In late 2017, Pat Robertson addressed the escalating allegations of sexual assault made against wealthy and powerful men. Robertson was concerned. RightWingWatch reported his comments as follows:
Hollywood, female staff were expected to provide sexual favors for stars and network executives.
“That was standard stuff,” Robertson said. “Now it’s looked on as shocking but, folks, it’s been happening a long time and nobody said anything about it. Now they’re finally wising up, but I just hate to see some of these men’s careers—I mean, guys like Charlie Rose, these are terrific people and I hate to see it happen.”
“These guys don’t have a trial, either,” he added. “They don’t have the rules of evidence to force these accusers to come forward with the preponderance of evidence is what you get in a trial. You don’t have that now, so these people’s careers are being ruined and we just hope and pray that these women are telling the truth.”
What about Charlie Rose, whom Robertson mentioned? This past fall, eight women accused Charlie Rose of harassing them with “nudity, groping, and lewd calls.” But he’s a “terrific” person! Never mind that his apology effectively acknowledged that the allegations against him have merit—Robertson likes him and that’s all that matters.
What of the lack of trial that Robertson referenced? In many cases allegations aren’t tried in court of law because they can’t be—the statute of limitations has passed. Attempts to reform statute of limitations laws tend to be opposed by conservatives. Robertson, I should mention, is aware of the existence of these laws—in 1987, as he faced allegations of various improprieties, the Chicago Tribune reported on his comments as follows :
Roberston said on Thursday he has admitted on several occasions that he had sown his share of wild oats in his youth, quoting the late Sen. Sam Ervin that “most of my sins have either been forgiven by the good Lord or have outlived the statute of limitations.”