DescentBB

..O'reilly.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u ... oreilly_dc


I don't think any conservative in the media has ever been able to capture a liberal audience like Bill O'reilly. Do you think it was wise for him to settle the sexual harassment case? Will it hurt his image/huge fan base? Is there any truth to this, she just want money? or is it just liberal slander?

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/10 ... kris1.html

I get the feeling that he settled now, hoping that the election backdrop will just make this story go away.

If the woman had a real case, she and her atty.'s should have gone through with the case.

i guess they settled for like 10 million, so obviously she had a case good enough for that or they would have laughed it off and not paid 7 digits. food for thought woodchip.

Ten million...who says? I thought it was a sealed decision where neither party claims wrong doing.

Zuruck wrote:i guess they settled for like 10 million, so obviously she had a case good enough for that or they would have laughed it off and not paid 7 digits. food for thought woodchip.

O really? Where do you get your info? Source Please? I heard on the radio this morning that BOTH parties agreed that nothing happened and they dropped it all.

My source : WAY Radio, 88.1 FM, Huntsville/Harvest/Athens AL.

Also worth reading ...
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/10 ... illy1.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6242870/

Eh, I heard it on Mancow radio this morning. Damn conservative radio stations being misinformed!

Mancow is also a comedian.

you can be a conservative commentator and still want to jack it all over your producer... of course the sex for the woman would be terrible.

another thought... does a republicans sperm look like little elephants? does a democrats sperm look like little donkeys?

Just because they agreed to no wrong doing, doesn't mean he didn't pay her a ★■◆● load of money for her to agree to that. Oreilly paying her 10mil, and her agreeing that there was no wrong doing, are not at all mutually exclusive. As odd as that seems.

She said to a reporter on CNN that she was very happy with the settlement. The reporter then joked that "she gets a new apartment, O'reilly gets the story to go away."

My bet is that there was no sexual harassment. But there were some image damaging taped phone conversations with a woman that he wasn't married to.

actually it makes perfect sense. the guy, who writes books on how society is in a pit of despair, pays off some woman to keep quiet.

Why? he most likely did do what was alleged and doesn't want it coming out in order to keep his career.

If B.O. was calling her and spouting filthies, I wonder if she ever considered just hanging up the phone. Seems a little hard to believe that he just decided out of the blue to turn her into a 1-976 worker. I suspect they had a little mutual flirty thing going on, and she either got bent about something or decided to set him up (making recordings and such) and cash in. Still, he's married and looks like a perv now. I'm pretty convinced the recordings exist (which were probably submitted during pre-trial discovery), otherwise he probably wouldn't have settled. I could be wrong, but I suspect they both smell less than lemon fresh in this little Jerry Springer episode.

smart move on bill's part. Get the thing off the airwaves ASAP, or it would have been the next OJ trial

to some his situation up, how poetic. I wonder what a lot of his previous guest have to comment on the matter

Actually Birds, it was a pretty stupid move settling outright.

Because now it sets a precedent that any woman can sue a famous person and get a settlement.


If I was him and the allegations were indeed false, I would have said 'I did not do any of this, and there is no proof I did this. there are no tapes, no affidavits, no evidence that I ever did any such thing.', and then I would have fought it out in court.

woodchip wrote:If the woman had a real case, she and her atty.'s should have gone through with the case.

Out of curiosity... does that simple logic make Michael Jackson innocent?

"Because now it sets a precedent that any woman can sue a famous person and get a settlement"

lol, as if this didn't already exist and wasnt the motivation!

Now it's just automatic

I wonder if he pays his guests like that when he shuts them up on the air.

probably about the same when he gets his producer to cut their mic when he's losing a debate.