Oreilly settles lawsuit. That means he's innocent!

[Tmy]

O'Reilly Settles Sexual Harassment Lawsuit

This matter has caused enormous pain, but I had to protect my family, and I did," O'Reilly, whose ratings have gone up 30 percent since the lawsuits were filed, told his viewers Thursday. "All I can say to you is please do not believe everything you hear and read."

Shortly before "Factor" aired, O'Reilly's lawyer, Ronald Green, issued a statement saying the cases and claims had been withdrawn and all parties agreed there was no wrongdoing by O'Reilly, Mackris or Mackris' lawyer.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Well if theres no wrongdoing, why are you setteling?? That lame excuse didnt work for Micheal Jackson and countless others who suffered from O'rielys moral browbeatings.

These guys always have skeletons in the closet. I can only imagine what perverted secrets Hannity is hiding!

[HarryKeogh]

oh well, at least he can never buy D batteries in public again.

[KelvinG]

At least O'Reilly can now include himself as one of the reasons that society is in a morale decline.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tmy
O'Reilly Settles Sexual Harassment Lawsuit

This matter has caused enormous pain, but I had to protect my family, and I did," O'Reilly, whose ratings have gone up 30 percent since the lawsuits were filed, told his viewers Thursday. "All I can say to you is please do not believe everything you hear and read."

Shortly before "Factor" aired, O'Reilly's lawyer, Ronald Green, issued a statement saying the cases and claims had been withdrawn and all parties agreed there was no wrongdoing by O'Reilly, Mackris or Mackris' lawyer.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Well if theres no wrongdoing, why are you setteling?? That lame excuse didnt work for Micheal Jackson and countless others who suffered from O'rielys moral browbeatings.

These guys always have skeletons in the closet. I can only imagine what perverted secrets Hannity is hiding!

I love these "In exchange for an undisclosed sum we agreed I did not do it and I promise to never do it again" deals. Like they fool anyone except for certain lawyers with a poor sense of reality...

[varwoche]

I foresee fancy cars and a fancy new house in her future.

[HarryKeogh]

Quote:

Originally posted by varwoche
I foresee fancy cars and a fancy new house in her future.

and her lawyer (or in his case "fancier")

[Tmy]

I always thought it was a shakedown. Of cousre Bill is supposed to be Mr. Morals who would fight such a thing. Guess the tidbits on what a perv and Franken-phobe he is were just too juciy to let out to the public.


Will he call for a boycott of himself and those terrible Factor trinkets he hocks.

What are the odds that hell do a hard hitting interview with anyone?? Come on Bill face the public.

[toddjh]

Try not to read too much into these types of things. I used to feel the same way, until I was in a position where I had to go to court myself (a small dispute with a former landlord). Well, I didn't settle (mostly because I was curious what a trial was like), but in the end it was so much time and energy wasted that I'd probably decide differently now.

And that was just over a few hundred bucks. Imagine if it's tens of thousands of dollars and you're on parade for the entire country to see, not to mention the potential damage to your career if you lose, or the difficulty for your family even if you win.

I'm no fan of O'Reilly's, but I don't think the fact that he settled tells us anything about his guilt or innocence.

Jeremy

[Tmy]

Quote:

Originally posted by toddjh


I'm no fan of O'Reilly's, but I don't think the fact that he settled tells us anything about his guilt or innocence.

Jeremy

He never did deny the allegations. I agree wh what you say, except in this case we have a guy whos livelyhood depends heavily on his reputation. You think he would try to protect that at almost any $$ cost.............If he was innocent.

[DavidJames]

Quote:

Originally posted by O'Reilly
If I have to go down, I'm willing to do it

[toddjh]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tmy
He never did deny the allegations. I agree wh what you say, except in this case we have a guy whos livelyhood depends heavily on his reputation. You think he would try to protect that at almost any $$ cost.............If he was innocent.

Except that all kinds of details would come out at the trial. Even if he didn't do it, it's just going to be more material that's out to the public. With the media coverage of his trial, I'd say his reputation, such as it is, would be in bad shape no matter what the judge/jury decided.

Like I said, I'm no fan of his, and it wouldn't surprise me if he did do what he's accused of. In fact, I consider it likely. I just don't think the fact that he settled necessarily has anything to do with that.

