or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Exit Rush the junkie...enter O'Reilly the sexual predator?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Exit Rush the junkie...enter O'Reilly the sexual predator?

post #1 of 28
Thread Starter 
Well, I can't say I'm surprised. O'Reilly doesn't strike me as the kind of person who gets that "no means no." The Smoking Gun has the full dirt.

Some choice bits...


Bet they wish they'd gone for the out of court settlement now...
post #2 of 28
If she's got him on tape -- he's dead as a doornail.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #3 of 28
In the complaint he sounds even sleazier than I hear his novel is.
post #4 of 28
Oh my god, if this is to be believed (and it sounds legit), O'Reilly's career is over. He's implicated his boss and Fox News in illegal activity. Fox will not be pleased. And he's also proven himself to be a sleaze, and there's no way anyone will ever hire him again. I even think there's enough here to cause his far right neocon supporters from supporting his trash.

Quote:
55. During the course of the conversation, Defendant BILL O'REILLY further sternly warned, to the effect:

"If you cross FOX NEWS CHANNEL, it's not just me, it's [FOX President] Roger Ailes who will go after you. I'm the street guy out front making loud noises about the issues, but Ailes operates behind the scenes, strategizes and makes things happen so that one day BAM! The person gets what's coming to them but never sees it coming. Look at Al Franken, one day he's going to get a knock on his door and life as he knows it will change forever. That day will happen, trust me."

56. During the course of this conversation, Defendant BILL O'REILLY bizarrely rambled further about Al Franken: "Ailes knows very powerful people and this goes all the way to the top." Plaintiff queried: "To the top of what?" Defendant responded: "Top of the country. Just look at who's on the cover of his book [Bush and Cheney], they're watching him and will be for years. [Al Franken's] finished, and he's going to be sorry he ever took FOX NEWS CHANNEL on." Plaintiff found O'REILLY's paranoid rambling both strange and alarming.
post #5 of 28
LOL!

He called a loofah a "falafel". He talked about rubbing her [kitty cat] with a falafel! Maybe he should have said "kebab" instead (Brits will get the joke).



Find the passage. It's hilarious.
post #6 of 28
post #7 of 28

Well, that settles it. It must be true, if she looks pissed.

Looks like yet another hatchet job, IMO.
post #8 of 28
Don't drink and post.
post #9 of 28
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Looks like yet another hatchet job, IMO.

LOL!!!

This is being reported on major news outlets, with photos, and scans of the complaint have been posted on TSG. Despite the fact that this is clearly serious, and extremely believable, according to you, it's a "hatchet job" simply because it paints one of your Bush fanboyz in a bad light.

You logic:

1. O'Reilly supports Bush.
2. This report shows that O'Reilly is a complete scumbag.
ergo... therefore... in that case... thus... obviously...
3. This report is a hatchet job.

You are a real entertainer.
post #10 of 28
GWB supporters are in denial mode right now.

See no evil, Hear no evil, Speak no evil and Vote for Bush.
Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof
Reply
Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof
Reply
post #11 of 28
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
LOL!!!

This is being reported on major news outlets, with photos, and scans of the complaint have been posted on TSG. Despite the fact that this is clearly serious, and extremely believable, according to you, it's a "hatchet job" simply because it paints one of your Bush fanboyz in a bad light.

You logic:

1. O'Reilly supports Bush.
2. This report shows that O'Reilly is a complete scumbag.
ergo... therefore... in that case... thus... obviously...
3. This report is a hatchet job.

You are a real entertainer.

I have a complaint about you. I'm tired of your transexual desires. You keep coming to my house dressed as a woman with a vibrator up your bum, buzzing away, begging through my door for me to let you into my house so you can have your way with me.

I had my lawyer type it up as a complaint and file it.

The Smoking Gun posted it, so now it must be true.



Seriously, where do you get off? There is no "report." You make it sound like there was some sort of grand jury inquiry or something.

I don't even like or watch O'Reilly, but I really hate the politics of sexual correctness. Get ol' Bill to lie under oath and I'll be glad to have them treat him just the way they did Clinton.

What the Smoking Gun has posted is nothing more than the allegation of the woman. People can allege anything they want but that doesn't mean it is true.

The other thing that appears very odd is that she returned to Fox and the O'Reilly show when her salary was matched from CNN. She also never told anyone at Fox about the behavior.

Let me see which makes more sense...

Make the same money, work in a non-harassing atmosphere, and still sue for millions. (The alleged behavior took place before she left as well and she claims that she told O'Reilly that it had to stop as a condition of her return)

Or....

