the kaptind of agreement that s being referenced. there was nothing in writing new york city traditional plea bargain. no e-mails back and forth, all that was in writing was a press conference from that, a press release, i m sorry, from that former district attorney, so this agreement, you know, was fraught, alleged agreement was fraught from the beginning. so, and also, when we talk about prosecutors having a lot of power, let s think about if this were a different case. let s think about ahmaud a arbery s case where the prosecutor refused to hold those men accountable. we would not want that decision to be binding on future prosecutors, otherwise those three men would never have been brought to justice. so this notion that a prosecutor can enter into a side dial, kind of a nod and a wink deal, nothing in writing, nothing
he said in the testimony that he had quaaludes, quaaludes were legal, and he never said that he slipped them to anyone. he said they were offered and everyone chose consensually. he said where andrea constand was concerned it was benadryl and that he explained that beforehand and she took it. the supreme court went further and said we have to credit bruce castor as the district attorney when he said that ms. constand s statements were inconsistent and he did not believe for that and other reasons that he was going to be able to get a guilty verdict. so it s not about my opinion or my thought process. you know, we ve been down this road before, and i always tell you, it s not what i think, it s what the facts say and what people have to prove, because that s the state of the law. and the supreme court said today that when one prosecutor makes a decision on what they saw as the evidence at the time that s binding. and i am glad personally and
encourage them to continue to speak and find their voices and find transformational healing. victoria, gloria, thank you so much. i really appreciate it. and i m sure we ll be talking soon, because, again, this is all happening today, and there s much more discussion to be had. thank you very much. and in continuing that discussion, i want to bring in monique presley. thank you so much. appreciate you joining us, and you can take us inside of what happened. because i think there are very few people who know more than you. so monique, you were a huge part of the public face of cosby, cosby s defense, 2015, 2016. are you surprised by this decision? only that it was hard for me to conceive that the pennsylvania supreme court did what, let me be the first gist
are you surprised by this decision? only that it was hard for me to conceive that the pennsylvania supreme court did what let me be the first guest tonight on your show discussing this can say. they got it right. they followed the law. they held prosecutors who have an extreme amount of power and discretionary authority. they said to all of us that one member of the united states government in this case representing the commonwealth can t promise a citizen, a future defendant, one thing and then 12 years later a person in the same office decide, eh, we ll ignore that, we don t have to honor it. so though many are saying that
accountable who killed mr. arbery. we would not want the decision by that prosecutor to be binding on future prosecutors. otherwise, those three men would have never been brought to justice. so this notion that a prosecutor can enter into a side deal, kind of a nod and a wink deal, nothing in writing, nothing before the court, and that s binding on future prosecutors i think is very dangerous, don, and i think the court has set a very dangerous precedent in its ruling today. areva, i ve got one quick thing for you, his publicist is saying the decision today, and i m pair afraiz pair afraizing here, justice. bill cosby is saying it s in some way he gave a statement to abc saying that you know, he s vindicated in some way or innocent or it proves his innocence. again, paraphrasing what he said. what do you think of that? this decision doesn t vindicate him in the least bit. nothing in the decision undermines the credibility of the testimony given by constand. it doesn t undermine t