>> The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has reversed the criminal conviction of Bill Cosby. Now,
this is due to a technicality. This isn't because he's actually innocent. And that's
why we have a legal system as opposed to an actual justice system. So let me tell you
the details on what the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled and how they ruled to vacate his
conviction.
They stated that Cosby had been double crossed by prosecutors in this case. The divided court
ruled that the 83-year-old comedian, who has served more than two years of a three-to-10-year
sentence, had been denied a fair trial, citing an agreement struck with a previous prosecutor.
A previous prosecutor that the justices said barred Cosby from ever being charged with
the 2004 assault of Temple University employee Andrea Constand.
Now, that previous agreement from what I gather, wasn't something in writing. So it's kind
weird that they're making this decision based on, I guess a verbal agreement.
>> It's an ungentlemen's agreement. >> Yeah.
>> I don't know. >> What, he admitted to drugging and raping
women. I mean, okay.
>> Yes to justice. >> How is this justice?
>> I don't know. >> Let me give you more. Justice David Wecht,
writing for the majority, said Montgomery County District Attorney Kevin Steele was
legally bound by the decade-old promise from the previous prosecutor, by the way. And therefore,
should not have brought charges when new evidence surfaced in 2015.
Vacating Cosby's conviction, he said, is the only remedy that comports with society's reasonable
expectations of its elected prosecutors and our criminal justice system.
>> First of all, that's BS because nobody has any expectations.
>> At this point certainly not. >> So don't appeal to those. Yeah, look, I
theoretically, in a philosophical sense, get the idea that if you have a deal with a prosecutor,
it makes sense in some cases for it to persist pass the prosecutor.
Because if it didn't, then theoretically, you could just fire the prosecutor, bring
somebody in the next day and then violate it. But in that case, there should be some
sort of time horizon for it or something, maybe in writing, as you alluded to, which
sort of makes sense.
>> So the prosecutor had an agreement with Bill Cosby in regard to Andrea Constand, right?
That particular situation and so does that mean, okay, with all of this new evidence
and all of the other women who have come forward, you can't press criminal charges against him?
>> That's what they want you to believe.
>> That's crazy, that's absolute crazy. >> Yeah, it's definitely crazy. Whether technically
based on precedent and the precedent is baked into a system that fundamentally delivers
the exact opposite of justice 99.9% of the time. Whether that's technically is what they
were supposed to do is irrelevant to a country that is sick of injustice.
And thinks if you can't or won't get this guy, if you can't, what's the point of any
of this? >> Totally.
>> Yeah, he's well connected. He's rich. And that should not matter in a case like this,
but it's so obviously does. And that I think is so much more important in this than whether
there's some technicality of some agreement that means that they mess up this one time.
If you can't find some way to get this guy, when you literally can't fit all of the women
he raped in a courtroom at the same time. We have bigger issues than an agreement that
was broken with one prosecutor. >> By the way, so I wanna read a comment from
Graham Henry, who says, what people call technicalities are constitutional rights.
It's justice because once we allow the government to cheat in cases we don't support, there's
nothing to stop them from cheating in others. I agree with you on that, actually. But I
think that this case is different. Not just because Bill Cosby is very clearly guilty,
but because the decision made by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is based on an agreement.
I guess a verbal agreement that Bill Cosby and the previous prosecutor had, specifically
in regard to the charges brought forward by Andrea Constand. Following that, as we all
know, there were dozens of other women and far more evidence. So I don't know, do you
just take the Andrea Constand part out and move forward with a prosecution with a new
prosecutor that doesn't focus on Constand at all?
I don't know. But the fact of the matter is, it's not just about Andrea Constand at this
point and what type of agreement the previous prosecutor had with Bill Cosby in regard to
that case. So if there's overwhelming evidence related to other drugging and raping of women,
does that not matter at all?
What about the rights of the women who were raped?
>> They're not rich enough. That's sort of a joke, but it's also entirely true. Yeah,
so when you get arguments like that about, if you allow blah, blah, blah, the government
might cheat at some point. No, the government is cheating.
>> They're doing that right now. >> Prosecutors cheat all the time, who can
pursue you past that? The very wealthy, those are the people that can. And having not just
a system that is designed to protect those people, but now we're gonna have a commentariat
that's going to defend those people as some sort of, this is an elevation of philosophical
goods or something like that.
No, it's not. It's the protection of a rapist. And okay, he's out on this. Again, if you
can't get him on any of these, that is insane and people get to be incredibly enraged by
that. >> Yeah,
>> And trying getting him mad at people because one of the most prolific rapists in American
history is walking.
That's a weird thing to get mad at, your priorities are a little bit messed up there. You get
mad at both, if you must, but there should be a different prioritization there.
>> Yeah, and just to give you more details cuz context does matter, like how did this
case come about?
So the case began in 2005, as is reported, when Constand came forward. She first reported
the alleged assault to the office of then Montgomery County District Attorney Bruce
Castor, who by the way, ultimately declined to file charges in this case. At the time,
Castor said that he was not confident that her allegations would hold up to scrutiny
in a criminal court.
But he maintained, he struck the non-prosecution deal with Cosby to compel him to testify in
a civil suit. So what he did is, Cosby, what he did is, in a civil suit deposition, admit
to doing awful things. And then that was used in the criminal case where he eventually got
convicted.
And so the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is arguing that since there was this agreement with the
previous prosecutor, that the deposition would not be used against him criminally. It's wrong
that it's being used against him criminally now. The former Cosby Show star was arrested
in 2015, when Castor's successors armed the comic's damaging deposition testimony in a
lawsuit brought by Constand, brought charges against him days before the 12-year statute
of limitations ran out.
So yeah, I mean those are the details. I don't agree with it. I hear the argument on the
other side and the concerns about constitutional rights. I just find it fascinating how there
really is a two tier justice system here where we have people who have been executed.
Even though previous to their execution there was indication that prosecutors and investigators
had coerce them into all sorts of false confessions and things like that. There was even DNA evidence
prior to the executions clearing them, but everyone ignored it. I mean, that kind of
stuff, obviously drives me crazy.
And the reason why that two tiered justice system exist is because on one hand you have
someone like Bill Cosby, who clearly has the means to fight these cases, even on the grounds
of a technicality like this. And then on the other side, you have people who are poor,
powerless, and don't have the ability to defend themselves in the same way and it's wrong.
That's not justice.