Rasheed, Muhammad. "Punishing Cosby: Justice or Karma?" Cartoon. The Official Website of Cartoonist M. Rasheed 06 May 2018. Pen & ink w/Adobe Photoshop color.
David Ryan - Why would Bill Cosby need to drug women? Being a celebrity, surely he would have women throwing themselves at him?
Muhammad Rasheed - Neither Cosby—nor any of the other social drug and alcohol users during the height of the swingers period, like Hugh Hefner—needed to drug anyone. At the time, the pills were offered for the same reasons offering people drinks during social interactions are offered: For all parties to relax into the situation. Many people also offered Quaaludes to hardcore drug users, who needed them to come down off of the intense highs of cocaine just to “mellow out” for the social interactions.
Despite the widely-accepted public opinion of the issue, Bill Cosby actually didn’t give anyone pills without their knowledge as the numerous accusers claim. The publicly documented evidence reveals that the attorney Dolores Troiani and her handlers solicited the aid of the approximately 60 accusers in order to pull off a long con grifter scheme against Bill Cosby—the targeted ‘mark’—in an effort to win a $100 million settlement from his estate.
"A long con is a scam that unfolds over several days or weeks and involves a team of swindlers, as well as props, sets, extras, costumes, and scripted lines. It aims to rob the victim of huge sums of money or valuable things, often by getting him or her to empty out banking accounts and borrow from family members." ~Amy Reading; The Mark Inside: A Perfect Swindle, a Cunning Revenge, and a Small History of the Big ConThe scandal has become a major hot topic, as several political movements have been enlisted or manipulated into aiding Troiani’s grifter team into successfully bulldozing pass any actual facts that prove Cosby innocent of the rape accusations, enabling them to influence any potential jury members into scoring them a victory with a pre-biased verdict.
Muhammad Rasheed - [VIDEO] TRUTH EXPOSED: Cosby Case Corruption & Chaos
The worst part about this most recent, high-profile "white women falsely accuse Black male of rape" incident is all the Black people that 'Amen' it.
There's a cross-over point between anti-Black racism and predatory misogyny that demands a deep dive into the facts so we don't become willing and uninformed accessories to a typical racism-based lynching.
Amber Manning-Lawson - Black men only care about black issues when black men are included on the list of victims. When black women are the sole target, y’all are quiet as fuck!
Amber Manning-Lawson - The issues that triggered this post were 1. the overwhelming response online from black men voicing their disappointment in the Cosby conviction. “Fuck rape victims! Cosby’s our guy! Despite 60+ accusers, witness accounts, years of documented jokes about date rape AND HIS OWN CONFESSION OUT OF HIS BLACK ASS MOUTH, I still need to see all the facts...”
Lana Andrade - I’m gonna start calling Cosby stans Puddin Poppers
Muhammad Rasheed - What's a "stans?" *thoughtful*
[tries to look it up in Urban Dictionary, but couldn't read beyond the name "eminem"]
Lana Andrade - A fan
Muhammad Rasheed - Oh.
Langston Michael - Lol that's the exact Eminem reference 😄
Langston Michael - Nas even called JayZ a Stan on ether.
Jeremy Travis - So are you now content with your 'Puddin Pop' status, Muhammad?
Muhammad Rasheed - I enjoyed Cosby's older comedy albums, and I watched the Cosby Show when it was still airing, but I don't think that qualifies me as a "fan" of his.
If "fan" is being interpreted as "someone who is convinced by evidence analysis that Cosby was wrongfully convicted in a conspiracy against him" then I'll take it.
Olivia Liv Winston - stan: an over obsessive fan (not just a fan), but idolizes and in love with their persona, not who they REALLY are. Like it's one thing to be a fan, but another layer to be a stan. As videoed:
Eminem - Stan (Long Version) ft. Dido
Lana Andrade - I mean if you wanna be a puddin popper by all means knock yourself out.
I’m done rationalizing with people who would rather believe in conspiracy theories than the overall truth.
I just pray your daughter doesn’t have to pay karmically for your “opinion”
Muhammad Rasheed - She'll be fine, Lana. This Cosby thing isn't what you think. The infamous disposition isn't a confession of rape.