Jeremy

[Charlie Monoxide]

Bill O'Lielly has deep pockets. I'm sure he paid at least $5 million. This should go into the Guinness record book as the most expensive phone sex to date.

Charlie (I hate that sanctimonious windbag) Monoxide

[Jude]

I believe O'Reilly is a perv, but also that this was a shakedown. Mostly because it's more fun that way.

[Dorian Gray]

Define "shakedown". Is it extortion if the defendant is guilty?

Think about it. If he was innocent, he would have gone to trial. Since she apparently had tapes PROVING that he was a vibratorial taco-tickling perv, he settled.

[Questioninggeller]

Quote:

[B"All I can say to you is please do not believe everything you hear and read."
[/b]

Especially on Fox News.

[Elind]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tmy
I always thought it was a shakedown. Of cousre Bill is supposed to be Mr. Morals who would fight such a thing. Guess the tidbits on what a perv and Franken-phobe he is were just too juciy to let out to the public.


Will he call for a boycott of himself and those terrible Factor trinkets he hocks.

What are the odds that hell do a hard hitting interview with anyone?? Come on Bill face the public.

I would have liked to ask him if phone sex is OK by the Pope (O'Reilly is catholic). I can't quite figure out if it qualifies as a form of contraception.

[Just thinking]

After reading through this thread all I can say is that not one of you has any evidence what-so-ever to back up your comments or assertions.

And that speaks volumes from those that would hold feet to the fire of others making such baseless claims. Sounds like a good time for "Do as I say, not as I do".

Just how do you know the settlement isn't for Bill not to ever mention this person's lying behavior on television?? Or that both parties are simply under legal orders to never release detailed information that could be more damning to her than him??

You don't. Who knows for sure that money is involved??

Hey, but why should I stop all your fun, go right ahead and keep on making all these claims from no information.

Does anyone recall how it was once determined that dinosaurs lived on Venus because nothing of its surface could be seen?

[Elind]

Quote:

Originally posted by Just thinking
After reading through this thread all I can say is that not one of you has any evidence what-so-ever to back up your comments or assertions.

And that speaks volumes from those that would hold feet to the fire of others making such baseless claims. Sounds like a good time for "Do as I say, not as I do".

Just how do you know the settlement isn't for Bill not to ever mention this person's lying behavior on television?? Or that both parties are simply under legal orders to never release detailed information that could be more damning to her than him??

You don't. Who knows for sure that money is involved??

Hey, but why should I stop all your fun, go right ahead and keep on making all these claims from no information.

Does anyone recall how it was once determined that dinosaurs lived on Venus because nothing of its surface could be seen?

Lighten up. O'Reilly is fair game and makes himself that way deliberately, laughing all the way to the bank. Besides, he wouldn't hesitate to make snide allegations about any one of us or any of us as a group we identify with, if it suits his macho patter. As much as I sometimes like listening to him, the pious SOB has insulted my principles on many occassions, while sucking up to his truest fans.

[Just thinking]

Quote:

Originally posted by Elind
Lighten up. As much as I sometimes like listening to him, the pious SOB has insulted my principles on many occassions, while sucking up to his truest fans.

Oh, I'm not so mad as I am somewhat disappointed. Have you read all of the above -- do they sound Fair & Balanced? Some of the comments ... well, you can read, I'm sure.

As for him insulting my principles -- sure he has. He has also made me aware of things I might not have known about otherwise. Overall he's just another one of many media entertainers (and make no mistake -- most are entertainers); and too many have agendas that become all too obvious (wink wink nod nod). I just think that too many here are disappointed that nothing much came of it and are simply venting their frustration -- like my 20 month old daughter does at times.

[Dorian Gray]

Just: Read the Smoking Gun stuff, then read the first chapter of the book "Those Who Trespass", a novel by O'Reilly. He is predisposed to that type of behavior.

He is also a hypocrite. Look at his take on R. Kelly:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132495,00.html

Quote:

O'REILLY: All right. Well, let's cede that it is a role model organization. I believe I'm a role model for some people. I'm not going to hang around with somebody who's going to have to stand trial on child pornography, sir. Because although you're right, you're innocent until proven guilty...

CLYBURN: That's true.

O'REILLY: ... you are judged on your associations. I want to see that adjudicated before I let that person in my living room, sir.

