Sounds like O’Reilly’s lawyer suspects that conversations were taped. But if O’Reilly doesn’t fear what’s on them, that’s pretty close to a denial of her claims.
I’d like to see that substantiated. Considering MSNBC would love to take O’Reilly down, I’m sure you can find a cite?
I’m getting tired of this idea of anything short of a vehement denial implying guilt. O’Reilly has basically said, “play the tapes.” Sound like a guilty man to you?
Which, if she’s making it up, is appropriate IMO.
Actually, it’s pretty obvious that you’re so biased, facts aren’t going to dissuade you from condemning O’Reilly.
That’s for the courts to decide. There’s precisely zero hard evidence to back that up.
As for the setup. A woman is harrassed, leaves employment for more salary, and then comes back to work where she was being harassed? And she appears to have taped many conversations?
Hardly. It’s an acknowledgement that the transcripts are accurate. Saying O’Reilly “doesn’t fear what’s on them” is just bluster. If they didn’t say what Mackris claims there wouldn’t be a lawsuit, there would be denials from O’Reilly and there wouldn’t have been preliminary settlement talks.
It was in an interview on “Scarborough Country” last night. The transcript isn’t up on their site yet but I’ll link it when they post it.
And why does MSNBC want to “take O’Reilly down?”
He’s said "give me the tapes, not play them…and yes that does sound like a guilty man…at least with regards to the accuracy of the allegations.
It’s appropriate to dig up unrelated dirt in woman’s bakground and try to publicly destroy her reputation because she sues for sexual harassment?
And she’s not “making it up.” She has tapes. O’Reilly has not denied a single thing. He’s acknowledging the tapes exist he’s just denying that it legally constitutes harassment.
Whether he’s legally liable for sexual harassment is for the courts to decide. Whether he’s a hypocritical sleazeball who makes obscene phone calls to his employees and pressures them for sex is appears to be an established fact.
In her complaint she says that she only wanted to come back on the condition that Billy would behave himself. He then escalated his behavior to a far greater degree then he had ever done previously. Nobody forced him, or even asked him, to make those phone calls. If O’Reilly had behaved in a professional and non-deviant manner, he couldn’t have been “set up.”
In the complaint her attorney filed with the court, I believe that some of the harassing comments were made in the presence of one of her friends. And she also describes harassment that wasn’t at all limited to the phone calls.
One claim is that he talked about looking forward to his trip to meet the Pope while his wife was pregnant. He was going to be checking out the “hot” Italian women.
I have become convinced that certain groups of people on the right will believe whatever they are told by specific people. (This group does not include those people on the right who are rational and clear-minded.) Those people will continue to champion Bill O’Reilly no matter what.
There are also those who “know” instinctively that the man is pond scum. Nothing is going to change their minds. That doesn’t mean that he is liable.
As for myself, I am oh so willing to trust karma just this one time.
Please give women credit for being able to make choices. It’s not as if he continued to pursue her after she said no. She was a grown woman. I don’t judge her harshly, but she was not a youngster.
If you are desperate to blow faux chunks: :- @~~~~~
Well, no cite yet, but I just heard it on the news (yes, FoxNews). O’Reilly and the woman have dropped their suits, settled out of court, (no details on the settlement, of course) and all is well with the world–yadda yadda yadda.
From the story I saw, it looks like this is all going to die down and we won’t be hearing any more about it. We’ll see. If the story I just saw is accurate, it looks like Bill O’Reilly isn’t going anywhere just yet. (Sorry, Dio.)
Frankly, I’m a little surprised. I thought this story would have more lasting power. But we shall see. If the audio tapes (if they existed) are never released to the public, then I guess there really isn’t much of a story here. No tapes = no evidence = no ruination of O’Reilly. At least not this time around.
Yosemite, the victim said she didn’t have the money to pursue O’Lielly, and he pretty much told her he’d smoke her out with his money, so they bought the tapes. It’s a shame, really. I wish she would have taken Olberman’s money when he offered it to her to continue her suit.
Oh well. Now there’s just a matter of time before previously violated ladies and ladies who are yet to be abused by him come forward.
This statement from Bildo’s attorneys is interesting:
So the “most evil thing that’s ever happened to me” never happened after all? He’s admitting he made up the extortion charge? But that would make him a fucking liar, wouldn’t it?