Lana Andrade - I’m over it tbh
This is why black women feel they have nowhere to go
Lana Andrade - Black men would rather protect rapists than protect the victims and that’s pretty sad
Michael Clark - Superfan
Muhammad Rasheed - @Lana... In the very beginning, I also assumed the story the prosecution was carefully spoon feeding to the public (Cosby’s our guy! 60+ accusers, witness accounts, years of documented jokes about date rape AND HIS OWN CONFESSION OUT OF HIS MOUTH! -- to paraphrase Amber) should be taken at face value, and I was on that knee-jerk, uncritical band wagon, too. And then I saw there was a lot more to it, and that the analysis of the data the prosecution was presenting was heavily manipulated and false.
I'm 100% not against Black Women; I'm for the truth. Especially when the accusers are a bunch of white women (or bi-racial folk who identify as white women) reading off of that same ole racist, 'false accusation of rape' script. The nature of the case demands we dig deeper as Black people. I have zero reason to blindly trust the mainstream's presentation of anything at face value, especially something like this
But you may trust those people as you like..
Muhammad Rasheed - Bill Cosby didn't rape anybody. All of that is a big lie.
Lana Andrade - I’m really disappointed
Sacha Inchi - The Law: "Sexing drugged people is rape."
Bill Cosby: "I bought drugs to give women so I could sex them."
Cosby Stans: "He didn't rape nobody! High-tech lynching! He was trying to buy NBC! It's a media conspiracy to bring down a positive black man! Them bitches all lied to get paid! They shouldn't have been in a married man's hotel room! They took drugs because they wanted to! Why they wait 30 years to say something?"
(Did I hit all the talking points, Lana?)
Muhammad Rasheed - Sacha wrote: "They took drugs because they wanted to!"
They did take the drugs because they wanted to. That was the norm from the time period... pills were offered in the literal same way alcoholic drinks were/are offered, and for the same reasons. Since that time, the practice has become illegal -- at least involving certain types of drugs -- and the next generations have grown up seeing pills on the dating scene in a rightfully suspicious light. This here confession from a very young Cosby Verdict Juror, is pregnant with insight into the prosecution's jury selection scheme:
Bill Cosby's talk of quaaludes led to conviction, juror says | CBS News
Langston Michael - True Ludes we're used recreationally in most scenarios. They were often served in bars along with the drinks, bcoz it was that common. I included the ludes and their use during that time period too. But if you think about it, it's no different than having sex with an intoxicated woman from over consumption of alcohol. True alcohol is used socially, but it doesn't mean she's wanting sex when she gets drunk.
Muhammad Rasheed - In the Constand case against Cosby, the prosecution attempted to link the fact that Cosby had joined in on that common activity during the swinger's era to the fact that he offered the plaintiff med's for her self-confessed headache/stress when she came over for their extra-marital affair encounter to wrong doing.
It's clear to me that, as the young juror admitted, that you could only make such a leap if you were unstudied with the history, so that you would assume Cosby was a predator just because he had offered Quaaludes to people in the past for recreational usage during sex encounters and think that Constand's claims were factual.
Langston Michael - But Ludes weren't used for headaches nor "stress". They were sleeping pills. Someone figured out if you were able to fight off the feeling of sleepiness, it would immensly spike your libido. That's why it was commonly used back then. If Cos was so worried about "stress", he would've had some green around, no? With the side-effect of Ludes, It would have the same effect as Spanish fly.
Muhammad Rasheed - That's exactly my point, Langston. The prosecution's case used a very young juror's opinion of the matter to link Cosby's previous usage of recreational drugs to the fact that he gave Constand meds for mundane/normal reasons when she came over that day.
PROSECUTION: "He did THIS back then, therefore this is what THAT meant!"
JUROR: "1+1=2! GUILTY!"
The plaintiff's case was literally hinged upon the naive greenness of the carefully selected jurors as the latter admitted in the CBS News article linked above.
Langston Michael - I understand what you're saying and what prompted a guilty verdict. They managed to create an MO for Cosby bcoz there was nothing else they could really use as proof. 90% of any major case is simply persuasion. You can persuade the jury depending on how you attack the plantiff. Does it mean Cosby didn't do it tho? What if, the women didn't fight the sleepiness and passed out before reaching the freaky stage? What if Cosby actually went through with having sex with an unconscious person, and that person came to, mid coitus? I understand you may think it's a modern day lynching, or its a conspiracy bcoz he wanted to purchase NBC, but It's best to look at it from the victim's standpoint as well. It's 33 counts bruh. You mean to tell me, every chick had the same headache and stress issue that Bill needed to have Ludes on deck just in case one of his lady friends had a headache? I mean, asprin wasn't just created 30 years ago. Why wouldn't he have that on hand instead of Ludes?
Muhammad Rasheed - Okay, Langston, I see you doing two things here:
1.) You're admitting you recognize that the prosecution put together a story that they needed a jury to believe so they could score their win, and
2.) You're simultaneously using that same biased, manipulative story as the 'Source Truth' you're basing your own opinion of the case upon.
To be clear, I do not recognize the prosecution's deliberately deceitful tale--cobbled together as it were from cherry-picked facts pulled from the greater body of evidence that reveals a different narrative--as a truth at all. Cosby didn't "drug Constand for sex" when she came over. They were actively having an extra-marital affair. She came over his house for reguar affair reasons, and said that she expressed to him that she had a headache/was stressed from work, etc. He went upstairs to find some meds in his cabinets for the same reason anybody else would go find meds if someone they cared about came over and expressed the same. This absolutely was not a "I can't wait to drug her for sexual puddin' popness! Dawww!" moment. But the prosecution wants (NEEDS) you to believe that just because they have on record Cosby using drugs recreationally in the past, so that now any and all incidents of Cosby + drugs + woman = rape. This is a deliberately fabricated false narrative based on a logical fallacy.
The other women were solicited only to sway the opinion of the public so that the bias would be pre-programmed prior to jury selection. You're asking me why would they go along with that scam when the promise of sharing in a possible $100 million settlement was being dangled before them?
Langston Michael - That's not what I'm "admitting" at all. I said, I understand how a guilty person can get off, and vice versa. Not once did I say they fabricated anything. I'm saying there's over 33 counts, but you're speaking of one incident where a person's naivety could be propable cause. I'm saying you're easily assuming there's no possibility that Cosby could've done anything. I'm saying it's a possibility. Again, if a woman was unconscious during sex, then later regained consciousness mid-coitus, that is considered rape, right? Is it possible that every woman willingly accepted the ludes but not aware of it's effects? All of these are possibilities. But you're assuming Cosby had no idea about what he was doing. You're assuming there's no way he could've done it. The reason most women don't come out about sexual assault, is bcoz 97% of the time, ppl don't believe them, or somehow blame them for the heinous crime that took place. Most times, ppl don't believe the victim, bcoz the accused has a public image or status that ppl refuse to give reasonable doubt that he's squeaky clean. Using Ludes for headaches instead of Tylenol seems weird to me. Why would he have Ludes on hand for "headaches" when they were NEVER used for that.
Muhammad Rasheed - Langston wrote: “I'm saying there's over 33 counts, but you're speaking of one incident where a person's naivety could be propable cause.”
Please note that none of the ’33 counts’ were on trial here, only Constand’s case was.
Langston wrote: “I'm saying you're easily assuming there's no possibility that Cosby could've done anything.”
I’m not assuming at all. It’s what an objective analysis of the evidence around the accusations against him revealed.
Langston wrote: “I'm saying it's a possibility.”
I would agree only if there was zero record of the evidence. A minimal amount of scrutiny dissolved 60 accusations of sexual assault into 60 lies.
Langston wrote: “Again, if a woman was unconscious during sex […] All of these are possibilities.”
Meanwhile, none of that has anything to do with this case. It’s a possibility he and Camille can get pregnant with the 2nd coming of Jesus, too, I guess. How is any of that random speculation relevant?
