# Could this be the end of Bill O'Reilly (please please please) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 14, 2004, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-this-be-the-end-of-bill-oreilly-please-please-please/269150 "2004-10-14T03:34:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2004, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-this-be-the-end-of-bill-oreilly-please-please-please/269150/201 "2004-10-29T15:47:46Z")
And just to say it again because this point seems to be escaping some people. O’Reilly has _not denied_ the Mackris allegations. He has acknowledged that believes she has tapes (his property now, no doubt) and he made a semi-confession on his radio show. The settlement came a day before a hearing was scheduled during which O’Reilly’s team was demanding disclosure of the tapes. I think that demand was a bluff designed to determine for sure that Mackris had the tapes. On the off chance that she didn’t, they could have been much more aggressive about denying the allegations and defending the case. Without tapes it would have been very low risk to go to trial and a finding of no liability would have been a huge PR score for O’Reilly and Fox. If she didn’t have tapes then settling the case was a _stupid_ thing to do and O’Reilly’s attorneys gave him incompetent advice, IMO. BTW, isn’t it illegal to file a charge of extortion aginst somebody and then to say a week later that it never happened? Isn’t that an admission that O’Reilly lied in his complaint? Isn’t it defamation as well? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2004, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-this-be-the-end-of-bill-oreilly-please-please-please/269150/202 "2004-10-29T16:03:54Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Oh, please. You’re serious? Okay, you get close to it yourself, but not close enough: > > That’s a safe assumption, considering that the transcripts are available online and that O’Reilly has not denied any of the facts alleged. The Jones incident, by comparison, was a creation of Scaife (you remember him?), on a date on which Clinton wasn’t even in town, and alleging damages that hadn’t occurred. Note also that Clinton didn’t pay until after the damage to him had occurred, O’Reilly paid at a time that can only be interpreted as attempted pre-emption. Jones lied; Mackris can be presumed based on the tapes (unless you have reason to think they’re fabricated) and on O’Reilly’s own responses to be telling the truth. Jones’ case was transparently a political creation, intended at personal destruction of its target because of his political office; Mackris’ is not transparently anything of the sort. “Ultra clear” now? Not remotely. Do they teach you at Liberal School to simply repeat false claims until they become true? I’d sure appreciate an unbiased cite for the claim that Jones’ accusations were impossible because Clinton was not in town. It would have been much easier for him to shut down her claim on those grounds than anything else, at least insofar as the court of public opinion is concerned. Now, I agree that Jones’ suit may have “alleged damages that didn’t occur.” That is, she claimed that there was some retaliatory behavior against her, but was unable to show relevance or materiality (the ridiculous “she-didn’t-get-flowers” on Secretaries Day). But she didn’t allege false FACTS - she alleged facts and urged conclusions of law be drawn from those facts. Her facts were true – they simply did not compel the conclusions of law she urged. Was Jones’ suit solely a political entity? In a sense. She was financed by political enemies of Clinton, and, absent that financing, her suit likely never would have gone forward. For this reason. you may argue it was political. But the events underlying it happened, and Jones could have sued regardless; what would have stopped her was the financial realities of persuing an iffy verdict. You cannot claim to be applying a neutral, even-handed analysis to both this case and the Clinton case. You’re not. It’s patently obvious. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2004, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-this-be-the-end-of-bill-oreilly-please-please-please/269150/203 "2004-10-29T16:09:17Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > And just to say it again because this point seems to be escaping some people. O’Reilly has _not denied_ the Mackris allegations. He has acknowledged that believes she has tapes (his property now, no doubt) and he made a semi-confession on his radio show. I can see that you place a great store in denials. Clinton unambiguously denied sex with Monica, but that denial was a lie. I don’t know whether you believed his denial at the time or not. Are you now saying that if O’Reilly were to catagorically deny these allegations, you’d accept his denial? ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2004, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-this-be-the-end-of-bill-oreilly-please-please-please/269150/204 "2004-10-29T23:45:30Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > And just to say it again because this point seems to be escaping some people. O’Reilly has _not denied_ the Mackris allegations. He has acknowledged that believes she has tapes (his property now, no doubt) and he made a semi-confession on his radio show. Ehhhh…It was rather a vague and weak “semi-confession.” You quoted it here, and while it sounds like he sure did _something_, we can’t _know_ what exactly he did. I know you are highly motivated to believe the worst about him, but the fact is, many won’t be so motivated. And he didn’t give them all that much to work on, with that weak “confession.” Now, I am leaning towards believing that he said those things. I am leaning towards believing that there are tapes. But we don’t _know_ and we may never know. I also have a speck of a doubt about the woman’s claims, and her reasons for suing. I put myself in her place (which isn’t really fair, I know) and I can’t imagine tolerating what she allegedly tolerated for so long. I can’t imagine continuing to be “horrified” and “disgusted” for so long and doing nothing. There’s something fishy with her. But it doesn’t mean that I don’t suspect him–I do. > [@](#): > > BTW, isn’t it illegal to file a charge of extortion aginst somebody and then to say a week later that it never happened? Isn’t that an admission that O’Reilly lied in his complaint? Isn’t it defamation as well? IANAL, but I’d guess that if it was not legal, his lawyers wouldn’t have crafted that statement for him, where he denies everything. Because I’m sure that denial did not come from him. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2004, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-this-be-the-end-of-bill-oreilly-please-please-please/269150/205 "2004-10-30T01:02:22Z")
