CHARLIE.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
I HOPE YOU DO GET ON THE CALL,
TELL US WHAT IS HAPPENING.
ASK THAT QUESTION.
GREAT TO SEE YOU, CHARLIE
GASPARINO.
HERE IS THE QUESTION, SHOULD CBS
HAVE DISCLOSED TO INVESTORS THIS
"L.A. TIMES," OR LET ME BACKUP,
THE LAPD ACCORDING TO THE
"L.A. TIMES" SEVERAL MONTHS AGO
WAS INVESTIGATING THE SEXUAL
ASSAULT ALLEGATION.
THAT'S THE ISSUE.
SEVERAL MONTHS AGO THE LAPD HAD
BEEN INVESTIGATING SEXUAL
ASSAULT COMPLAINT AGAINST
LES MOONVES.
THAT WAS WAY BEFORE RONAN
FARROW'S NEW YORKER STORY.
"THE L.A. TIMES" STORY IS BASED
ON TWO ANONYMOUS SOURCES.
ALLEGED INCIDENTS WERE IN THE
1980'S, WAY PAST THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS.
THE COMPANY HIRED A LAW FIRM
THAT THE ALLEGATIONS DID NOT
REQUIRE FURTHER INVESTIGATION.
GREAT TO HAVE YOU ON.
IS THE CBS BOARD IN TROUBLE
HERE?
>> THIS IS NATIONWIDE, WORLDWIDE
PLACE DUE PROCESS SAFEGUARDS
THAT PROTECT ALL PARTIES,
PROTECT THOSE WOMEN WHO SAY THEY
HAVE BEEN ABUSED AND THE MEN
ACCUSED OF ABUSE.
WE CAN'T JUST ALLOW CORPORATIONS
ALLEGATIONS.
I LIKE IDEA THEY HIRE VERY GOOD
LAW FIRMS TO DO THE
THE PAST OR NOT I DON'T THINK WE
LAW FIRM BUT RIGHT NOW SEEMS TO
ME THEY ARE DOING EXACTLY WHAT
THEY SHOULD BE DOING.
LIZ: THAT IS AN IMPORTANT POINT.
THE SEC WITH THE HARVEY
WEINSTEIN CASE WAS CONSIDERING A
RULE YOU HAVE TO DISCLOSE IF IT
MATERIALLY MOVES I THINK THE
THE MOMENT "THE NEW YORKER"
EXPOSE' HIT THE TAPE, 11% DROP
IN TWO DAYS.
THE ME TOO ERA IS HITTING ALL
SORTS OF COMPANIES TO YOUR
POINT.
CBS CLAW BACK HIS 184 PAYOUT?
I DID WORK FOR BEN BRONFMAN THE
LAWYER FOR HARVEY WEINSTEIN.
I WORKED ON CONSTITUTIONAL
ISSUES.
I CAN'T TALK ABOUT THAT CASE
WITHOUT MAKING MY OWN
DISCLOSURE.
CLAWBACKS ARE CERTAINLY PART OF
SOME CONTRACTS BUT IN GENERAL I
THINK UNLESS YOU CAN SHOW THAT
THERE WAS A BREACH OF DUTY TO
DISCLOSE, THE CLAWBACK
OPERATIONS PROBABLY WOULDN'T
WORK.
LIZ: YOU KNOW, PROFESSOR, IF HE
STAYS, I MEAN THE LATE NIGHT
HOSTS ARE HAVING A FIELD DAY,
ARE IN FACT VERY VULNERABLE
TODAY ALONG WITH POOR GUYS.
NOBODY IS EXEMPT, NOBODY IS
IMMUNE FROM THIS.
I THINK IT'S SO IMPORTANT
THOUGH, THAT THE PRESUMPTION OF
INNOCENCE REMAIN.
THAT THE PRESUMPTION THAT PEOPLE
ARE TELLING THE TRUTH OPERATES
AS WELL.
NOBODY SHOULD RUSH TO JUDGMENT
ON EITHER SIDE AND IT'S SO
IMPORTANT TO HAVE PROCESSES IN
PROCESSES FOR LOOKING INTO THESE
ISSUES.
ALSO CORPORATIONS HAVE TO DECIDE
HOW TO DEAL WITH ISSUES OF
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, HOW FAR
BACK DO THEY GO?
WILL WE TAKE PICASSO'S PAINTINGS
OFF THE WALL?
WILL WE TAKE THOMAS JEFFERSON'S
NAME OFF THE MOUNT RUSHMORE?
WE HAVE TO REALLY FIGURE OUT HOW
FAR BACK THESE THINGS GO.
OBVIOUSLY IF THE PERSON IS STILL
CEO, IF THERE WERE ACTIONS TAKEN
WHILE HE WAS CEO OR IN A
POSITION OF RESPONSIBILITY, THEN
TECHNICAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
GOOD GOVERNANCE APPLIES THERE.
THESE ARE COMPLICATED ISSUES.
WE LIVE IN AN HERE A OF ME TOO.
WE SHOULDN'T ALLOW THAT ERA, AS
IMPORTANT AS IT IS TO PROTECT
WE NEED THE BALANCE STRUCK IN A
WAY THAT PROTECTS ALL INTEREST
FROM STOCKHOLDERS TO ACCUSED, TO
LIZ: EXCELLENT POINT.
DUE PROCESS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES