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?
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?).
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.