O'Reilly Sex Charges on CNN

[XanaDUer]

Wow-this woman is angry. Now they want to know why she just did not "hang up"? when O'Reilly started his trash talk.

:eyes:


EDIT-She has a right to be angry, btw.

[JohnKleeb]

1. hah I read that as O'Reilly Sex Changes

:D
She has every right to be angry, I read some of the smoking gun report, that guy is a sick fuck.

[XanaDUer]

2. Lol!

Yes, he is.

[JohnKleeb]

7. Amazing what my bad eyes do to me

Billie O'Reilly, the first tranny right wing dickhole pundit. Yeah he's a bastard.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

3. O'Reilly needs to be locked up next to Bubba in the Virginia Prison.

[XanaDUer]

4. I KNOW what she says is true

her level of anger is the real thing.

[jerryman814]

5. O'Reilly got served...

his Koolaid spiked with a pint of "SHUT THE F@&% UP"

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lancdem]

12. I'm sure the poster was not referring to Clinton

Bubba is a generic term.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

14. Thank You lancedem.

I advised this poster to change their post.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

13. I will advise you to change your post now. "Bubba" is not a reference to.

Clinton but is used a "Slang Name" for a Physically large prison inmate.

Bill Clinton had consensual affairs and O'Reilly is a rapist! There is a difference.

[XanaDUer]

15. Um, I don't think s/he meant Clinton-generic Bubba.

Wrong Bubba.

[devinsgram]

39. That space is reserved for Limpballs

[Tropez]

8. Pwned

O'Rielly is going down...

[newyawker99]

36. Hi Tropez!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[camero]

9. Of course she didn't hang up

For one it more than likely would have gotten her fired. Since Dildo Really was her boss.

Two, it gave her a chance to try out the dispatch buster. :)

[XanaDUer]

16. I hate when people say that

the entire dynamic of harassment, sexual or otherwise,is a control issue. She needs her paycheck, job, bennies, and I can just see good old Uncle Bill being really sweet about her hanging up on his filth.

[djg21]

22. I've defended a bunch of these suits.

In my experience, most are scams, and simply efforts to obtain a quick windfalls based on pure nuisance value. Unfortunately, these abuses maginalize suits brought by people who truly are victimized.

Here, it certainly looks like O'Reilly is in a tough position. And voyeurism sure is fun! But it doesn't hurt to be skeptical of the plaintiff too. For instance, doesn't anyone aside from me wonder why the plaintiff returned to Fox at O'Reilly's urging after leaving to go to another network, if she truly believed that she was being subjected to a sexually hostile work environment by O'Reilly at Fox?

[XanaDUer]

27. Well, sure

From what she said, she liked the work environment at Fox except the sex talk from O'Reilly. She left, came back based on his promise (according to her) that he stop. He said he would, he didn't.

So she decided to file suit.

I would not have gone back, some people may have.


And voyeurism sure is fun!

I'm not into it myself, but whatever.

[djg21]

33. re: well sure

From what she said, she liked the work environment at Fox except the sex talk from O'Reilly. She left, came back based on his promise (according to her) that he stop. He said he would, he didn't.

So she decided to file suit.

What would you expect her to say? If she admitted that it didn't really bother her, so she decided to go back, she altgether undermines any allegation of hostile work environment.

Just to be clear, I'm not defending O'Reilly. The man is a clearly a cockroach, and the tape recordings prove it. But, there are two sides to every story and the truth usually falls somewhere in the middle.

Regarding our respective voyeurism comments, it's a bit ironic how closely we on DU (and you) are following the O'Reilly case. How many other Title VII complaints have you read from cover to cover? That s the element of voyeurism to which I was referring!

[Eloriel]

43. WRONG!!!!

and the truth usually falls somewhere in the middle.

The ONLY type of situation I can imagine for which that may hold true most of the time is for eyewitnesses after an accident or something, or possibly even in divorces or other civil suits. Otherwise, it's pure bunk.

AND, it's harmful. For one thing it sets both sides (of anything) as somehow both equally valid and equally invalid or incredible. It also automatically trivializes and invalidates the TRUE facts in any given case.

There was a murder. Eyewitness A says X did it. X says no, I didn't. Is the truth somewhere in the middle?

George Bush&CO. tells lies daily, our side calls them on them (or tries to). Is the truth "somewhere in the middle?" Hardly.

Employee B is sexually harrassed at work, and the perp says, "Aw, I was only joking." Is the truth somewhere in the middle? Hardly. Sexual harassment is no joke.

Which reminds me. I have a question for you: I'd like to know EXACTLY how you figured out that most of the sexual harrassment cases you defended were false allegations?

