candy: includes Snickers, M&M's, Skittles, Twix, Dove, Starburst, Mars Bar 4) Johnson & Johnson: Aveeno & KY Brand 5) The Olive Garden - adds pulled for remainder of 2009 Update: Olive Garden is saying that they did not cancel Letterman - but that the contract expired. More as available. Others On the Border Restaurants Macy's Best Buy EBay CBSports.com Embassy Suites "A Proud Member of "The Hilton Family" Lexus JohnFreida.com TV.com Visit RedState.com, HillBuzz or WyBlog for contact information. Mailing addresses, 800 numbers, email addresses and fax numbers are available for most. I'll be contacting everyone that I can, and I hope you do the same. As always, be polite but firm; let them know their company will lose your business permanently unless they act quickly. I'll try to keep on top of this list, and I'm sure Wyblog, RedState, and HillBuzz will do the same

Mort Zuckerman Obama Deflation: NY Daily News Owner Slams Obama

Mort Zuckerman, the owner and publisher of New York Daily News says the "incredible deflation of Barack Obama" is underway. Zuckerman endorsed Obama for president, and lost, allegedly, some $40 million to Bernie Madoff and his Ponzi Scheme. He is not happy with his president.

There is some very cheeky analysis in his article in U.S. News and World Report, which he also heads. He referred to Obama's excess appearances on television as "promiscuity," and follows that up with "Now he faces the iron law of diminishing novelty."

Perhaps the inevitable outcome was disappointment—and on this Obama has not disappointed. Alas, he has accelerated the deflation of hope with his extraordinary volume of public appearances.

In his first six months, he gave three times as many interviews as George W. Bush, four times as many prime-time news conferences as Bill Clinton, and more interviews than both combined: 93 for Obama and 61 for his two immediate predecessors. He appeared on five Sunday talk shows on the same morning, followed the next day by David Letterman, the first-ever presidential appearance on a nighttime comedy show. In another week, he squeezed in addresses to the U.S. Climate Change Summit, the U.N. General Assembly, the U.N. Security Council, and a variety of press conferences.

Zuckerman moves from personality to substance:

Poor results. But Obama's problems are more than a question of style. There is doubt aroused on substance. He sets deadlines and then lets too many pass. He announces a strategic review of Afghanistan, describing it as "a war of necessity," only to become less sure to the point that he didn't even seem committed to the policy that he finally announced.

As for changing politics in Washington, he assigned the drafting of central legislative programs not to cabinet departments or White House staff but to the Democratic congressional leadership of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid the very people so mistrusted by the public. Who could be surprised that the critical bills—the stimulus program and healthcare—degenerated under a welter of pork and earmarks that had so outraged the American public in the past?

Zuckerman hits Obama on legislation that had no time to be read by lawmakers (stimulus plan and health care). He hit him on the economy and Obama's ambivalence to the real creation of "jobs, jobs, jobs." He hit him for not recognizing the people's "distaste" for "big government, big spending and big deficits."

Instead of concentrating on jobs, jobs, jobs, he made the decision to "boil the ocean" and go for everything, from comprehensive health reform to global warming to a world without nuclear weapons ... and the beat goes on....

This was more than the Congress could absorb and more than the country could understand....

The result is a widespread concern that progressive taxation to pay for the "nanny state" will snuff out future opportunities that Americans believe they deserve for themselves and their children....

The consequence is that there isn't a single critical problem on which the president has a positive public rating.

Only a minority of Americans now believe the president will make the right decisions for the country.

Click the link above to read the entire article.

EPA Silences, Suppresses Opposition: EPA Lies

Repeated lies from a Government to the people is usually the strategy of a third-world country or a dictatorship, but we find it happening in the United States every day. These are big lies, important lies, lies that affect the future of all of us...the future of our children and grandchildren and their children. Just as the media has refused to do much reporting on the Cap and Trade Bill, they also will not tell you of the lies leading up to the vote on the Waxman-Markey Bill. In this case, the EPA silenced and suppressed opposition, and blatantly lied. See a video below.