The situation is like this: in the state of New York, it is illegal to tape a conversation with someone without their consent. Thus, the likely story is that O'Reilly did in fact say all the vibrator taco-tickling stuff the woman said he did, but the tape was illegal. O'Reilly still faced the possibility that the tape could get out, so he agreed to pay her, but not $60 million. Her juicy tape was illegal, and while Fox could do nothing about Bill they COULD pressure prosecutors to charge her with illegal taping, so she took the money. O'Reilly probably agreed never to have any contact with her outside work and will watch himself, while the woman probably gave him the tape(s).

That's what I think.

[valis]

What I could never understand was the damage. He talked, he didn't touch her, fire her anything.

Even if she left her job over this, which I highly doubt is the truth but lets just say she did, how does that rate sixty millon bucks?

If she makes a million a year thats, ummmmmmm
at least forty years pay!

[Jude]

Quote:

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Define "shakedown". Is it extortion if the defendant is guilty?

No, but I didn't say Bill was guilty--only a perv. Given the woman's behavior, it's not far-fetched to believe she was open to Bill's advances. I just relish the thought of Bill O'Reilly squatting over a vibrator.

[Just thinking]

Quote:

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
... Thus, the likely story is that O'Reilly did in fact say all the vibrator taco-tickling stuff the woman said he did, but the tape was illegal. O'Reilly still faced the possibility that the tape could get out, so he agreed to pay her, but not $60 million. That's what I THINK.

Of course, the emphasis is mine ... but I just wanted to be sure it was noticed.

I can't imagine that her lawyer would not find some way to get Uncle Bill given all the times he has denegrated their profession; even if it was illegal. Let's face it, who wouldn't want to be the one that got Mr. O' ??

No, this is one for pure speculation. But let me just add this ... in this thread he has been labeled something of an SOB (and worse); but wasn't he the SOB that broke the story of the charity scandal that would have prevented untold millions of dollars from going to the victims (and their families) of 9/11? If I'm wrong, please tell me who was more responsible for this happening?

[Elind]

Quote:

Originally posted by Just thinking
Of course, the emphasis is mine ... but I just wanted to be sure it was noticed.

I can't imagine that her lawyer would not find some way to get Uncle Bill given all the times he has denegrated their profession; even if it was illegal. Let's face it, who wouldn't want to be the one that got Mr. O' ??

No, this is one for pure speculation. But let me just add this ... in this thread he has been labeled something of an SOB (and worse); but wasn't he the SOB that broke the story of the charity scandal that would have prevented untold millions of dollars from going to the victims (and their families) of 9/11? If I'm wrong, please tell me who was more responsible for this happening?

Hey! I said PIOUS sob; meaning he has been known to assign many ills to secularists or atheists, of which I am one. If he is an sob in other ways it comes from someone else.

As to the untold millions to victims of 9/11, I contributed my little share to that, but it was not intended to make millionairs of the victim's families, it was to help the country and NY in particular. He got on his high horse talking about "their" money, but he never asked the contributors what they wanted done with it. I was however asked that when I contributed, and I recall saying it should go to New York. I don't recall O'Reilly being assigned authority in this.

What about the families of soldiers who die in Iraq, or Afghanistan? Why can't they have millions? For what it's worth, my solution would have been to give them as much again as they carried life insurance up to a limit, or a reasonable minimum life insurance that most people carry if they had none, and the rest would have gone to all the other costs.

[Just thinking]

Quote:

Originally posted by Elind
Hey! I said PIOUS sob; meaning he has been known to assign many ills to secularists or atheists, of which I am one. If he is an sob in other ways it comes from someone else.

I too happen to be an atheist -- you can find that assertion listed elsewhere in various posts of mine (if you happen to doubt me). I hold what has happened to Mr. O'Reilley (and what is known) on a purely objective and secular level. If you need to qualify calling someone a Pious SOB instead of the everyday ordinary SOB, then so be it -- I'm sorry; I'm not up on all the categories of SOB's.

Quote:

As to the untold millions to victims of 9/11, I contributed my little share to that, but it was not intended to make millionairs of the victim's families, it was to help the country and NY in particular. He got on his high horse talking about "their" money, but he never asked the contributors what they wanted done with it. I was however asked that when I contributed, and I recall saying it should go to New York. I don't recall O'Reilly being assigned authority in this.

