Letterman Tonight: Says His Wife is "Horribly Hurt"

By Jeralyn, Section Media
Posted on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 08:16:59 PM EST
Tags: David Letterman, Joe Halderman (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

If you're following the alleged extortion of David Letterman by CBS producer Joe Halderman, tune in to his show tonight. He tells the audience his wife is "horribly hurt," it's not going to be easy to patch things up, but he's going to give it his best shot. He also apologized to his staff.

"She has been horribly hurt by my behavior, and when something happens like that, if you hurt a person and it's your responsibility, you try to fix it," Letterman told audiences, according to a statement from his company, Worldwide Pants.

"And at that point, there's only two things that can happen: either you're going to make some progress and get it fixed, or you're going to fall short and perhaps not get it fixed, so let me tell you folks, I got my work cut out for me."

[More...]

He said he was "terribly sorry that I put the staff in that position. Inadvertently, I just wasn't thinking ahead ... my thanks to the staff for, once again, putting up with something stupid I've gotten myself involved in."

So, why is Letterman telling us this? Unlike the criminal case against Joe Halderman, this is just private stuff. Is he looking for sympathy or just being honest? Or, is he still trying to control the message, as Halderman's lawyer Gerry Shargel said today on TV?

Update: Watching Letterman now.

* He may be the first talkshow host to be impeached
* It's chilly outside, chillier inside his house
* He spent the weekend raking his hate mail
* Usually when he's held up for money, it's by a relative
* An insider reference to Rubenstein Communications (damage consultants for stars)
* Bill Clinton, Mark Sanford, Elliot Spitzer...followed by silence

His apology to the staff is for subjecting them to media hounding since his announcement Thursday. That's what he didn't think ahead to. He thanks them for putting up with it.

He says you can't be victimized by criminals. He says he's a victim of blackmail and he had to fight back and he still thinks he did the right thing. He ends the segment with apologizing again to the former Governor of Alaska (to lighten the moment?)

I find him credible and thought the segments were well done. But he needs to leave it alone after this or else he risks polluting the pool of potential jurors. I wonder where the case would be tried if a change of venue were granted. Shargel must be considering one. Buffalo? Albany? They get TV there too.

Also, it would be ironic if Shargel, who is known to be excellent at cross-examination, and who said he's looking forward to getting a shot at Letterman on the stand, does in fact impeach him. And will he be introducing clips from these shows in an attempt to show the jury Letterman smirked and joked about the alleged offense?

< Halderman's Lawyer Eagerly Awaits Cross-Examining David Letterman | Late Night: The Heart of the Matter >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Letterman Tonight: Says His Wife is "Horribly Hurt" | 72 comments (72 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Letterman's wife is a woman who (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by inclusiveheart on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 08:22:19 PM EST

once was on his staff and with whom he had a child six years before he finally agreed to marry her. Where was the outrage about his relationship with her? I am amazed at the obsession with this story. People really are shocked that there's been gambling in this establishment.

BTW, since when has the entertainment industry been the bastion of morality? With the exception of Pat Boone, there are few moral paragons in the entertainment world.

Outrage? (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by gyrfalcon on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 11:49:23 PM EST

Why on earth would there be outrage about it? Better she should have left the company when the relationship got serious, but it's hardly unheard-of in show biz.

And I don't know who's outraged about this, either. There's certainly some tut-tutting, including by moi, about the apparent habit of getting into a series of sexual relationships with, again apparently, mostly much younger staffers, but I'm having a hard time finding any outrage here or anywhere else.


: Why should she have to quit? (none / 0) (#42)
by inclusiveheart on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 09:29:52 AM EST

Anyway, CNN has been going on and on and on about this story like it is "news" or something. People are acting like this is the first we've heard of Letterman sleeping with a female staff member. I just think it is pretty funny given the fact that he already revealed quite publicly a relationship with at least one of them years ago.

Harvey Weinstein: (none / 0) (#3)
by Wile ECoyote on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 08:42:33 PM EST

"Hollywood has the best moral compass, because it has compassion,"


: Wow (none / 0) (#6)
by coast on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:07:51 PM EST

Weinstien "so called crime". I guess Hollywood's compassion doesn't extend to minors. What was his point in bringing up fundraisers for 9/11 and Katrina victims. Does he think that only Hollywood felt for those who lost so much. Those in Hollywood truly live in their own universe.