EPA

Here's the opening of an Investor's Business Daily editorial from Friday, June 26th, 2009 - the day of the House vote:

Climate Change: A suppressed EPA study says old U.N. data ignore the decline in global temperatures and other inconvenient truths. Was the report kept under wraps to influence the vote on the cap-and-trade bill?

The Competitive Enterprise Institute released a study that they say was "suppressed" by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The report says that the United Nations uses "outdated research" on climate change and "ignores the latest scientific findings." From the report:

Given the downward trend in temperatures since 1998 (which some think will continue until at least 2030), there is no particular reason to rush into decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data."

As Obama and Pelosi have shoved this legislation down our collective throats, many Americans are gullible enough to think this legislation takes us to nirvana. Many are dreaming of working among the "green" jobs that will save America. Wake up America. Those dreams you are dreaming of, will turn into nightmares.

Little evidence? Outdated U.N. research? No reason to rush? This is not what the Obama administration and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi were telling us when they were rushing to force a Friday vote on Waxman-Markey. We were given the impression that unless we passed this cap-and-tax fiasco, polar bears would be extinct by the Fourth of July.

Internal EPA emails show that the Agency knows and understands that their data is wrong, and those emails also show that they were intentionally suppressed. This is the people's EPA. Wake up America. Do you get your news from David Letterman?

The report was the product of Alan Carlin, senior operations research analyst at the EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE). He's been with the EPA for 38 years but now has been taken off all climate-related work. He is convinced that actual climate observations do not match climate change theories and that only the politics, not the science, has been settled. One of the e-mails unearthed by CEI was dated March 12, from Al McGartland, office director at NCEE, forbidding Carlin from speaking to anyone outside NCEE on endangerment issues such as those in his suppressed report.

All this is particularly interesting because of the charges by Al Gore, NASA's James Hansen and others that the Bush administration and energy companies actively suppressed the truth about climate change.

Carlin was told March 17: "The administrator and the administration have decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. . . . I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office."

In other words, the administration and Congress had their collective minds made up and didn't want to be confused with the facts. They certainly didn't want any inconvenient truths coming out of their own Environmental Protection Agency, the one that wants to regulate everything from your lawn mower to bovine emissions and which says the product of your respiration and ours, carbon dioxide, is a dangerous pollutant and not the basis for all life on earth.

Thank you to Investor's Business Daily for making this information available. I hope you will read the entire editorial. Thank you to Senator Jim Inhofe who has led the way to understanding the deception behind global warming/climate change. This video is a bit long, but it's full of useful information. Related: Media Ignore EPA Suppressing Skeptical Global Warming Report California Zoning Laws Coming to Your Neighborhood, In Any State - Courtesy Cap and Trade Senator Jim Inhofe

McChrystal Obama: General McChrystal Barack Obama Don't Talk

Let a military commander make a clear and concise statement that cannot be misunderstood, and the Pentagon rushes in to explain what he said. General Stanley McChrystal, the senior commander in Afghanistan, answered an interviewer's question, and now we know that McChrystal and Obama have spoken once since he took command on July 15th. See video below.

General Stanley McChrystal

The Pentagon assures us that General McChrystal is "not complaining." The General was asked the question and he answered. That happens in life.

McChrystal answered truthfully, rather than shading the truth to make the President look good. He didn't embellish, he didn't roll his eyes, he didn't whine. If there is a problem here, it is not McChrystal's. Obama needs to "receive" information from McChrystal, not the other way around. It's odd. President Obama wants to talk to many: Iran, David Letterman, Venezuela, prime time TV-ers, Copenhagen, Zelaya, the U.N., ACORN, Hamas - everyone but the man he picked to win the war in Afghanistan, and FOXNews of course.