The donations for the victims' families of 9/11 were separate from those of the general donation funds, and to be used solely for that purpose (9/11 relief). I do not think that the families' were interested in becoming millionaires -- and I do not know of any specific family that is now living on "easy street" next door to John Kerry or George Bush, or would not prefer to give you back your money in return to have their loved one(s) back.

Quote:

What about the families of soldiers who die in Iraq, or Afghanistan? Why can't they have millions? For what it's worth, my solution would have been to give them as much again as they carried life insurance up to a limit, or a reasonable minimum life insurance that most people carry if they had none, and the rest would have gone to all the other costs.

First of all, those fighting overseas are in the US Military -- that's their job. They accepted that position (with honor) and are sworn to uphold it. They are trained to do what they are doing, and have accepted the risks -- just as race car drivers and undersea divers accept theirs. (True, you will occasionally get the disgruntled trooper who thought their "tour of duty" was to sit behind some desk in Mississippi or mop up floors, and are PO'ed for having to do what they signed up for, but you'll get those folk anywhere.) I do not envy their task -- and they do not regret having to do it. If you feel that they are not fully compensated you are certainly free to donate to any (or all) of many verteran's causes.

And isn't it noble of you to decide just how much of the donated money should go to the victims' families and how much should go to where you see fit. Maybe you would like to notify some of those families and ask them to send back some of their relief so that it goes to your choice of funding. The contributors made it quite clear where they wanted that money to go -- when the cry came for relief to those victims of 9/11, they gave to exactly that cause. The money was not there for the charity to do as they pleased; they were there to see that it went where it was suppose to go.

[Elind]

Quote:

Originally posted by Just thinking

And isn't it noble of you to decide just how much of the donated money should go to the victims' families and how much should go to where you see fit. Maybe you would like to notify some of those families and ask them to send back some of their relief so that it goes to your choice of funding. The contributors made it quite clear where they wanted that money to go -- when the cry came for relief to those victims of 9/11, they gave to exactly that cause. The money was not there for the charity to do as they pleased; they were there to see that it went where it was suppose to go.

Please don't be facetious, this is a difficult issue, since it's hard not to seem uncaring, which I am not, but there were many in need and not only in NY. My contribution made no difference to the total, as probably did not most individually (except for $10 million returned to Saudi; correctly). My point is simply that O'Reilly made assumptions and pressed emotional issues that I suspect were a hot button that he promoted for personal visibility as much as anything else.

In the final analysis, I can be hit by a truck tomorrow (possibly driven by a terrorist, or by a drunk), and my family will get what I considered they were worth insuring for (and at my age it's not what I could get for $25 per month according to the TV ads) in addition to whatever my employer's insurance provided, say 100k. If they then received another $100k or $200k on top of that from the generosity of fellow American due to the exceptional circumstances, I'm sure they would be very very grateful; but anything else would be a windfall beyond any expectation for any tragedy.

I may be wrong and my contribution may have gone to a different fund; or families did not actually receive well over the $1 million that I read (plus, I believe, whatever other insurance they had); but if I had been asked I would not have contributed in order to provide for far more than most of us would ever receive from insurance that we are otherwise responsible to arrange for ourselves. I would instead have found other channels to make my relatively small personal contribution to help as many as possible.

[Dorian Gray]

Quote:

Originally posted by Just thinking
Of course, the emphasis is mine ... but I just wanted to be sure it was noticed.

I can't imagine that her lawyer would not find some way to get Uncle Bill given all the times he has denegrated their profession; even if it was illegal. Let's face it, who wouldn't want to be the one that got Mr. O' ??

No, this is one for pure speculation. But let me just add this ... in this thread he has been labeled something of an SOB (and worse); but wasn't he the SOB that broke the story of the charity scandal that would have prevented untold millions of dollars from going to the victims (and their families) of 9/11? If I'm wrong, please tell me who was more responsible for this happening?

Okay, first, the phrase "she said" is not a questionable thing if she has Bill O'Reilly's nasty diatribe on tape. Second, which do you think the lawyer would find more poetic - publically humiliating O'Reilly, or taking 30% of the O'Reilly settlement money? Third, it doesn't matter how many good things a person has done, if they commit a crime, they deserve to be punished, not excused - and you should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting otherwise.

Quote:

They are trained to do what they are doing, and have accepted the risks -- just as race car drivers and undersea divers accept theirs.