Make the same money, RETURN to work in a profoundly harassing atmosphere, endure it and never complain or tell anyone, and then sue for millions.

It's really hard to find believeable that someone would return to a job that sounds hellish and it isn't even for more money, it is just because... well that's the point. It doesn't make sense.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #12 of 28
It is a hatchet job. Two points:

1. All companies have harassment policies. No complaint was ever filed--even after she went to CNN. That implies--if it did happen--she didn't object too strongly. It appears that she loved the working enviornment.

2. If she did object to the phone conversations, why not hang up?

Quite frankly, it appears that she should have followed O'Rielly's advice. She looks like she could use a good piece of kit.

Maybe now O'Rielly won't be so quick to judge people accused of such improprieties.
post #13 of 28
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
I have a complaint about you... yadda yadda yadda

If you had even paid attention, you would have noticed the AP and Reuters and independent stories that are posted all over major news outlets like ABC.

335 Related Articles as of now.

Oh, but to the SELECTIVELY IGNORANT IDIOTS IN DENIAL who think that "if it's not on Fox it can't be true" claim it's "a Smoking Gun hatchet job". Right.
post #14 of 28
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
If you had even paid attention, you would have noticed the AP and Reuters and independent stories that are posted all over major news outlets like ABC.

335 Related Articles as of now.

Oh, but to the SELECTIVELY IGNORANT IDIOTS IN DENIAL who think that "if it's not on Fox it can't be true" claim it's "a Smoking Gun hatchet job". Right.

And can you find a single one of those stories that do any more than have the woman "allege" that O'Reilly did these things?

Instead of being in denial what we have are SELECTIVELY IGNORANT IDIOTS who choose to believe guilt, even when a rudimentary examination of the currently known facts makes her actions suspect.

No claim of harassment with the company, she returns to the job for no benefit, etc.

Oh and of course there is that whole innocent until guilty thing which folks like yourself probably decided to do away with.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #15 of 28
Well, at least its nice to see a man with a free flowing and generous imagination
He coulda been the 'and I bend you over and start pounding away . . ' type . . . kinda surprisingly tender and elaborate for O'Reilly
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #16 of 28
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
And can you find a single one of those stories that do any more than have the woman "allege" that O'Reilly did these things?

Instead of being in denial what we have are SELECTIVELY IGNORANT IDIOTS who choose to believe guilt, even when a rudimentary examination of the currently known facts makes her actions suspect.

No claim of harassment with the company, she returns to the job for no benefit, etc.

Oh and of course there is that whole innocent until guilty thing which folks like yourself probably decided to do away with.

Nick

Well, with that level of detail, there are obviously recordings. We'll just have to wait-see.
post #17 of 28
Nick, if it turns out that there ARE recordings, do you still think O'Reilly's a swell guy? What should be the result of his behavior, asuming it's all proven true?
post #18 of 28
It is pretty strange that there are such long stories being told . . . . its almost like she had been a willing participant . . . I wonder if the tapes will be released . . . if not, then I wonder if his erotic elaborations are accompanyed by little coos and moans of encouragement?

But, there is also the reality that he was 'the Boss' . . . in which case, you either hang up and get fired
or
you get a tape first, so that at least you can sue for compensation

seems that the latter is more likely . . . . I mean, who would coo along with O'Rielly's tawdry flights of fancy?
ugh
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #19 of 28
Not being partisan on this, here are a few choice tidbits from the ABC article:

O'Reilly's lawyer, Ronald Green, said he believes there are tapes of conversations between the two and asked a court to compel Mackris to produce them so they could be played publicly.

"I know that he does not fear what is on the tapes," Green said.

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

Mackris, 33, is an associate producer on "The O'Reilly Factor," a job she returned to in July after a short stint at CNN.

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

Mackris never complained to anyone at Fox about untoward behavior by O'Reilly, Green said. When she returned to Fox earlier this year, O'Reilly agreed to match her salary at CNN, the network said.

Fox produced an e-mail Mackris sent to a friend last month, saying things are "wonderful, amazing, fun, creative, invigorating, secure, well-managed, challenging, interesting fun and surrounded by really good, fun people. I'm home and I'll never leave again."

Mackris said in her lawsuit that she told O'Reilly she would return to Fox only if he stopped the inappropriate behavior.

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

The point being that this is not so cut and dry. In fact, it looks like she's got some good "She said" against him and so does OReilly. I wouldn't be surprised to find some kernel of truth against OReilly - but I wouldn't be surprised to see him exonerated either.
post #20 of 28
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
I don't even like or watch O'Reilly, but I really hate the politics of sexual correctness.