The problem is, Rahm Emanuel has been staying up late since this happened. What can he do to show this General, who was involved in at least two history-making events: Saddam Hussein's capture and the demise of al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who is boss? He will think of something, and our troops will be on the losing end. Does Obama have the character not to diss the General? Nah. See the video below.

General McChrystal

John Zeigler on Sarah Palin: Contessa Brewer Airhead

John Zeigler is a radio host in Los Angeles. He was asked to interview with MSNBC's Contessa Brewer, another official MSNBC, airhead about his interview with Sarah Palin. Zeigler was more than too much for the Contessa. She eventually cut his mic. The issue was Zeigler's interview with Palin about David Letterman's gutter comments about Palin and her oldest daughter, Bristol. What did Dave have to say? Something about Sarah dressing like a slutty flight attendant and about Bristol, well...no need to go there. Watch this. It's priceless:

John Zeigler - Contessa Brewer (video)

John Zeigler interview with Sarah Palin

The Democratic Debate: Political Theatre

By Stanford Matthews It is not often that I take exception to something written in the Washington Post. And those of you who rightly pound on the main stream media on a regular basis should not get the idea that I ever blindly defend the news media. But I do feel that the Washington Post frequently does a reasonable job. But this time they're annoying me. And that's their right. It is also my right to point it out. It comes from the article titled, 'Democratic Hopefuls Show Political Heft.' To say that the Democratic field of candidates match the quality of any in decades is preposterous. The same could be said of the Republican field of candidates. This does not mean they are not necessarily unworthy of the right to run. It may be more accurately described as this is what is available. The minimum number of decades considered to be plural would be two. Obviously it is 2007. In 1987, George Herbert Walker Bush was the default GOP candidate of a successful two-term President by the name of Ronald Reagan. And if limited to Democratic candidates whether nominated or not in the last two decades the WaPo author may have a point. But if there are no shining examples of worthy Presidential candidates in a particular time frame, defining the current field as matching the quality is at best misleading. If merely being elected to the office of governor, congressman or senator distinguishes a candidate with some laudable quality than the bar has been set way too low for vetting candidates. Hillary Rodham Clinton represents New York in the Senate. Could it be the Democratic party determined this one time Republican could win in a big 'D' district and have the GOP concur by providing only a sacrificial lamb as an opponent to her re-election? Why else would Hillary Rodham Clinton be a Senator from New York. Check the success of the other candidates and see if their stories are not similar. Before the over-hyped Democratic debate that was refused to Fox News in favor of MSNBC, Brian Adams was on David Letterman's show dissin' the notion of the entire thing and debates essentially being a joke. For the author of the WaPo piece to express any positive impressions over their responses to 'debate' questions is also meaningless. Why do so many place such importance on what candidates say before an election? Have we not learned of the legions of campaign experts, professionals, gurus and the like employed by candidates to have them stay on message and do what they are supposed to in achieving the desired result. And how about the well established criticism of American election politics that have rendered it a mere game of ye who raises the most money wins? Quality candidates would be a laughable description if the absence of a quality field of candidates was not so pathetic a reminder of this important component of governing that has gone AWOL from American politics. The other article source with this post is simply provided as a reminder on what the quality of the Democratic field of candidates for President as well as the party leadership focus all their attention. Bashing the President rather than lending a hand to allow this country to succeed. And offering valueless proposals for the country's future that pander to a clueless voting demographic is equally reprehensible.

Democratic Hopefuls Show Political Heft ORANGEBURG, S.C., April 26 -- In the final minute of Thursday night's televised Democratic presidential debate, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware was asked by NBC's Brian Williams if he saw anybody on stage, aside possibly from himself, who could lead the party to victory next year.

Candidates Unite in Criticizing Bush ORANGEBURG, S.C., April 26 -- Democratic presidential candidates largely set aside their differences here Thursday and presented a united front of opposition to President Bush and his Iraq policy, urging the president not to veto newly passed legislation that sets a timetable for beginning the wi...