Lauer's response was simply, "Right."
Tate continued, "I am a victims' advocate, and I know the difference." Lauer agreed, saying "And I understand that, and yes, there is a difference."
Tate was the latest in a parade of Polanski defenders to appear on network television.
At no point in the interview did Lauer bring up the grand jury testimony of the 13-year-old girl which refuted the idea that Polanski's encounter was not "forcible" and that it was consensual. Only later did he note that Polanski did commit statutory rape.
According to the girl's testimony, Polanski performed vaginal, anal, and oral sex on the girl while she was under the influence of champagne and a part of a Quaalude that he provided for her.
The victim, Samantha Gailey, clearly did not give her consent to the sexual acts according to her own statements. She told the grand jury that before Polanski began having sex with her, "I was mostly just on and off saying, ‘No stop.' But I wasn't fighting really because I, you know, there was no one else there and I had no place to go." She also testified that Polanski did say anything to her when she said, "No."
Gailey described her state of being as Polanski performed oral sex on her:
Q. Why do you believe that you were under the influence at that time?
A. I can barely remember anything that happened.
Q. Is there any other reason?
A. No. I was kind of dizzy, you know, like things were kind of blurry sometimes. I was having trouble with my coordination like walking and stuff.
Earlier in her statement Gailey testified about Polanski giving her champagne:
Q. At any time did Mr. Polanski offer you something to drink?
A. Yes. I think I said I was thirsty. And he went in the kitchen and this refrigerator, it was full of juice and wine and soda and all this stuff. And he got out - he got a bottle of champagne. And he said, "Should I open it?" And I went, "I don't care," you know. And so he asked the woman if it was all right and she said it was.
Q. So did he open the bottle of champagne?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know what kind of champagne it was?
A. It was 1971 something.
Q. What happened after he opened the bottle of champagne?
A. He poured three glasses, one for each of us.
Gailey also testified that Polanski gave her part of a Quaalude:
A. We went into the bathroom before and he took this little yellow thing. I don't know what it was. It was some kind of container. And he had - he walked in. When I walked in he had the container. And he had a pill broken into three parts. And he said, "Is this a Quaalude?" And I went, "Yes." And he says, "Oh, do you think I will be able to drive if I take it?" And I went, "I don't know," you know. He says, "Well, should I take it?" I went, "I don't know." He goes, "Well, I guess I will," and he took it. And he says, "Do you want part?" And I went, "No." And he says, -- oh at that time I went, "Okay," because - I don't know."
Q. Why did you take it?
A. I don't know. I think I must have been pretty drunk or else I wouldn't have.
Q. Before you took the part of the tablet, had you had more champagne than you have testified to?
A. I told you I didn't know how much because I was drinking some of his too. I just kept - I just kept drinking it for pictures and you know.
Q. The poses that you made were with the champagne glass in your hand?
A. Yes.
Q. And was there champagne in the glass when your picture was taken?
A. Yes.
Q. While the pictures were being taken were you drinking champagne?
A. Yes.
Polanski may not have forced Gailey at gun or knife point to have sex with him, but he still ignored her pleas to stop and provided her with drugs and alcohol.
Ultimately, it was "forcible" sex and Lauer should have called Tate out on her statement.
—Colleen Raezler is a research assistant at the Culture and Media Institute
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Don't confuse Matt Lauer with the facts
September 30, 2009 - 16:44 ET by Captain KirockHe's too busy reading the teleprompter.
"Forcibly?"
September 30, 2009 - 16:49 ET by CrashOh ... you mean like, "the necrophilic didn't forcibly have sex with the corpse"? The 13 year old was drugged you left-wing excuse for a journalist! Next time try going after the apologist twit Matt. While you're at it why don't you retract all of the trendy stories your pitiful network did on "date rape drugs." It isn't wrong as long as your "date" is passed out. MORON!
The Left's true colors are exposed &
September 30, 2009 - 17:17 ET by In ExcessHe, at 44, should have been in prison for just 'looking' at a 13 year old with his intentions.
"Polanski may not have
September 30, 2009 - 16:46 ET by QueenMum"Polanski may not have forced Gailey at gun or knife point to have sex
with him, but he still ignored her pleas to stop and provided her with
drugs and alcohol"
Exactly. Since when is rape only a valid charge if the victim was grabbed off the street, had her mouth duct-taped, and a knife held to her throat. But I suppose the Hollywood elite consider that since she was drugged, she didn't feel anything. So it didn't count.
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out
of other people's money."