: For their causes, but for each other (none / 0) (#44)
by inclusiveheart on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 09:35:39 AM EST

not so much imo. Hollywood is a rough town. In any case, Letterman is in NYC which actually is different.

HIs wife should have remembered the old adage, (none / 0) (#32)
by BrassTacks on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 02:48:40 AM EST

If they'll do it with you, they'll do it to you.

She knew he has a habit of sleeping with staffers, herself included. What made her think that would change?

What an egotistical, self centered, bore he is.


Has it been proven or discussed that (none / 0) (#43)
by inclusiveheart on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 09:34:37 AM EST

he has continued that practice since they decided to marry? We don't know the details of the deal between him and his wife. In any case, I thought he was probably sleeping with the other girl back in the 90s. Don't really know why - and didn't care much - just figured that was what was going on...


Interesting (none / 0) (#51)
by Inspector Gadget on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 11:07:39 AM EST

I thought he was probably sleeping with the other girl back in the 90s. Don't really know why - and didn't care much - just figured that was what was going on

Why would you have such thoughts if you didn't care?

Birkitt is 34 now. Was what, 21, back in 1996 when the affair started? Letterman was 49 in 1996. She was a college student who was interning at CBS. He paid for her law school, which she started in 2005. His wife may have been on board with all this. You're right, we don't know. But, thanks to a meddling media, we're probably going to find out.


I think of tons of stuff I don't really (none / 0) (#55)
by inclusiveheart on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 11:44:04 AM EST

care that much about on a daily basis. That's what happens when you tend to think more often than not. Some stuff is interesting and other stuff is fleeting and not necessarily all that interesting to me or anyone else.


I think we all think pretty much non-stop.... (none / 0) (#57)
by Inspector Gadget on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 12:03:37 PM EST

just not about someone else's sex life. Particularly, when the age difference is so dramatic.


I used to read People magazine (5.00 / 2) (#59)
by inclusiveheart on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 12:30:04 PM EST

pretty regularly. I was up to date on all the high and low profile relationships for a time there. It was a great mindless distraction from real life. Everyone has their own ways of escaping their own lives from time to time.

I also have always liked older men and dated a few in my life time. Not sure why you think that is such a terrible thing. What's the cut off in your mind? Five, ten, fifteen years? What? Does it matter to you what she wanted? Or what I or anyone else wants? When exactly do you think women become adult enough to make their own decisions about relationships? Personally, I've always found these kinds of discussions about "girls" dating older men to be pretty offensive. I had a lot to learn at 21, but I was of age and had every right to make my own decisions about the people with whom I would spend my time. Some of my friends were even married before they were in their twenties - they're all still married - one to a guy ten years older than she was. They're doing better than a lot of the "experienced" people who waited until later... So... I don't really get or appreciate all this moralizing about age etc. You sound as if she was like seven and he was an adult. She was an adult - of age - and had every right to be self determined in her situation. And don't insult her by suggesting that she was some sort of idiot - unless you know that to be true of her - if she went to law school though and made it through, my guess is that she isn't an idiot.


:) You're reading too much into it (none / 0) (#61)
by Inspector Gadget on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 12:49:01 PM EST

No judgment intended. I was probably more surprised you remembered going there with your assumptions after more than a decade had passed.


: I always wondered how she came to (none / 0) (#64)
by inclusiveheart on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 12:54:29 PM EST

get the on air job. That's why I thought about their personal relationship. You don't end up on air on a show like that one without being close to the star. It is just how it works in that world. I thought that either she was his protege or his girlfriend - or both. That was all. That's why I thought about it and why I remember thinking that now - because this revelation sort of answers my question.

He didn't think ahead (5.00 / 4) (#5)
by Cream City on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:05:24 PM EST

to see that sleeping with a staffer could be problematic for other staffers.

Well, Dave, duh. I always thought he was terribly self-centered, and that sure shows it.

I don't think that's the problem (5.00 / 3) (#7)
by Jeralyn on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:20:34 PM EST

"He didn't think ahead to see that sleeping with a staffer could be problematic for other staffers."

