Geez—the updates of the next person to fall under the cloud of suspicion for sexual harassment may need to become an hourly affair instead of a daily affair. The Washington Post is reporting this afternoon that Charlie Rose has been accused of sexual harassment by eight women:
Eight women have told The Washington Post that longtime television host Charlie Rose made unwanted sexual advances toward them, including lewd phone calls, walking around naked in their presence, or groping their breasts, buttocks or genital areas. . .
There are striking commonalities in the accounts of the women, each of whom described their interactions with Rose in multiple interviews with The Post. For all of the women, reporters interviewed friends, colleagues or family members who said the women had confided in them about aspects of the incidents. Three of the eight spoke on the record.
Five of the women spoke on the condition of anonymity out of fear of Rose’s stature in the industry, his power over their careers or what they described as his volatile temper.
Rose’s behavior sounds like about an eight on the 1 to 10 Weinstein Scale, but we’ll have to see how this unfolds. Is Rose too big a star to be suspended by whoever it is that hosts his show now? (I seldom watch it.)
I think I know how Rose got that black eye. . .
Several commenters on the item this morning about Glenn Thrush ask the salient question of when “hitting on a woman” or “making a pass” (as the old phrase put it) crosses a line from flirting into harassment or assault. No one can say right now, and even to discuss the problem has been ruled out of bounds by liberals. The rules have been in flux for quite a while now, from near zero-tolerance for a time in the early 1990s to the “one grope rule” that was improvised when liberals felt they had to defend Bill Clinton. This is a problem liberals created through their double-standards and pursuit of expediency uber alles. Will anyone be left standing when this latest Salem moment is over?
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.