This isnt a question of 'sexual correctness.' Its a question of sexual harassment. If O'Reilly stuck vibrators up his ass and talked about it to someone who was interested (or who had consented to listen to him), then there wouldn't, and shouldnt be any problem. (Although I imagine that his ratings would take a hit were such news to come out).

If it transpires that O'Reilly did in fact call up someone who worked for him to talk about these things and it is affirmed that this person had explicitly stated that such calls were unwelcome and inappropriate, he should lose his job. Sexual harassment policy or not, such behavior is not acceptable in the workplace. This is nothing to do with sexual correctness, it's to do with people being able to go to work and not be harassed. The fact that O'Reilly, his position at Fox being what it is, could have had Mackris fired on a whim, makes the alleged harassment even more egregious.

Sexual harassment policies protect the company from liability if the harassed person doesn't speak out. If Mackris can demonstrate that she asked O'Reilly to stop, even if she didn't go through official channels, the policy shouldn't do him any good.
post #21 of 28
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
Nick, if it turns out that there ARE recordings, do you still think O'Reilly's a swell guy? What should be the result of his behavior, asuming it's all proven true?

I've already declared that I don't care about or even watch O'Reilly. I also declared that if he lies under oath they can toss the book at him. Lastly I've made quite clear, across a number of posts that I don't like sexual correctness. I don't like crimes that consist of legal thoughts and actions that are then later changed in their intent.

Now let me ask you a return question Ton. Say there are recordings. Say they play them and it sounds like phone sex between two adults. What is the crime? We aren't talking about some sort of rape. All large companies have a harassment policy. She either felt no harassment or didn't use the procedure for dealing with it. She also CAME BACK to the harassing job from a non-harassing job that paid the exact same amount.

Now come on, how does that make sense to you? Men and women can both tell lies, cheat, steal, etc. What the hell would be her motivation for coming back to work there? Also she worked for O'Reilly for four years and returned back after five months.

We aren't talking about a woman that was somehow bound to O'Reilly for the job or a certain pay amount. There is no weakness in her position or power in O'Reilly's. She had already found another job that paid more at another network. When she returned to Fox it was for the same money as made at CNN. She didn't even return to a different show at the same network. She returned to the exact same role that she claims all the harassing was occuring in. Who would do that?

Also consider that this isn't the normal instance of someone speaking out and being shut up. This woman didn't go to Fox, have no one believe her, and then sue all the parties that didn't take action. Her lawyers laid a settlement letter on Fox after the alleged action basically demanding cash.

Of course if he were stupid enough to just leave these things on her answering machine or something like that, then he'll probably get the public ridicule such stupidity deserves.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #22 of 28
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
LOL!

He called a loofah a "falafel". He talked about rubbing her [kitty cat] with a falafel! Maybe he should have said "kebab" instead (Brits will get the joke).



Find the passage. It's hilarious.

Lady's Fingers perhaps?

Quote:
Originaly posted by Trumpty
I'm tired of your transexual desires. You keep coming to my house dressed as a woman

A transexual is a person who has undergone a sex change operation. Transvestite is the word you're after.

Quote:
Originally posted by gordy
Quite frankly, it appears that she should have followed O'Rielly's advice. She looks like she could use a good piece of kit.

Spoken like a man with a small dick.

Quote:
Originally posted by Trumpty
And can you find a single one of those stories that do any more than have the woman "allege" that O'Reilly did these things?

"Allege" is the correct term until the claims are proven or disproven. Look at any report of an impending or current court case and you will find journalists use the word "allege" or a synonym that implies the matter is unproven. To do otherwise leaves them or their employer open to legal action. This is standard journalistic practice.
Tomorrow shall be love for the loveless;
And for the lover, tomorrow shall be love.
Reply
Tomorrow shall be love for the loveless;
And for the lover, tomorrow shall be love.
Reply
post #23 of 28
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
He called a loofah a "falafel".

aka falaphilia

fa·la·phil·i·a
n.

1. Obsessive fascination with ground spiced chickpeas shaped into balls and fried.
2. Erotic attraction to or sexual contact with garbanzo beans, coriander, and cumin.
3. An abnormal fondness for being in the presence of middle eastern foods. Also called taboulehmania, hummulingus.
4. Sexual contact with or erotic desire for a falafel.
Tomorrow shall be love for the loveless;
And for the lover, tomorrow shall be love.
Reply
Tomorrow shall be love for the loveless;
And for the lover, tomorrow shall be love.
Reply
post #24 of 28
OKAY!! ALRIGHT!!