> [@](#): > > BTW, isn’t it illegal to file a charge of extortion aginst somebody and then to say a week later that it never happened? Isn’t that an admission that O’Reilly lied in his complaint? O’Reilly never “filed a charge” of extortion–a point that several of us noted in a different context early in the thread. Had he gone to a prosecuting attorney with his original claim of extortion, he _might_ be liable to a charge of making a false claim (but see Kobe’s accuser for the likelihood of that happening). However, by filing a civil suit, he left law enforcement and the state out of the picture completely. He is only _liable_ for whatever various individuals choose to perceive about his behavior. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2004, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-this-be-the-end-of-bill-oreilly-please-please-please/269150/206 "2004-10-30T03:12:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I can see that you place a great store in denials. Not at all. I place a great store in _non_-denials. They are always more revealing than denials. **Tom** , I know that O’Reilly didn’t file a criminal charge, I was speaking figuratively and mostly facetiously. The fact that he _didn’t_ try to file any criminal charges was revealing in itself. ---
**Author:** ![DadWagonDriver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/edb3f5/32.png) [@DadWagonDriver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DadWagonDriver)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2004, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-this-be-the-end-of-bill-oreilly-please-please-please/269150/207 "2004-10-30T03:39:27Z")
> [@GaWd](#): > > Got link? I don’t see any Olberman articles aside from his offer… No, he said it on his show. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2004, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-this-be-the-end-of-bill-oreilly-please-please-please/269150/208 "2004-10-30T05:48:09Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Not at all. I place a great store in **non** -denials. They are always more revealing than denials. This is a very stupid policy. For example, Buzz Aldrin refuses to deny allegations of “faking” the moon landing. Is this “revealing”? Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2004, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-this-be-the-end-of-bill-oreilly-please-please-please/269150/209 "2004-10-30T13:34:31Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Not at all. I place a great store in _non_-denials. They are always more revealing than denials. Please provide a cite where Neil Armstrong has explictly denied participating in a phony moon landing. Ah ha! The lunar landing conspiracy must be true! Please provide a cite in which the CIA explictly denies being involved in JFK assassination. Ah ha! Please provide a cite in which you have denied being a left-wing _agent provocateur_, participating on these boards from a planned script in an effort to impose a One World Order on the United States, under directions from the Masonic Zionist Catholic Cabal. Ah ha! ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2004, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-this-be-the-end-of-bill-oreilly-please-please-please/269150/210 "2004-10-30T13:50:07Z")
I deny that **Bricker** is merely a stream of electrons. HA!! :: Watches smugly as **Bricker** dissipates into Brownian motion :: ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2004, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-this-be-the-end-of-bill-oreilly-please-please-please/269150/211 "2004-10-30T15:07:56Z")
> [@Mtgman](#): > > This is a very stupid policy. For example, Buzz Aldrin refuses to deny allegations of “faking” the moon landing. Is this “revealing”? Is this true? has he been directly asked? Has he ever positively stated that he was on the moon? That’s the same as a denial. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2004, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-this-be-the-end-of-bill-oreilly-please-please-please/269150/212 "2004-10-30T15:14:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Please provide a cite where Neil Armstrong has explictly denied participating in a phony moon landing. Ah ha! The lunar landing conspiracy must be true! I have no idea if Armstrong has explicitly denied it or not but any cite which can be foumd of Armstrong saying he WAS on the moon is the same as a denial of fakery. > [@](#): > > Please provide a cite in which the CIA explictly denies being involved in JFK assassination. Ah ha! I don’t know that a denial doesn’t exist, but I also don’t think Oswald acted alone, so there. > [@](#): > > Please provide a cite in which you have denied being a left-wing _agent provocateur_, participating on these boards from a planned script in an effort to impose a One World Order on the United States, under directions from the Masonic Zionist Catholic Cabal. This is just silly. A non-denial of accusations which haven’t been made, or which are patently absurd is on a much different level than a legal complaint filed with a court. O’Reilly ADMITTED that he thought she had tapes. He said as much in his _own complaint_. How could he think she had tapes of conversations that never took place? Really, it boils down to that. If he didn’t engage in these phone calls- if it was all a fabrication- then why did he think she had tapes? ---