He's saying he didn't think ahead to see how it would affect his wife and potentially bring the show negative publicity. There's no indication it was problematic for other staffers or that it was an issue. Has anyone said they were denied a promotion or a pay raise because of his actions?

Not every office romance, even with a superior, is wrong, either for the participants or others.


He didn't see how (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:27:31 PM EST

it would affect his wife? (He thought nobody would ever find out?)

Shaking head incredulously. He's even more insensitive than I thought.

Personally, if I were his wife, I'd see the handwriting on the wall. He doesn't love her. If he loved her her he wouldn't sleep with WomEN on his show.

Take Harry and leave, Regina. Do it today. Don't be a "good wife". In the end, you're just a sucker.


how judgmental (5.00 / 6) (#12)
by Jeralyn on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:40:50 PM EST

considering you don't know either of them. They weren't even married, and it was before their son was born.

Maybe forgiveness is a better course. I hope they work it out.


Oh, please (5.00 / 4) (#24)
by gyrfalcon on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 11:51:14 PM EST

If every woman whose husband cheated on her left him, there'd be no marriages left in this country or probably anywhere else in the world.


My marriage would still be intact. (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by coast on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 07:29:53 AM EST

Thank you very much.


Did you read the comment you (none / 0) (#48)
by Inspector Gadget on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 10:35:38 AM EST

responded to?

It sounds like you are boasting that you can have an affair and your wife would not leave.


Maybe they have an "open" (none / 0) (#50)
by Fabian on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 11:07:04 AM EST

marriage? Maybe Letterman does!

Unfortunately, the public would be more sympathetic to a man who had some extramarital nookie than a woman who approved of his practice, or even worse, had her own extramarital fun.

Better to be contrite and talk about how much pain this is causing you and the missus. It plays well. Every entertainer and politician knows how to play to their audience.


Perhaps (none / 0) (#52)
by Inspector Gadget on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 11:10:15 AM EST

: Gotta be respectable! (none / 0) (#53)
by Fabian on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 11:28:00 AM EST

Can't remember if it was this week or last when I saw yet another ZOMG! He cheated on Her! tabloid headline. (Bradgelina? Another couple? Can't keep track.) I have to wonder if some celebrities cut out the middlemen and simply feed stories directly to the tabloids themselves.
I think Letterman is playing this well so far. The guy trying to do him dirty got caught, Letterman gets free publicity and increased ratings and people are suddenly thinking "If Letterman can score, I should be able to.".

Yes I read it. (none / 0) (#56)
by coast on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 11:47:23 AM EST

Gyrfalcon's statement that "there'd be no marriages left" implies that every husband has cheated on his wife. I have not cheated on my wife. Does that clear it up?


: It clears up your answer (none / 0) (#58)
by Inspector Gadget on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 12:06:33 PM EST

but, that's not what I got from gyrfalcon's comment. I've never thought the cheating statistics were nearly as high as the numbers released indicated.

And since just as many WOMEN... (5.00 / 6) (#34)
by Dadler on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 08:13:47 AM EST

...cheat as men, well, the gender-based indignation is a bit much too take. Human sexuality is a very complicated thing. And that IS what we are talking about here, human sexuality, not rape, not harassment, just humans and their base and deeply natural desires. If it weren't for sex and the sex drive, not a one of us would be here.

And, as the product of an inappropriate affair (visiting college professor has affair with student), it's pretty hard for me to make any judgements besides, well, that is life, that is people, and both are difficult propositions.


Well said sir... (5.00 / 2) (#54)
by kdog on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 11:29:06 AM EST

well said...by the "outrage" in some of the comments one would think Dave made unwelcome advances to members of the TL community or something.


That's actually not accurate (none / 0) (#65)
by cawaltz on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 12:55:38 PM EST

According to the infidelity stats men cheat more often but the number of women who have started cheating has grown exponentially since we have entered the workforce. Apparently, the female position is if guys can do it so can we. Additionally, I'd imagine being financially independant means females are less worried about the repercussions of cheating.

http://www.truthaboutdeception.com/quizzes/public/infidelity_statistics.html


Nuttin' like a lil' equality ;) (none / 0) (#68)
by nycstray on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 01:50:37 PM EST

You think? (none / 0) (#70)
by sj on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 03:11:37 PM EST

Apparently, the female position is if guys can do it so can we.

