FWIW, I thought it was pretty darned hilarious, myself.
Given that most criminals strive to commit crimes without witnesses present, I think we are pretty well stuck with the present system. If we ever began requiring more than a single witness’ testimony for a conviction, we’d invite a lot of criminals to commit conviction-proof crime.
Depends on the state. Some states are one-party consent. Some are two-party consent. In other words, if it’s a one-party consent state, and you consent to having your conversation recorded by setting up the recorder yourself, then you’re legal, whether or not the other party knows or consents.
From [here[/url:
Interesting…
If you read O’Reilly’s complaint carefully enough, you’ll see that he does not deny that these conversations took place and acknowledges that she probably has tapes.
O’Reilly’s complaint denies physical contact or sexual assault (neither of which is even alleged in te Mackris complaint), denies that she was damaged, and denies that she had complained to Fox.
So it sounds like O’Reilly’s complaint is just an attempt to intimidate Mackris into dropping her suit. It does not actually deny any of the substantive allegations in her complaint. There’s a lot of smoke and noise in O’Reilly’s complaint but almost no substance. Essentially he says “I never touched her” (not alleged by Mackris) and “She was happy here, she never complained and there were no repurcussions.”
The allegations of “extortion” are, at best, just over the top exaggerations of a requested settlement, but even at its worst- let’s say this woman was trying to extort O’Reilly- he still has all but acknowledged that these conversations took place and that she has the tapes.
If those tapes are made public, or even if O’Reilly is simply forced to admit that he said what is on those transcripts- his career is over.
And it couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.
I’m disappointed this got descended into a flame war before anyone could clarify or explain how you force someone to have phone sex with you? 
I mean, what’s next, people saying they were sexually assaulted over the internet? Is O’Reilly harnessing some sort of Jedi mind trick here or something? Throw me a frikkin bone here people!
Dunno myself. You might want to ask Diogenes, since he’s such an expert on sexual harassment law. 
That was my original point, which was ignored.
Every telephone has a hook switch, learn how to use it.
Read the complaint, Incubus.
It wasn’t really “phone sex” in that it was not exactly mutual. It was just a series of obscene sexual monologues by O’Reilly himself. Mackris did not reciprocate with any dirty talk of her own, she pretty much just kept asking him to stop and he kept telling her not to worry about it.
Read the transcripts. It’s just O’Reilly verbalizing his own sexual fantasies to Mackris while he diddles himself with a vibrator. It’s more in the obscene phone call category than phone sex.
And O’Reilly doesn’t deny that these conversations occurred.
I haven’t said anything about the law and I don’t care. All I know is that O’Reilly isn’t denying that he engaged in this behavior. He’s only denying that it amounted to sexual harassment. I don’t care if it is or isn’t…either way, O’Reilly is one perverted fuck. Heh heh.
Do you hang up on your boss?
Let’s not blame the victim.
Hasn’t it been well established that the lack of a denial isn’t proof that something happened?
I notice that Diogenes hasn’t denied that he’s a military deserter. I wonder why that is?
Kobe Bryant
Oh my gosh. I really really really really REALLY hope it’s not true. Because if it’s true, that means that the portion of the complaint I read on the Smoking Gun (where O’Reilly rambles on about his fantasies, along with all the other revolting stuff) is true, and that is just too horrifying to contemplate. :eek: (Is there a “horrified and disgusted” smilie here? I guess not.)
I’m still in the “wait and see” crowd, but I won’t be too shocked if it’s true. It’s too soon to know, though. If it is true, however, stick a fork in him, he is done.
If all the things happened the way she said they did, I can’t imagine her having the intestinal fortitude to tolerate it for as long as she did. Why put up with it for that long? If it’s all true, he was beyond disgusting. Unless she was horribly in debt on one paycheck away from the street (which I seriously doubt she was), then I think hanging up on him or just resigning would be better than tolerating that for another second. Not that I know her situation, or what might have caused her to hang on, quietly suffering for as long as she did without doing anything. But at this point I confess just don’t get it. Doesn’t mean that I am more doubtful of her story (too soon to tell) or that I am blaming her for the situation, but I just don’t get it.
Oh Jeez, I just got my mind flossed of the mental image I got from reading The Smoking Gun web site, and now you have to put it back. shudders…
I haven’t been accused of it.
But since O’Reilly’s lawsuit is a direct response top Mackris’ complaint, doesn’t it seem a little strange that he doesn’t deny the actual allegations? Especially since he goes out of his way to deny other things that he was never accused of.
And even beyond the non-denial, O’Reilly’s own complaint states that he believes the conversations described in Mackris’ complaint came from transcripts of tape recordings. He even asked her for the full transcripts.
Why would he ask her for transcripts of conversations that never occurred? Why would he think she had tapes of stuff he never said?
Your boy’s going down, dawg.
:eek:
On one hand, I’d like to believe that this is true. I don’t really like Bill O’Reilly and I wouldn’t mind seeing him get muddied up a bit.
On the other hand, :eek: It’s just so damned icky that I can’t read it and believe in a kind and loving Og.
I think I’ll just wait for word of what is on the reported tapes (cause lord knows I ain’t listening to them) before I make up my mind.
In closing… :eek:
I think we’ll all probably need one of those Eternal Sunshine memory scrubs if those tapes ever get played publicly and we actually hear Bill O’Reilly “using the vibrator on himself and ejaculating.”
Just speculation on my part, but she may have been concerned about her employment. If it came down to it I’m sure O’Reilly could have her fired if he wanted to.
The other side is that she may have stayed on (and recorded) to get dirt on O’Reilly to use against him. If I read this whole mess correctly, he charged blackmail and she responded with the harassment suit (correct me if I’m wrong on that) in an attempt to trump his charges.
Basically this is one big messy pile of :eek:
I know I’ve used that smiley a lot, but there isn’t a vomit smiley and I am at a loss of words to describe my true feelings about the transcript. This thread desperately needs a TMI warning.
A sly, slightly absurdist joke!? What have you done with Bricker. If you’ve harmed him…!
There’s a separate question that I don’t believe anyone has addressed, yet (forgive me if I’ve simply failed to see it). Even if O’Reilly loses the case, will it be the end of his career? Before you leap in with an “absolutely,” consider Rush Limbaugh. Revealed to be a drug addict, and apparently one who used various subterfuges to get his fixes, and yet he’s still on the air. That could change, of course, if the authorities get around to prosecuting him.
(Aside: I’ve never quite grasped why it takes such an ungodly amount of time to gather evidence in a case like this. Find out where he got the drugs, and who, if anyone, prescribed them, then decide whether any laws have been broken. It just can’t be that complicated. It’s hardly like a complex accounting fraud case.)