Langston wrote: “But you're assuming Cosby had no idea about what he was doing.”
No. I said he very deliberately went to get some meds for his extra-marital affair partner’s headache – that were NOT Quaaludes btw—, that she later lied and claimed was a rape set-up.
Langston wrote: “You're assuming there's no way he could've done it.”
I’m saying he didn’t rape anybody at all.
Langston wrote: “Most times, ppl don't believe the victim, bcoz the accused has a public image or status that ppl refuse to give reasonable doubt that he's squeaky clean.”
In this situation, I don’t believe the accusers because of the documented record of what they claimed. Every single case—including the ridiculously multiple times Constand changed her story around—fell apart under a minimum amount of scrutiny, revealing they all lied. The motive for the deliberate collaborative deceit was greed.
Langston wrote: “Using Ludes for headaches instead of Tylenol seems weird to me.”
It would be weird considering no one said Quaaludes were used in the Constand case. That’s an incorrect assumption on your part.
Langston Michael - Bruh, you reaching :D
Alejandro Garcia - The job of lawyers are to persuade not manipulate. Im no court room expert but you basically sayin everyone in that court room fell for the prosecutor's manipulation and no one tried to object? Cosby's defense team must suck ass then. You armchair lawyers should have stepped in nd offered your services.
Muhammad Rasheed - Alejandro wrote: “The job of lawyers are to persuade not manipulate.”
Yes. And it is tradition for lawyers to manipulate in order to persuade.
Alejandro wrote: “Im no court room expert but you basically sayin everyone in that court room fell for the prosecutor's manipulation…”
In the judges’ court rooms and out here in the court of the public. Didn’t the prosecution’s fabricated tale work on you as well? You believe he did it and he confessed “out his black ass mouth,” too, yes? Lots of people I respect and adore—who even responded in this very thread—also fell for it, much to my own disappointment.
Alejandro wrote: “…and no one tried to object?”
The defense filed a motion demanding that Judge O’Neill recuse himself from the trial when it was revealed that he was both emotionally compromised and had a personal stake in the case he presided over (his wife Deborah is a sexual assault counselor for the University of Pennsylvania who has publicly shown support for the accusers). So yeah, the defense was definitely objecting, but since the judge was in on the conspiracy against Cosby, what else could they do?
Alejandro wrote: “Cosby's defense team must suck ass then.”
Judge O’Neill refused to recuse himself even though he was compromised and insisted he would be impartial, but he continued to make blatantly biased rulings in favor of Constand. He allowed other accusers who had nothing to do with the case and zero evidence to back their claims to cry & whimper in the courtroom in order to influence the jury. He refused to allow witness Marguerite Jackson to testify for the record that Constand had told her that she "could win money for her schooling and her business because of a relationship with a celebrity." O'Neill claimed he refused to allow it because it was "rumor and hearsay" despite allowing other accusers to admit testimony to influence the jury as proof of prior bad acts but without any convictions or evidence.
Teri Hedgepeth - Isn't the whole thing is he was drugging women without their knowledge or consent and using his clout to get away with it? Feels like victim blaming to not only put it on the african american women to have stepped up to shut him down for cheating (and raping) other people but to then add a white woman as being totally ok with it.
I usually like seeing your perspectives but, Off the mark with this one, even with the karma quip.
Muhammad Rasheed - Teri wrote: "Isn't the whole thing is he was drugging women without their knowledge or consent and using his clout to get away with it?"
Yes, that's the story the prosecution fabricated and sold to the public. It is false.
Teri Hedgepeth - @Muhammad... how do you know?
Muhammad Rasheed - The source info is in the link.
Teri Hedgepeth - it's possible some took it willingly and some were slipped the drug. But that doesn't negate the fact that using drugs or alcohol to have sex with a person is wrong. It might not have been considered illegal at the time but rape with in marriage wasn't considered a real thing until like the 60's. Plus if you want to use cultural atmosphere to excuse an act you have to consider the cultural atmosphere of the Hollywood tv industry at the time in which women were being sexually assaulted at alarmingly high numbers. And now there is a sweep of these stories coming out so it's not a persecution of a black man it's persecution of a rich and powerful man with in the industry that used his clout to prey on women who happened to be black. Cosby admitted to drugging women to have sex with them. If even 1/4 of the number of women who came out claiming he drugged them are telling the truth and even just one was drugged with out consent that makes Cosby a sexual predator and that's just not something that should be casually shrugged off.