My initial thought is that it was more related to this (from your link):

As more and more women enter the work force, "office romances" are becoming more common. Spouses often spend more time with coworkers than with each other.

Based on my observation, this makes a lot of sense. Opportunity (or exposure, or whatever you want to call it) is more restricted when a woman takes on the traditional role of stay-at-home Mom.


: I think the time spent together with (none / 0) (#71)
by Inspector Gadget on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 03:56:38 PM EST

co-workers is secondary to the partnership at work. Working together to reach the same goals, open communication, supporting one another, recognition for achievements....all things that every marriage would want, and some just don't have.

This place has been Medea (none / 0) (#75)
by jondee on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 04:21:02 PM EST

central since the primaries.

Sorry, somebody had to say it.


"Take Harry and leave" (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by Steve M on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 10:19:29 AM EST

Niiiiiice. He's not a candlestick, you know.


Wow, really? Well, then (5.00 / 7) (#13)
by Cream City on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:51:46 PM EST

I'll have to revise my estimation of Letterman.

I thought he was smart, at least.


He wasn't a total schmuck. (none / 0) (#41)
by Fabian on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 09:29:16 AM EST

I think he got sound legal advice, at least. OTOH, he could use some counseling on workplace ethics and the effects of corporate culture on workplace productivity.


World Wide Pants may be incorporated, (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by inclusiveheart on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 09:55:28 AM EST

but it is not a corporate culture. Production in the arts is a totally different culture and system. The hours are long and people often literally live together. A lot of people have affairs, get married and otherwise hook up in our industry. I've seen a number of marriages between outsiders and production folks break up mostly because they never get to see each other. Sometimes it involves someone the production person is working with, but sometimes not. I've known tons of folks who've told me that they married inside the world because their significant other actually understood the rhythm of our work. It is what it is and it is a unique world. You can't apply the rules of vanilla corporate America to this world. It just doesn't work that way. I've never really met anyone in all these years on a show that I've been interested in - but I have some really close great friends - the kinds of friendships that you rarely develop in normal corporate environments. My A team is like family to me - not to mention outrageously funny and irreverent. Just the way I like my work environments.


Meh (none / 0) (#60)
by cawaltz on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 12:38:17 PM EST

Hours are long in many more areas besides the arts. The average work week is something like 60 hours. Nurses work 12 hour shift, truckers and salesmen are gone for days,military members for months. I daresay the artsy folk have the market cornered on a challenging schedule. The world they are in isn't that darn unique and neither is the excuse making that is coming from them on why making a marriage work is difficult.


Truckers are so well known for (none / 0) (#63)
by inclusiveheart on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 12:49:51 PM EST

driving with each other in packs of 50-60 - in the same truck and everything. It is a different culture - that's all - and none of the folks I've known who have gotten divorced were happy about their splits - you make it sound like they were all casual about it - they weren't - sometimes relationships just don't work out and being apart to much is high among the list of problems that many couples face - see our military divorce statistics as a good example of how that issue can take a toll on a relationship. The only thing that ever threatened my parents' 45 year marriage was a year that they had to spend apart because of work.


: My underlying point (none / 0) (#67)
by cawaltz on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 01:15:58 PM EST

is the culture isn't that different. Of course, long periods of separation are going to make relationships difficult but those periods are not limited solely to the arts community and I don't think they should be allowed to use their overly long hours to make excuses. There are many fields which require long separations. I just listed two. I could have listed more. My husband is presently traveling to Bluefield, Wva and will be gone until Wednesday. He works for the railroad. His job requires travel for days(and prior to that we were military which often meant month long separations.) Keeping that in mind, I don't think that gives me carte blanche to give anything less than my full commitment to our relationship. Then again, I went into the relationship recognizing that it meant work and that it wasn't going to always be easy balancing act and that I would need to work to avoid temptation(since I believe it is perfectly natural to be attracted to members of the opposite sex.)
Now I realize that when Dave cheated he wasn't "married" per se but I think it is absurd to think it wouldn't be understandable for someone who had a relationship for years, rather than months might have the expectation of fidelity. His statements re: her "coldness" reinforce that perception.