**Author:** ![emarkp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3be4f8/32.png) [@emarkp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emarkp)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2004, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-this-be-the-end-of-bill-oreilly-please-please-please/269150/213 "2004-10-30T16:24:59Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > O’Reilly ADMITTED that he thought she had tapes. He said as much in his _own complaint_. No he didn’t. The complaint said that her quotes looked like they were transcribed, so where are the tapes? It was “put up or shut up” from the very beginning. That being said, I believe the settlement is damning for O’Reilly and with nothing else is an admission of guilt. O’Reilly’s personality is such that if the charges were false, I think he’d prosecute the extortion charge all the way. I was a big proponent of delaying judgement until we had the facts–now that we have the most we’ll ever have, I’m confident there were two scumbags in this case. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2004, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-this-be-the-end-of-bill-oreilly-please-please-please/269150/214 "2004-10-30T20:35:06Z")
The very fact that he thought there _could_ be tapes is proof positive that the conversations occurred. ---
**Author:** ![emarkp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3be4f8/32.png) [@emarkp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emarkp)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2004, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-this-be-the-end-of-bill-oreilly-please-please-please/269150/215 "2004-10-30T22:54:38Z")
For the love of Pete… Challenging her to produce the tapes (put up or shut up) is not admitting that there were tapes. In fact, it suggests precisely the opposite. The settlement, on the other hand, does IMO prove that there were tapes. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2004, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-this-be-the-end-of-bill-oreilly-please-please-please/269150/216 "2004-10-31T00:18:00Z")
I wonder what ole Bill thinks of trial lawyers now that he basically got a really good one to help him work out a deal to pay some hush money? This whole episode is pretty darn amusing. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2004, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-this-be-the-end-of-bill-oreilly-please-please-please/269150/217 "2004-10-31T00:32:56Z")
> [@emarkp](#): > > For the love of Pete… > > Challenging her to produce the tapes (put up or shut up) is not admitting that there were tapes. In fact, it suggests precisely the opposite. > > The settlement, on the other hand, does IMO prove that there were tapes. He said in his complaint that he believed the conversations were transcribed from tapes. He couldn’t have believed that unless he knew the conversations had occurred. His attorney said explicitly in a television interview that he believed Mackris had tapes. Bo Diedl, an private detective hired by O’Reilly admitted that the conversations occurred but said that Mackris could have “just hung up.” Mackris’ attorneys’s only said that they had incontrovertable proof but would not explicitly say they had tapes. O’Reilly has still not denied a single allegation and has actually retracted his own against Mackris as well as paying her (according to some reports) ten million dollars to go away. It’s blindingly obvious that O’Reilly made these phone calls and that Mackris had tapes. If she _didn’t_ have tapes then he was an idiot to settle. ---
**Author:** ![TWOTfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9de053/32.png) [@TWOTfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TWOTfan)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2004, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-this-be-the-end-of-bill-oreilly-please-please-please/269150/218 "2004-10-31T13:29:12Z")
To answer the OP’s question, “No.” O’Reilly will go on much as before. I imagine his home life may not be as pleasant, though. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2004, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-this-be-the-end-of-bill-oreilly-please-please-please/269150/219 "2004-10-31T15:41:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Do they teach you at Liberal School to simply repeat false claims until they become true? No need for ad hominems. The constant hammering you take here from the world of fact is nobody’s fault but your own. The fact that you want desperately for something to be false doesn’t make it false. Shall we continue? > [@](#): > > I’d sure appreciate an unbiased cite for the claim that Jones’ accusations were impossible because Clinton was not in town. Can I do so without your automatic dismissal that it’s unbiased? Tell me your view is amenable to changing and I’ll go to the trouble. Apparently you stipulate that she lied about having suffered job discrimination, the basis of the suit? Oops, guess not: > [@](#): > > But she didn’t allege false FACTS - she alleged facts and urged conclusions of law be drawn from those facts. Her facts were true – they simply did not compel the conclusions of law she urged. She alleged \*no \* material facts that were true. > [@](#): > > But the events underlying it happened What was that you said about repeating false claims until they become true? You are not only wrong, you are childishly so in refusing to recognize that. > [@](#): > > You cannot claim to be applying a neutral, even-handed analysis to both this case and the Clinton case. You’re not. It’s patently obvious. When you have neither the law nor the facts on your side … You’re better than this. Or so I’ve been used to thinking. Have I been wrong about that? ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2004, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-this-be-the-end-of-bill-oreilly-please-please-please/269150/220 "2004-11-01T18:30:34Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Is this true? has he been directly asked? Has he ever positively stated that he was on the moon? That’s the same as a denial. Given the quantity of conspiracy theories and the large numbers of allegations of various stripes(“we did go to the moon, but not in the time or manner originally broadcast”, etc.) I find it reasonable to suppose there are some which have not been denied, even in the affirmative. Still, the whole line of arguement bothers me. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The logical thing to do is reserve judgement. Actual claims which can be disproven? Knock yourself out. “Lack of denials” is not significant. **december** used to do this crap all the time. “Why hasn’t there been some huge outcry about XXXXX! Liberals must hate XXXXX.” It was stupid bullshit when he did it and it is stupid bullshit when you do it. Enjoy, Steven [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-this-be-the-end-of-bill-oreilly-please-please-please/269150.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-this-be-the-end-of-bill-oreilly-please-please-please/269150.md?page=12)