Muhammad Rasheed - Teri wrote: "Cosby admitted to drugging women to have sex with them."
No, that's the spin that the prosecution put on their interpretation of the infamous disposition (from a case that was thrown out due to lack of evidence).
Teri Hedgepeth - you quoted it. the link in your blog to cbs is broken so maybe you're being sarcastic and it's not an actual quote, and all other links i have found say he got the drugs with intention of giving them to women to have sex with them.
why are we breaking this into so many threads?
Muhammad Rasheed - The blog post begins with the link I was referring to.
Muhammad Rasheed - The CBS News link was talking about the young juror's mindset.
Muhammad Rasheed - I fixed the link. Thanks for letting me know. :)
Muhammad Rasheed - Teri wrote: "...all other links i have found say he got the drugs with intention of giving them to women to have sex with them."
The prosecution's marketing campaign, promoting their fabricated story, was successfully sold to the public. This includes the mainstream media.
Teri Hedgepeth - Are you talking about the you tube video because so far it's reading like a conspiracy theory. This guy is putting WAY to much emphasis on the fact there are retrials when that's a really common thing especially in big headliner cases.
The comment about women having no proof is a common problem with sexual assault whether it happened last week or several years ago. Yes it needs to be taken seriously that if can be fabricated but it should also be understood that this sort of crime is often difficult to prove especially given the level of self blame, guilt and shock a victim goes through. I was sexually assaulted by a person in a position of power and even being a woman who is confident and well aware it took me a few days to work out what had happened and that i had indeed not given any miscommunications that i might have "wanted" to be treated that way. In fact i had said very clearly in previous encounters he was making me uncomfortable and the behavior needed to stop. And i wasn't drugged at the time.
Comment about judging recusing themselves. It's basically impossible for a headliner name not to carry a level of emotional connection with it especially pertaining to a sexual crime. His wife's perceptions to don't transfer to his own as we have seen in several political marriages where the husband and wife publicly have differences of opinions. And it makes sense a person who judges sex crimes might possibly be married to a person to who also works with sex crimes.
I'm about half way through but like i said this just sounds like conspiracy theory.
Teri Hedgepeth - I'm trying to find the transcript of the court case he admitted it but at best have found the quoted admittance and then the follow up question which is blocked by his lawyers. Couldn't he have just said "no"
Muhammad Rasheed - Teri wrote: “Are you talking about the you tube video…”
Yes. It’s the latest in a series that meticulously lists all the known facts of the case that an objective viewer may find the thread of truth behind the fabricated story the prosecution needs the people to believe as truth.
Teri wrote: “…because so far it's reading like a conspiracy theory.”
Are you willing to toss aside the body of information because you subjectively don’t care for the way it’s packaged? Is that really the impression you would like to leave?
Teri wrote: “This guy is putting WAY to much emphasis on the fact there are retrials when that's a really common thing especially in big headliner cases.”
There are so many retrials because they are trying to put the same multi-failed, weak case in front of just the right mix of jurors to get the verdict they want, which is clearly an inherently diabolical manipulation of the law processes. It should go without saying that just because something is commonly performed all the time, doesn’t make it right. Is it not well-known that our justice system is broken?
Teri wrote: “The comment about women having no proof is a common problem with sexual assault whether it happened last week or several years ago.”
You freely admit that the accuser had no proof for a case that was thrown out multiple times because the plaintiff couldn’t reasonably prove her claims.
Teri wrote: “Yes it needs to be taken seriously that if can be fabricated…”
And I do take it seriously. You’re literally asking me to be okay with a Black man being destroyed over the lies of a white woman.
Teri wrote: “…but it should also be understood that this sort of crime is often difficult to prove especially given the level of self blame, guilt and shock a victim goes through.”