—Margaret Thatcher
Well ok then
September 30, 2009 - 16:47 ET by charlietexasWell maybe Charles Manson had consent from Sharon to cut her head off then. Same dumb argument. What an idiot. I've always thought a lot of the Tate family till now. To give a rapist a free pass is so unreal to me. Roman is a pedophile.....period
Tate continued, "I am a
September 30, 2009 - 16:49 ET by Kat Outta the BagTate continued, "I am a victims' advocate, and I know the difference."
Right. And the fact that Polanski was her brother-in-law has nothing to do with her judgment on this?
Do you think any victims
September 30, 2009 - 17:48 ET by Radical1979Do you think any victims give her any credibility any more?
blurred morality
September 30, 2009 - 16:59 ET by cajun2To blur the bounds of morality seems to be a favorite pastime for liberals. You then have a chaotic society as an excuse to declare martial law after the supreme court takes away our guns.
Create chaos, allow crime unchecked,(blackpanthers with clubs), excuse rapist and criminals as long as they are rich then you see why feral children are beating another child to death on the streets.
This just in...In NewOrleans, young people are rounding up stray cats and dogs, getting into their cars onto the Causeway, speeding through traffic and throwing the animals out the window into traffic. Which ones are feral? The animals or the children?
Chris Hansen, answer the white phone
September 30, 2009 - 17:06 ET by TexndocIsn't Chris Hansen a NBC superstar? Hasn't he repeatedly shown on NBC airwaves that even DISCUSSING vaginal penetration with a 13 year old is a crime?
It's funny, two days ago a bunch of idiots couldn't WAIT to sign the Polanski petition. One Hollywood mogul even got so cocky to the point of threatening to pull some punches with the Governor of California. Now the wind has shifted and even public sentiment in France has turned against the pedophile director. You have a bunch of idiots today I'd bet wishing they hadn't jumped on that petition so quickly and a slew of agents telling their clients today "Don't you go near that thing."
Why?
September 30, 2009 - 17:07 ET by TeamcheeserWhy are these celebrities so set on defending Polanski? Why is it so important to them?
I truly am asking. I do not get this.
Teamcheeser
September 30, 2009 - 17:09 ET by MrShyLiberals make no sense. It's upside down for them, no matter the issue.
Right, Shy...Just like these liberals
September 30, 2009 - 18:56 ET by JerRight, Shy...
Just like these liberals at Newsweek--"upside down, no matter the issue." When you paint with that gigantic brush of yours, you get sloppy results.
Jer
I'm with you Teamcheeser
September 30, 2009 - 18:58 ET by woburn828Please someone explain this. How can NBC allow ML to be so ignorant of the facts before this interview.
Where is the NOW gang. Usually they want to castrate the man responsible. Even Dianne Sawyer defends him.
Sawyer
September 30, 2009 - 19:38 ET by Kat Outta the BagDiane Sawyer is defending him because she's probably friends with him through her director husband, Mike Nichols.
What element of RAPE is missing?
September 30, 2009 - 17:13 ET by ptsonHUMM...
No consent possible because she was a 13 year old
and she was drugged.
She said NO and asked to be taken home.
She was violated vaginally and anally.
So what else is necessary for "RAPE" to happen. Does she have to be strangled and killed before it is rape?
WHERE IN HELL ARE THE WOMEN's GROUPS?
" where in hell are the womens groups"?
September 30, 2009 - 17:48 ET by jacktheripperN O W says later just as it did with Sarah Palin (pathetic organization) "Ms" Tate is as dispicable as "whoopie" Goldberg!
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can
bribe the people with their own money." – Alexis de Tocqueville
NOW late?
October 1, 2009 - 22:57 ET by ptsonThe silence and lack of outrage is deafening. A confessed rapist is defended by dozens in Hollywood and the media and women's groups, yawn. Would you leave your 13-year old daughter alone with this guy? Would any of his defenders? Well Whoopie?
Rape IS always Rape
September 30, 2009 - 17:16 ET by Thinking.ManWe are not talking about a 17 year old with 20 year old, we are talking about a 45 year old with a 13 year old.
Consensual means both parties
A. Have the ability to enter into an agreement
The girl could not (legally) have agreed to this because she was a minor
B. Niether is directly or indirectly correced
Polanski gave her alchohol, drugs, and forced himself on her when she said no.
Yeah, that's rape RAPE
So is Matt and this excuse for a human being guest saying that she lied? That 13 is an adult regardless of the law, that drugging someone is ok, that saying no really means yes and date rape can't possibly occur in this country.
Leftist are really dispicable people, totally worthless fools
Another thought
September 30, 2009 - 17:22 ET by Thinking.ManHey Matt and Tate
Put your anus where your mouth is (what a disgusting word picture that is)
I will accept your arguments if
1. Both of you are forced to do beer bongs until you can barely move
2. Both of you take qualudes for your body wieght equivalent
3. Both of you scream "No" while you are analy penatrated by a series of 80 year old men (vigra provided) until you pass out from pain or blood loss, which ever comes first
After this you can both still claim it's not rape, and I will entertain the idea that you are both just idiots instead of lying sacks of dog you know what.
