And he was so cocksure he’d get past this one.
5 Likes
This. He was sexually harassing his coworkers during a staff meeting - engaging in sexual activity at work in front of staff. And - because it’s Covid time - bringing this into their homes.
15 Likes
“Article Titles You Never Thought You’d Hear” for $5oo, Alex.
7 Likes
Citing, emphasis mine, because it really does seem buried:
Both people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to speak freely, noted that it was unclear how much each person saw, but both said that they saw Toobin jerking off. The two sources described a juncture in the election simulation when there was a strategy session, and the Democrats and Republicans went into their respective break out rooms for about 10 minutes. At this point, they said, it seemed like Toobin was on a second video call. The sources said that when the groups returned from their break out rooms, Toobin lowered the camera. The people on the call said they could see Toobin touching his penis. Toobin then left the call. Moments later, he called back in, seemingly unaware of what his colleagues had been able to see, and the simulation continued.
9 Likes
If it was some schlub in shipping and receiving, he would have been terminated instantly, but because this is some Great Important Man™ they actively tried to bury the lede
9 Likes
Something something situation well in hand…
9 Likes
With hairy palms…
1 Like
I was wondering what in 1987 a zoom dick incident could have meant.
A photographer lost the grip on his camera and the falling lens broke on John Holmes, maybe?
1 Like
Yes. This was the climax of his career. His prospects look decidedly droopy now.
3 Likes
No, I don’t think you can say he was sexually harassing the folks who caught him masturbating. I’m not even sure it’s fair to say he committed a crime. Unless he intended to be seen by his coworkers, which seems like a stretch 
I say it.
8 Likes
You can say it, but without intent that does not make it so.
If you’re at work and masturbate in a meeting while being paid - your claims of a lack of agency are unlikely to prevail.
The lack of a lawsuit or any claim of it not being a just cause of firing by famed lawyer Toobin would tend to support this view.
9 Likes
I’m not saying he should not be fired or that what he did was appropriate. Just that it would likely not meet the threshold for a crime. Also I’m not saying he lacked agency, only intent to sexually harass.
It’s sexual harassment if you let a visitor masturbate in front of your employees- a staff member? Justified firing and if they didn’t fire him the employer could be sued for a hostile work environment.
10 Likes
Actually I may backtrack a little. I don’t do civil stuff, but I think you could possibly negligently sexually harass someone, such that you should have known your actions would have such consequences, and therefore be found civilly liable.
2 Likes
I don’t think anybody said that…? Just that he’s unprofessional and gross and we’re mostly glad there were some consequences for once.
6 Likes
I wished he had kept his dick in his pants, so that he could cover the Supreme Court Nomination. But no, he had to commit a spectacular error of judgement that would have distracted from such reporting even if it was just a rumor.
1 Like
Agreed. At the same time, he was a bit of a fatalist not too long ago, insisting that Roe was going to be overturned. I’m with those here who think we don’t need that kind of pessimism, thank you very much. Maybe it’s for the best after all.
1 Like
It is a VERY real possibility, not to mention that access to reproductive care is already very much a real world problem for many women across the country. It’s not being “fatalist” to acknowledge what has a strong possibility of becoming real.
For some of us, this curtailment of our bodily autonomy is real, not some intellectual talking point.
11 Likes