Objection; irrelevancy. None of that has anything to do with this case.
Teri wrote: “Comment about judging recusing themselves. It's basically impossible for a headliner name not to carry a level of emotional connection with it especially pertaining to a sexual crime.”
And yet, simply NOT having a wife that was a sexual assault counselor who publicly and uncritically sided with the accusers would have been enough to meet the minimal requirement for compliance.
Teri wrote: “I'm about half way through but like i said this just sounds like conspiracy theory.”
lol So far you’ve admitted to being willing to allow a lack of proof as proof, and the usage of fabricated tales to convict someone, while dismissing the summary of the greater body of facts as “conspiracy theory.” Do you hear yourself?
Teri wrote: “I'm trying to find the transcript of the court case he admitted it…”
He didn’t admit to drugging anyone without their knowledge if that’s what you are looking for. He admitted to buying drugs to use for social recreation purposes (the same way alcohol is used), and the deceitful prosecution team needed you to make the leap that it was somehow an admitting of rape.
Teri wrote: “…but at best have found the quoted admittance…”
You found the cherry-picked quote out of context in articles of authors who decided to believe the prosecution’s fabricated tale.
Teri wrote: “…and then the follow up question which is blocked by his lawyers.”
The follow up question attempted to lead the conversation in a particular way to deceitfully influence the jury.
Teri wrote: “Couldn't he have just said ‘no.’"
Cosby described a very specific scenario and the prosecution cut it up to weaponized against him. Couldn’t they have simply told the truth and admitted they didn’t have what they wanted to have to lynch him and let him go as an innocent man?
Andy Stuart - A conspiracy theory isn't less stupid just because it aligns with your political beliefs.
Muhammad Rasheed - It seems to be your position that "all conspiracy theories are stupid." Is this accurate?
Andy Stuart - It seems to be your position that the unanimous feeling of violation of dozens of women is some disgraceful plot hatched to destroy a man for no apparent reason, and that each and every one of sixty accusers really consented then regretted it, and that it's simply impossible that he was a scumbag rapist protected by his influence.
So, no. My position is that THIS conspiracy theory is stupid.
Muhammad Rasheed - Andy wrote: “It seems to be your position that the unanimous feeling of violation of dozens of women is some disgraceful plot hatched to destroy a man for no apparent reason…”
That is inaccurate. The reason is greed.
Andy wrote: “…and that each and every one of sixty accusers really consented then regretted it…”
Also inaccurate. The shady legal team deliberately recruited as many women who had contact with Cosby over the years as they could in order to get their aid in exchange for sharing in the proposed $100 million settlement they were trying to grift.
Andy wrote: “…and that it's simply impossible that he was a scumbag rapist protected by his influence.”
In reality, not only was there zero evidence to back their claims, most of them didn’t even go so far as to say they were actually “raped” and their stories simply fell apart as typical attempts to grift a wealthy celebrity (see: Michael Jackson’s equally scumbaggish accuser families). Up till this point, Cosby was quite frankly protected by the truth. This recent conviction is the result of a relentless agenda managed by the prosecution and the judge, with unknown handlers in the background pulling the strings.
Andy wrote: “So, no. My position is that THIS conspiracy theory is stupid.”
Think so, huh? Fascinating.
B.P. Johnson - This cartoon is utterly horrible. Really bad.
Salley Forrest - Mr. Cosby is guilty. He DID that stuff. No doubt about it.
Muhammad Rasheed - Salley wrote: “Mr. Cosby is guilty. He DID that stuff.”
Andrea Constand is on record admitting that Cosby DIDN’T give her pills without her knowledge, which is what he’s being convicted of. So obviously Cosby didn’t do it, but is the victim of a political agenda.
Salley Forrest - I’m sure Mr. Cosby is pleased and grateful to have a fan like you, Mr. Rasheed
Muhammad Rasheed - This post of yours, combined with your “Mr. Cosby is guilty. He DID that stuff,” are the reason the justice system is broken.
I’m all for the #MeToo movement and for women’s rights, but not at the expense of truth and certainly not while supporting white supremacy.
See Also:Rejecting the Call