The staffers I interacted with (5.00 / 3) (#17)
by nycstray on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 10:29:18 PM EST

were very happy campers. We used to hang at the same watering/feed station after work. Our crew was always grumbling, them, not. My team (lordy I hate that term!) def noticed. And it's a top down kinda thing we're talkin'.

I think one thing people need to understand, is the difference in workplace environs. Creative environs are a tad dif than corp etc. I can see myself believing he didn't see how it could be problematic to other staffers depending on his prior work environ history. Not excusing anything, but just sayin' :) Now his home life is another story, and not my biz.


odd, (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by cpinva on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:36:29 PM EST

my understanding was that the affairs in question happened prior to his getting married. that being the case (assuming it is), how could they possibly hurt his wife?

Maybe because the relationship (none / 0) (#14)
by Cream City on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:53:13 PM EST

including having a child together considerably predates the rather recent wedding.

It's the relationship that matters. At least, to her, if it turns out that he slept around during the relationship.


the affair was before (5.00 / 4) (#16)
by Jeralyn on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 10:23:08 PM EST

the child was born and the marriage. It ended in 2003.

That a stranger would call for his wife to leave him is truly mind-boggling.


I'm not calling for his wife to leave him (4.25 / 4) (#19)
by Cream City on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 10:53:37 PM EST

so aim that elsewhere. And I also hope that she can forgive -- but one never really can forget.

And she and Letterman have had a 20-year relationship. And he said he slept with staffers, plural. Just the facts . . . and no doubt more to come.


that was a reference to (5.00 / 0) (#22)
by Jeralyn on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 11:21:16 PM EST

theresainsnow2's comment above. I was replying to your's and her's in one comment. Sorry, it does read as if I'm responding just to you but I wasn't.


Wow, it looks like (3.00 / 2) (#36)
by Cream City on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 08:29:07 AM EST

two commenters do want Letterman's wife to leave him. Or sher and Dark Avenger are against long-term relationships, perhaps? One never knows when they only do drive-by low ratings but do not explain, of course.


: Yeh, that was payback (none / 0) (#72)
by Cream City on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 04:21:12 PM EST

after seeing what you did here. I don't even know nor care what you said there, since you didn't really read what I said here.

Why is Letterman's preemptive version (none / 0) (#62)
by prittfumes on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 12:49:34 PM EST

of events being accepted as definitive?

Just the facts . . . and no doubt more to come.

Yup.


: Because those are the facts (none / 0) (#73)
by Cream City on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 04:22:32 PM EST

so far, from one of the sources who happens to have a nice big stage. As I said, more to come, no doubt, from other sources. . . .
That is, by definition of "fact" as what he said. "Truth," of course, is a different determination.

He has only been married 8 months so (none / 0) (#21)
by hairspray on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 11:06:10 PM EST

that leaves a lot of time bw (before wife).


What is this? (5.00 / 3) (#25)
by gyrfalcon on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 11:52:55 PM EST

We're all of a sudden only acknowleding serious relatioships if they involve formal marriage? Good grief.


: Exactly. A committed relationship (4.00 / 3) (#30)
by Cream City on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 01:04:50 AM EST

with a child is a promise that ought to mean as much as an oath at an altar (or not, who knows) or a signature on a piece of paper.
I guess it's not a surprise that lawyers are into legalisms.

: My response was to cpinva (none / 0) (#74)
by hairspray on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 09:03:26 PM EST

who said these affairs were before he got married (therefore I assumed he meant it really doesn't matter). Since his legal marriage was so new I brought up that point. I agree with Cream City that a 20 year committed relationship producing a child should have as much value as the state license. Maybe I misunderstood cpinva.

I think the confessional approach... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by Jerrymcl89 on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 11:02:21 PM EST

... doesn't really suit Dave, who's never talked much about his personal life, anymore than it would have suited Johnny Carson. At any rate, it's his business. I've yet to hear any serious allegation that this rises to the level of sexual harassment, and if it doesn't, it's just between him and his wife.

Why does Mr. Letterman discuss his (5.00 / 2) (#26)
by oculus on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 11:55:36 PM EST

personal life and his relationship w/his wife on national TV? Sick.

