This really is a curiously desperate suggestion by O’Reilly. I think my partisan, virulently anti-Bush credentials are pretty well established around here and even I don’t see why GWB should take any blame for this or why it should cause anybody to change their vote.
The old adage in show biz is that there’s no such thing as bad publicity, but I think those saying this won’t hurt BO’R are wrong.
The man has a children’s book on the market for crying-out-loud! I’m thinking the family values crowd might be a bit turned-off by a guy who’s idea of a business call is to shove a vibrator up his nether regions and whack-off.
Additionally, there’s the whole bit about him being with a “girl” at a sex club Thailand. What age girl are we talking here? I would like to hear him address that matter, or at least deny it.
Haven’t heard about that, but the odds are it was a female over the age of consent(15) in Thailand. Thai authorities have become extremely harsh on prostitution of minors(mandatory multiple year jail terms for the customer and any pimps involved). The odds are it was legit. Add in the general tendancy of Thai people to look younger than they are and you could get some confusion without any foul play going on(legally at least).
Enjoy,
Steven
It might have something to do with the woman’s lawsuit, Paragraph 11:
I’m sittin here reading and thinking, geez, this all comes out the week AFTER O’Reilly appears on Daily Show?
If he’s having sex with Thai hookers, I rather suspect the odds are against her being a female.
I think O’Reilly has entered the “No-Win Zone.” :o
emarkp’s post (from the woman’s suit, paragraph 11) does give me a start. What is that all about? I don’t know how lawsuits are often phrased, so perhaps this is just business as usual, but I found it highly odd. (What does George Bush have to do with O’Reilly being a perv?) So, alarm bells go off in my head.
Still too soon to tell, still too soon to tell. I am hoping it’s not true because if it’s true it’s just too yukky. :shudder:
I was talking with my mom about this scandal (leaving out the sordid details—she’s a proper and somewhat sheltered woman and she really doesn’t want to hear the details). She has a hard time believing that O’Reilly would do something like this. But I told her: “Think of it this way—do we really care all that much? If he did it (which we don’t know either way right now), he’s kind of been a brash, aggressive guy and it can’t come as that huge of a shock. On the other hand, you know we’d be really disappointed and a little depressed to learn that [insert favorite celebirties here] were yukky sexually harrassing pervs. But this is O’Reilly, so frankly I don’t care all that much.” (In other words: “If someone had to be exposed as a creepazoid, better O’Reilly rather than someone I really like.” Does that make sense?)
Not that I am happy about this news. I don’t despise O’Reilly and sometimes have found him amusing or interesting. But as his popularity grew he became more arrogant and I never really saw him as a super-nice guy. So, whatever. Hoping it’s not true (because, well, yuk), but—won’t be shocked if it is true.
I thought an independent or republican was innocent until proven guilty just like democrats.
O’Reilly isn’t charged with any crime, so presumption of innocence doesn’t apply. He may or may not be civilly lable for his obscene phone calls but I really don’t care about that part. Whether he Mackris is entitled to damages is entirely beside the point that O’Reilly has been busted as a hypocrite, a liar and a perv.
The facts of the case do not seem to be in question. We are not waiting to find out if O’Reilly made those phone calls. He’s all but admitting that he did. We are only waiting to find out if the calls were enough to constutute sexual harassment.
Gotta agree with that. What a giveaway.
It’s like some kind of Tourette’s thing, only in legalese.
“My client was sexually harrassed and emotionally scarred by the defendants Bill O’Reilly and Fox News Corporation, (Motherfucking Republican Bush-licking Bastards!) over the course of several…”
Hey, who wouldn’t get that way after working for Fox?
This applies to independents and republicans as well as democrats and liberals.
Only when they’re accused of a crime.
You don’t seem to understand the nuances here. O’Reilly has not been charged with a crime. There is no issue of criminal “guilt” or “innocence.” There is only a question of civil liability, i.e whether he owes this woman money. The fact that he made obscene phone calls has not been disputed, only whether Mackris was damaged by them.
Note that the extortion lawsuit was filed by Fox and O’Reilly. The claim in the joint suit is that the quotes had the character of being transcripts from tapes.
O’Reilly has asked her to produce the tapes IIRC, and she hasn’t.
Which is entirely appropriate for an extortion lawsuit filed by Fox andO’Reilly.
Not to me. Seems like it’s an attempt to prosecute for extortion. Extortion of Fox and of O’Reilly. Whether the claimed conversations took place or not are immaterial.