Come on Matt take up the challenge, hey if a 13 year old girl can handle it I am sure your man enough.
Failed to consider one possibility...
September 30, 2009 - 22:47 ET by flyfisherLauer may be into it.
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw...
"The Trees" by Rush
Just wondering
September 30, 2009 - 22:59 ET by RESTLESS 1Where does NOW stand on this? I haven't heard a peep from the nag gang.
Funny, I seem to remember them supporting BJ. Might they be defending polanski as well?
"If the man, with the power, can't keep it under control...some heads are gonna roll." -Judas Priest
There's a difference between rape and rape?
September 30, 2009 - 17:28 ET by Sestren_NK"There is, as I said, rape and there is rape...yes, there is a difference."
Wow, who'da thunk it? And here all these years I never knew the difference between rape and, well, rape. Thank you for the enlightening lesson, "progressive" America!
It's bad enough they have to make up this crap, and worse that they actually believe it.
televisions should be clicking off everywhere
September 30, 2009 - 17:51 ET by katainkentthe continued validation for this crime should not be ignored.
____________________________________________
The Emperor, he has no clothes
WTF! and this is why i do
September 30, 2009 - 18:10 ET by JAJTWTF! and this is why i do not watch those morning shows, ignorants like Lauer and that "victim advocate" idiot- i am just stunned at their total lack of commonsense.
JAJT
victims' advocate?!?
September 30, 2009 - 18:15 ET by cman70"I am a victims' advocate..."
That's debatable. I know for damn sure she's not a childrens' advocate.
I understand that most in Hollywood have a completely different set of values than conservatives have. But sometimes I get the feeling some of them will back anything, no matter how outrageous, as long as it offends conservatives.
liberal definition vs conservative
September 30, 2009 - 18:46 ET by MaratThere is rape and then there is rape
There is assault and then there is assault
There is robbery and then there is robbery
There is murder and then there is murder
One has a perpetrator and a victim while the other has "TWO" victims
Lauer's failure to challenge
September 30, 2009 - 18:22 ET by OldLeprechaun"I am a victims' advocate, and I know the difference."
If this idiot is actually a "victims' advocate", may God have mercy on the victims with whom she deals. 13 year girls do not enter into consenual sex any more than they enter into contractual agreements. SHE WAS UNDER THE AGE OF CONSENT, MORON. A "victims' advocate" who can't comprehend the concept of "age of consent" seems less an advocate and more of a pimp.
Funny how the left fancies
September 30, 2009 - 20:16 ET by G. MayFunny how the left fancies itself the champions of women's rights, women's issues, and women's advocacy. These leftists seem determined to set those things back a generation or two by defending the indefensible.
I think...
September 30, 2009 - 22:05 ET by Gecks...that most of the people who were coming to Polanski's defense really didn't know the circumstances of the rape. Now that the details are coming out, they are going to run away from this as fast as they can and throw him under the bus.
BTW, Angelica Houston (who was Jack Nicholsons girlfriend at the time) was actually in the house at the time of the rape, and actually interrupted it. Instead of being horrified at what he had done, she later stated to the police that the girl didn't look hurt when she saw her after the rape before Polanski drove her home.
If I knew how to link, I'd link to the Grand Jury testimony. It is very sick reading. .
Gecks
"Your right to Life, Liberty, and the Persuit of Happiness ends at my front door, and my wallet!"-Me!
Nothing to see here...
October 1, 2009 - 00:02 ET by BarkerMatt Lauer was obviously drunk and drugged before and during this interview.
It never really happened.
Pedophilia is considered OK by the Leftists
October 1, 2009 - 00:57 ET by PharmerIt's obvious that these lefties don't find anything wrong with adults having sex with 13 year old GIRLS (or BOYS, for that matter).
I'm juxtaposing this nauseating story in my mind with the pervert, Kevin Jennings, who is "safe schools czar".
Abuse of our kids is going to be an expected part of life under the new regime. It's obvious from the educational programs which are being funded, the insistence on preschool, all year school, and extended days.
The trend is to make kids more available for sex.
Ignorance is no excuse for stupidity
October 1, 2009 - 02:02 ET by LindamaeIt doesn't matter if this was a Lolita moment or not. It is against the law - that is illegal - for an adult to have sex with a child. What more can be said? What a sick society we have become when someone has the nerve to give this excuse for breaking the law. It's just like the Letterman fiasco. These people are brain dead.