(everybody relax)


The fact of the matter is that if she has the Big O on tape, he is headed for a retirement of Jimmy Swaggert proportions.

Doubtless the negotiations are proceeding at a breakneck pace. Hell, if Miss As[s]pen can get good bankage from a little rape, The big O's Ass[o.] Producer should be able to get things right in her mind for under $1-5million or so.

Who knows--we probably won't, at least until the statute of limitations runs out for extortion.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #25 of 28
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
I also declared that if he lies under oath they can toss the book at him.

While agree with you on the concept of "sexual correctness" in general (remember my comments against Groverat regarding Ryangate?) I do admit that when someone doesn't get a very clear message, they should be held accountable. So why should O'Reilly only be held accountable if he lies under oath? Shouldn't he also be held accountable if he is guilty of very clear harrassment if there's very clear evidence that that harrassment wasn't welcome?

Quote:
Now let me ask you a return question Ton. Say there are recordings. Say they play them and it sounds like phone sex between two adults. What is the crime?

If there's evidence that says she communicated to Bill that she found this sort of thing unacceptable, and that it was unwelcome, then the crime is harassment. If there's no evidence of that then I agree with you. Phone sex is not a crime and I realize that men can be falsely accused of harassment just as easily as they can be falsely accused of rape (remember my comments in the Kobe thread?).

Quote:
We aren't talking about some sort of rape. All large companies have a harassment policy. She either felt no harassment or didn't use the procedure for dealing with it.

And if what she says O'Reilly said about Ailes and Fox is true, if she were your friend, what kind of advice would you have given her? She claims Bill said Ailes would seriously kill her career (at the minimum) then shouldn't she be intimidated by that, and in that case shouldn't she think it might be a risk to go to Fox about this, knowing that Ailes depends on O'Reilly as a huge source of revenue?

Quote:
She also CAME BACK to the harassing job from a non-harassing job that paid the exact same amount.

Now come on, how does that make sense to you? Men and women can both tell lies, cheat, steal, etc. What the hell would be her motivation for coming back to work there? Also she worked for O'Reilly for four years and returned back after five months.

And she claims she told O'Reilly unequivocally that she would only return if she wasn't harrassed. Why would she return? Does her career not matter to her? Her job at Fox, as difficult as it was to deal with the harrassment, was greatly fulfilling to her from a career perspective? Do you not find that important? Her job at CNN she found to be extremely unfulfilling. So she has a choice. An unfulfilling job and no harrassment (and who says there was no harrassment at CNN? Maybe there was.) or a fulfilling job where she had previously been harrassed, but where her boss agreed not to harass her in the future? Which would you choose? Does that make the harrassment okay?

Quote:
We aren't talking about a woman that was somehow bound to O'Reilly for the job or a certain pay amount. There is no weakness in her position or power in O'Reilly's. She had already found another job that paid more at another network. When she returned to Fox it was for the same money as made at CNN. She didn't even return to a different show at the same network. She returned to the exact same role that she claims all the harassing was occuring in. Who would do that?

Again you're ignoring career choice as a factor in her decision. Everything's so simple to you, isn't it?

Quote:
Also consider that this isn't the normal instance of someone speaking out and being shut up. This woman didn't go to Fox, have no one believe her, and then sue all the parties that didn't take action. Her lawyers laid a settlement letter on Fox after the alleged action basically demanding cash.

I have no idea what was demanded. I expect her lawyers prepared the civil action, and tried to negotiate for an out of court settlement. Last I checked that's the normal way of doing things.

Quote:
Of course if he were stupid enough to just leave these things on her answering machine or something like that, then he'll probably get the public ridicule such stupidity deserves.

No, I think she actively recorded these conversations (just like Linda Tripp) and perhaps that's why she didn't "just hang up"? Does that mean she was a willing phone sex partner? No.
post #26 of 28
Quote:
Originally posted by crazychester
Lady's Fingers perhaps?

A transexual is a person who has undergone a sex change operation. Transvestite is the word you're after.

Nope. I had the right word. I was aiming for someone who wanted a sex change.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #27 of 28
I bet he really got the chick excited when he offered to rub her kitty with a falafel.

Any mention of "sushi"?
post #28 of 28
Fox is trying to fire her now. That's a serious no-no. Even if they obtain the legal right through appropriate channels to do it, it seems stupid. It's go to help her case.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Exit Rush the junkie...enter O'Reilly the sexual predator?