It is when a direct and reasonable question has been asked. Your reference to **december ** is inapt because his bullshit argument only showed up when there was either no question or no reasonable question asked.
Contrast that, for instance, to Bush’s own reply to the question asked of all candidates in 2000, “Have you ever used illegal drugs?” Every other one was met with an answer of either “No” or something along the lines of “Yes, these were the circumstances and here’s what I learned and here’s what I’d tell my kids about it.” Every other one. Bush’s reply was solely about what dates he’d have been able to pass the FBI security screening test to work in the White House. Would you contend that Bush’s lack of denial is *not * significant?
Not in this case, man. The dude admitted that he thought the woman had taoes. He said in his complaint that he believed the conversations we transcribed from tapes. He couldn’t believe that unless the conversations had actually occurred.
He has called this woman every name in the book and accused her of extortion, yet he hasn’t denied a single allegation and has intimated through intermediaries that she should have just hung up.
Not only that but he paid up. There is no BS requirement for an assumption of “innocence” here. The fact that he paid is proof positive that Mackris had tapes and the fact that O’Reilly has not denied this stuff is in this case quite revealing, given the hugeness of O’Reilly’s mouth and his propensity to call everyone else liars everytime they say anything bad about him. All of a sudden he can’t defend himself? Bull fucking shit, man. He hasn’t denied this one because Mackris had tapes, pure and simple. There is no credible doubt that O’Reilly made these phone calls, and since he has not been accused of a crime I am perfectly within all bounds of legality and decency to infer that he is a hypocrite, a pervert and an adulterer.