Unfair comparison. Drivers and divers can decide on an individual basis whether to accept a particular race or dive. Soldiers cannot decide almost anything on an individual basis.

[Just thinking]

Quote:

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Okay, first, the phrase "she said" is not a questionable thing if she has Bill O'Reilly's nasty diatribe on tape. Second, which do you think the lawyer would find more poetic - publically humiliating O'Reilly, or taking 30% of the O'Reilly settlement money? Third, it doesn't matter how many good things a person has done, if they commit a crime, they deserve to be punished, not excused - and you should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting otherwise.

Sir, each of your above comments are speculative -- simply go back and look at each if or think qualifier you have had to insert. (I commend your honesty in using them.) From my own personal experience with lawyers I would not hesistate in choosing the "Get O'Reilley" option every time. And no one on this thread knows for sure that money was part of a settlement; simply show the proof before making the claim (as Mr. Randi and many others here would say). And I have posted much earlier (if you wish to research it) that if Mr. O' is guilty then he should be punnished -- but remember, it is not his obligation (or legal requirement) to prove anything; that is on the accusing party's shoulders. Also, please note how quickly it was resolved, if you had a case to put him away, would you simply give it up for just $$$; I wouldn't -- especially if he hurt me. And I would make others know he was guilty. (But that's me.)

Quote:

Unfair comparison. Drivers and divers can decide on an individual basis whether to accept a particular race or dive. Soldiers cannot decide almost anything on an individual basis.

More than fair -- Upon signing up there is no qualifier given to soldiers as to choosing their duty. This is known by each in advance -- they are suppose to follow orders. That is not (usually) a pick and choose option.

[Just thinking]

Quote:

Originally posted by Elind
Please don't be facetious, this is a difficult issue, since it's hard not to seem uncaring, which I am not, but there were many in need and not only in NY. My contribution made no difference to the total, as probably did not most individually (except for $10 million returned to Saudi; correctly). My point is simply that O'Reilly made assumptions and pressed emotional issues that I suspect were a hot button that he promoted for personal visibility as much as anything else.

What assumptions did he make? That relief money contributed for the families of 9/11 be given to the families of 9/11? You are arguing on speculation and personal feelings as to how things should have been done to your satisfaction. You are also arguing using the Ad Hominem fallicy.

Quote:

... If they then received another $100k or $200k on top of that from the generosity of fellow American due to the exceptional circumstances, I'm sure they would be very very grateful; but anything else would be a windfall beyond any expectation for any tragedy.

Take heed all ... Thus spake Elind and to all must follow.

Quote:

... but if I had been asked I would not have contributed in order to provide for far more than most of us would ever receive from insurance that we are otherwise responsible to arrange for ourselves. I would instead have found other channels to make my relatively small personal contribution to help as many as possible.

You (and countless others) were asked, and you replied in kind. This was no ordinary event -- hence it receved extra-ordinary relief. But it was well indicated as to what it's purpose was. Perhaps you can list those millionaires you speak of so often ??

[Elind]

Quote:

Originally posted by Just thinking


You (and countless others) were asked, and you replied in kind. This was no ordinary event -- hence it receved extra-ordinary relief. But it was well indicated as to what it's purpose was. Perhaps you can list those millionaires you speak of so often ?? [/b]

As I already explained, I was asked, and it was not what I since then understood the distribution to be nor what O'Reilly was exposing as "scandalous" as you stated, where the evil Red Cross and others were conspiring to actually make use of this money in many other ways. What I have also read is that each family received well in excess of $1 million. If I am wrong I am perfectly prepared to be corrected, but you have made no effort to do so.

This is becoming tiresome. As your hero says, you may have the last word.

[Just thinking]

Quote:

Originally posted by Elind
What I have also read is that each family received well in excess of $1 million. If I am wrong I am perfectly prepared to be corrected, but you have made no effort to do so.

This is becoming tiresome. As your hero says, you may have the last word.

Now you've made him my hero -- another assumption.

Well, to be brief (and polite, as you have given me the last turn) all I can say is that Mr. O' by himself would never have been able to turn the tide of monies being sent to the victims of 9/11 -- the general outcry from the public (only after he made them aware) was what did it. There was no outcry (that I'm aware of) to keep things status quo.

Also, a one time donation of $1 million to a family that no longer has a wage earner (let alone a lost loved one) does not make them millionaires.