: That is probably part of the horrible hurt (4.83 / 6) (#31)
by Cream City on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 01:06:56 AM EST

as his confession for the camera was hailed here and elsewhere as such brilliant strategy to protect himself.
It would not appear to have been a strategy taken to protect a wife and child from horrible hurt.

: Snark .... (none / 0) (#27)
by Erehwon on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 12:01:18 AM EST

Because it worked so well for Mark Sanford! :-(

If I were Letterman's wife, (5.00 / 4) (#38)
by Anne on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 08:43:38 AM EST

I think it would be like pouring salt in a wound to have him on national TV continuing to provide a window into my marriage and relationship; I just cannot imagine that her hurt will be assuaged by Letterman's ongoing public commentary. Nor can I imagine that it helps the whole forgiveness thing to have him using his actions to make fun of himself - to me, it trivializes it, which, in my opinion, further demeans his wife.

I don't know David Letterman, but his behavior puts him in the category of being just one more can't-keep-his-pants-zipped, thinks-with-the-little-head man who thinks the women in the workplace are fair game for his "needs." Ugh. No wonder he was single for so long.

All I can say is, "good luck, Regina!" You knew what he was when you started the relationship, and whether a child and a marriage have changed him, well, only the two of you really know.

Me? I think I'd be telling Dave to STFU.

Whatever the reason, I'll tell you one thing: (none / 0) (#2)
by andgarden on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 08:38:12 PM EST

nobody's watching Conan tonight.

Well, this "nobody" is watching (5.00 / 5) (#11)
by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:40:07 PM EST

neither Letterman nor Conan ;-)


: Well, likewise (5.00 / 2) (#15)
by andgarden on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:53:37 PM EST

: Same here (5.00 / 2) (#29)
by Inspector Gadget on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 12:52:19 AM EST

n/t

I'm shocked, shocked, (none / 0) (#4)
by Zorba on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 08:51:47 PM EST

I tell you.....that anyone cares that these overpaid media personalities can't keep their pants zipped.

Pre-Nup (none / 0) (#10)
by coast on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:39:22 PM EST

What impact would any of his previous behavior have on any pre-nup signed when they got married (I don't even know if this is applicable but I can't imagine he got married without one). If he had these relationships after they were together can you argue fraud?

: I doubt there was a pre-nup (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by Jeralyn on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 10:31:15 PM EST

they were together 20+ years before getting married and had a child together and owned their Montana ranch together. And even without a prenup, he's got enough money for all of them. Link

Letterman, 61, announced he and Regina Lasko, with whom he has a five-year old son, were wed in a courthouse ceremony in Choteau in Teton County, Montana last week, near the ranch they own together.
"They say, 'Well, why did it take you so long to get married?' and, of course, the answer honestly is we wanted to make sure we had the prenup just right," Letterman joked.
Letterman and Lasko began their relationship in 1986. Their son, Harry, was present for the ceremony. The late night talk show host previously swore off marriage after his 1977 divorce with Michelle Cook.

steve martin and marty short (none / 0) (#28)
by Jeralyn on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 12:13:00 AM EST

are both on the show. They are both wearing loud striped socks with very proper suits. And they both look like they had facelifts. They are talking about having their colonoscopies together, I wonder if they used the same surgeon.

I must say (none / 0) (#39)
by lentinel on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 08:46:55 AM EST

that I always considered the name of his production company to be creepy. Why do we have to be directed to his pants?

And now - rather than pay the two mil, which would hardly put a dent in his bankroll - he has subjected his audience, his staff, his network and his family to all the sordid details.

: Yes, going along with blackmail (none / 0) (#66)
by KeysDan on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 12:59:54 PM EST

is not such a good idea.

Maybe Halderman messed up (none / 0) (#45)
by Saul on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 09:50:02 AM EST

Maybe he should have just sold his information to a tabloid. They would have probably paid him a million for it.

I think Letterman is just hurting himself the more he talks about this on his show.

This stuff goes on all the time (none / 0) (#49)
by SOS on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 10:49:40 AM EST

in Show Business. Everyone's putting the moves on each other etc, etc. Eccentrics, big ego's . .
mistrust, competition . . I don't regret having left the business at all.

: SOS (none / 0) (#69)
by Jeralyn on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 02:34:59 PM EST

you mentioned you were a musician in 1969. Would we know your band?