Yes, obviously he bought the tapes. There was nothing else he could do. His career will go on but at least everyone knows the truth about him. He’s also going to have to stop moralizing about other people’s sex lives.
I hope that his guests begin making it a habit to raise this on the air.
Yeah. Why didn’t she? She should have. Does she give any reason why she did not?
You’re fast, Diogenes!
Eh. It just sounds like legalese bullshit to me.
We don’t know that. I mean, sure it looks that way, but we don’t know that. Also, I don’t think this woman is 100% clean. Her suit was worded in a peculiar way (why bring in Geo. Bush into it? Weird) and there are a few other things that have raised questions. I would not be shocked if there was something else in play here. We’ll probably never know, though.
They’ll wonder, but they won’t know without the tapes. I suspect that those tapes exist, and I suspect he’s capable of what she accused him of–but without the tapes, I’ll never really know either.
Well, one would hope.
Oh, I doubt that very much. I could be wrong, but I don’t think that any such comments will ever make it to the air.
Besides, (one more time) without tapes, there really isn’t much here–just a “he said, she said” kind of thing. We’ve seen “he said, she said” sorts of accusations made before, haven’t we? They usually boil down to who you believe, (or who you want to believe).
He admitted he believed the tapes existed, Yosemite, or at least his lawyer did. He also made sort of a half-assed confession on his radio show. He didn’t get specific but he did say “I was stupid and I’m not a victim.” He also tried to play it off like a “guy” thing. “I’m a guy…all us guys are stupid…all the guys listening know what I mean…” Like that.
Hm. Doesn’t surprise me, but could you provide cites of what he said, exactly?
But even with all of this, we don’t have the tapes. I hope I’ve been clear, I suspect that he did something unsavory, but without tapes, it’s a “he said, she said” sort of thing. We’ll never really know what exactly was said, or in what context (is there more than one context?). It’ll be easier for people to forget.
She “didn’t have the money to pursue the case” is bullshit. If she had a case there would be about half a gazillion trial lawyers beating her door down for a 40% fee.
The thing was obviously settled, for whatever reasons. But her lack of funds wasn’t a reason.
Well, it sure sounds like he did something, but I’m not surprised by that.
However, as you said, his “confession” is quite vague, so we’re still left with no tapes and nothing too specific.
Sorry, I think this will be easy for many people to forget. I won’t forget (those “transcripts” from the Smoking Gun are seared in my brain) but I’ll not really know until I get to hear the tapes.
Yes. There is that.
Something smells on her side too. Not that I think he’s blameless–I really doubt that. But something isn’t quite right on her side.
Why is it that the same standards of deciding the strength of the accuser’s case were apparently not applied when the accuser was Paula Jones?
Jones ultimately settled with Clinton, and that after she suffered a trial court ruling that even if what she described happened exactly as she claimed, it did not constitute sexual harrassment. Clinton undoubtedly settled to make the matter go away, and it was the wise thing to do. Now, Jones had what amounts to an unfair advantage – her target could not avail himself of the full protection of the law. As a public figure, he was more concerned with what would leak out or be claimed in the press as opposed to what, ultimately, could be demonstrated in court. The rules of evidence are designed to ensure only legally relevant evidence is used at trial; Jones’ action against Clinton stole the protections of the rules of evidence and kept him at a disadvantage.
Today, O’ Reilly is in a similar situation. He, too, has settled. Whether his accuser had a LEGALLY strong case against him is doubtful; her case against him was one of public perception, assuming she did have the tapes. O’Reilly, like Clinton, was more concerned with limiting the public fallout than with an eventual court case.
But now I read above how we should infer that Mackris’ had a case – after all, O’Reilly wouldn’t have paid her otherwise. Diogenes, if that’s the rule, then we can finally agree that Jones had a case against Clinton? After all, he wouldn’t have paid her otherwise.
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?
I’ve said many times that I have no opinion on whether O’Reilly was legally liable for sexual harrassment. That’s a different question from whether he talked dirty on the phone to a woman who wasn’t his wife.
My position is that O’Reilly wouldn’t have paid if she didn’t have tapes. His civil liability is almost a moot point.
The PJ case was tossed out of court for lack of merit, btw.