Pararaph 31 of the Fox/O’Reilly suit says that they were originally asking for $600M in damages. I wish we could see “Exhibit C” which is the letter from the Morelli Firm which ends with “We trust you undrestand our position.”
If tapes exist containing what is claimed, I agree. If he admits the conversations are accurate, I also agree. However, it smells very fishy, and aside from the “presumed innocent” mantra I don’t accept the woman’s claims at face value.
Again, there are more than one plaintiff in the extortion claim. To make the claim of extortion, it doesn’t matter whether the woman’s claims are accurate. The extortion claim points out that the woman’s first action after years of alleged harrassment is this suit. Considering she didn’t contact HR at all, continued to work there–even returned to work there after leaving, all the while expressing nothing but satisfaction with her job. There was no evidence or indication at all (according to the Fox/O’Reilly suit) of any untoward behavior. That seems sufficient to me. We’ll see what happens with O’Reilly’s response to the woman’s claims in the other lawsuit.
The only evidence we have of the existence of said tapes is inferred from what I consider an unreliable source (based on the woman’s odd response to the alleged harrassment).
I’m no O’Reilly apologist–I long ago realized that he’s more interested in showing that he’s right than in finding anything out. But I’m not very impressed with this obvious hit-piece (whether or not he did the things the woman claims, he was definitely set up).
O’Reilly’s lawyer has publicly stated that he believes Mackris has tapes. Mackris’ Lawyer has staed somewhat coyly that they have “solid and irrefutable proof” of of the conversations. Last night on MSNBC, a prive investigator hired by O’Reilly conceded that the conversations had taken place and stated that Mackris “could’ve just hung up the phone.” Neither O’Reilly nor his attorney have contested any of Mackris’ allegations about O’Reilly’s obscene phone calls or his threats if she exposed him. The PI hired by O’Reilly said that he was going to “destroy” Mackris and “investigate everything in her background.”
The “extortion” suit doesn’t pass the laugh test and it will be dismissed rather quickly. The law protects sexual harassment plaintiffs from retaliation by employers, preliminary settlement negotiations are commonplace and legal in sex harassment cases and O’Reilly apparently never felt the need to involve law enforcement or to press criminal charges.
It’s pretty obvious that everything in Mackris’ complaint is substantively accurate. Civil liability is yet tob be determined but there seems tro be no question that Bill O’Reilly has some serious sexual issues.
How so? Did someone force him to make those phone calls? Did anyone else jam that vibrator up his ass?
It seems to me like O’Reilly has brought this upon himself with his own bad behavior
Presuming for a moment that O’Reilly made the calls, and presuming for a moment that this woman didn’t complain to FoxNews about his behavior, but instead had her lawyer send O’Reilly a letter asking for $600 Million (O’Reilly’s “Exhibit C” according to O’Reilly/Fox’s suit, paragraph 31, according to emarkp), then yeah, I could call that being “set up.”
So hypothetically we could have this young attractive woman who allows this middle-aged sleaze-ball to make these calls and say these things to her, while she pays lip service to being “horrfied” and “repulsed” (which I don’t doubt she was) but never discouraging him enough, with the hope of reeling him in and allowing him to really hang himself. She could have (hypothetically) been preying on his vanity and weakness, waiting for just the right moment to have her lawyer send him a letter demanding tons of money and/or exposing him to the world.
This is just one hypothetical scenario of what might have happened. Of course, I have no clue what happened. If it did happen this way, it wouldn’t change O’Reilly’s sleaziness or yukkiness, nor make him a “victim” in my mind. But it certainly doesn’t make her or her motives look virtuous.
Like emarkp, I am starting to get suspicious of what was going on with her. Don’t care that much about him either way, though of course I’d prefer if he didn’t do any of this, because it’s just so disgusting.
O’Reilly is the one making the extortion charges. Let him prove it.
I wonder when he’s going to call the police.
“Hello, police. I want to report an extortion attempt. But first, do you know what I have in my ass right now?”
{QUOTE]I wonder when he’s going to call the police.
[/QUOTE]
That’s a really important question. Extortion is a criminal matter, for the police. It is not a matter for civial lawsuits and private investigators.
That is very interesting. None of the accusations are being contested or refuted, or denied(?), but O’Reilly has hired a goon to ruin her and is making threats. Why didn’t he simply call the cops? I’m inclined to think maybe she does have those tapes. Otherwise he might have pressed criminal charges instead of running his mouth.