[djg21]

48. Let me give you a few examples

(1) In one case, I acquired videotapes that the female plaintiff made as a gift for the alleged harasser. On those tapes, the plaintiff did all sorts of things that only the most warped individuals could contemplate doing with various pieces of latex and other household items. On those tapes, she also refered to to the alleged harasser as her friend and her lover. She was alone in the room when she made the video, and she operated the camera by herself.

(2) In another case, a plaintiff built a seemingly great case of harssment on paper -- creating all sorts of self-serving e-mails memorializing alleged harassment. Unfortunately for her, medical records produced by her pschiatrist indicated that she denied ever being harassed while being treated for clinical depression some months after the alleged harassment.

(3) in yet another case, the alleged victim recorded herself and her harasser having consensual sex in an automobile. The functional word was consensual, and the dialogue between the loving couple confirmed that they had been involved in a consensual affair for over one year.

I could go on. And yes, I have seen a few legit claims too. But honestly, I've seem more fraudulent ones. It's a shame.

[Cat Atomic]

41. True. I believe she only asked Fox to *match* her old salary.

That struck as odd when I read the documents on The Smoking Gun. IIRC, when she was at CNN, her salary was $73K/year. She was offered her old job back at Fox, but she would only take it if they matched her salary. There were other stipulations, of course- like a promise from O'Reilly to behave himself.

But the matching salary seems weird to me. Maybe there's some explanation. Libertychick already menioned that the plaintiff said she liked the working environment at Fox (with the obvious exception of O'Reilly's come-ons), so maybe that's it. We'll see, I guess.

PS- I'm not biased here at all. Ha. Ha ha.

[wabeewoman]

42. From what I read

she REALLY didn't like it at CNN but did at Fox except for O'Reilly's talk. And it sounded like his behavior escalated after she came back

[riverwalker]

10. Sludge has no story on O'Reilly

and this is the kind of stuff he LOVES. Big name married celebrity. Lewd sex, lawyers, it has it all. Not a word. Nothing. Not even anything "developing....." Sludge is scared shitless. Punk.

[rooboy]

11. We need to email Fox and demand that they cover this story. n/t

[bkcc]

17. If you haven't already, read the transcripts on smokinggun.com.

O'Reilly is even more despicable than we thought.

[XanaDUer]

18. He's a real piece of human filth

and like most sociopaths, he has to push the envelope. I think he just chose the wrong woman this time. She is not going to bend.

[BushOnCrackcom]

19. O'Reilly's New Book - The Phone Fucker is here

The latest from http://BushOnCrack.com :






Support Our Jokes - Buy Our Stuff http://bushoncrack.11345.com

[XanaDUer]

20. That SOB is now promoting a book for teenagers!

The gall of these people is amazing! :mad:

[JohnKleeb]

21. Well there's a book I won't buy

Its not like we're out of toilet paper around here :shrug:.

[XanaDUer]

23. Did you see the review of it on

www.sweetjesusihatebilloreilly.com?

[JohnKleeb]

24. No but I'll take a gander

He's such a scum.

[XanaDUer]

25. My fave quote from the review...

First of all, Bill, I hate to be crass, but have you seen your skin? You look like something Ed Gein made after he was finished upholstering the settee. Do you think you’re really going to reel kids in with your thoughts on proper skin care? If they didn’t bail out after your take on gangsta rap (page 85, I’m not even kidding), you’ve definitely lost them now...


ROTFLMAO!

[JohnKleeb]

26. hahaha

he does look like something out of the Gein house. Really, what kid is gonna listen to O'Reilly, and I admit it, I live a more conservative life than many of my peers.

[Eloriel]

45. Yeah, but Harper canceled (or postponed) the book tour,

according to Deborah Norville the other night. Not good timing.

Sweet, huh?

[Zookeeper]

28. Welcome to DU, Bushoncrack! n/t

[newyawker99]

37. Hi BushOnCrackcom!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Zookeeper]

29. Suing for $60 million dollars is a bit questionable...

but I really have better things to do than worry about whether or not Bill O'Lie-ly is being treated fairly.

[Eloriel]

46. What's questionable about it?

What's the value of an interrupted and possibly completely dead career after filing a suit to stand up for herself and stop the shit? How long do you think it'll take her to get another job? Some women are so traumatized by this kind of shit that they have a permananent case of PTSD.

Too, you ask for more than you think you can get so you've got some bargaining room. AND you make it expensive enough so that it isn't just shrugged off by the company and the perpetrator as "just the cost of doing business" thus enabling your high-flying employees to further make asses of themselves and intimidate and humiliate women.

AND, don't forget the lawyers get their cut too (which I certainly don't begrudge them).

This isn't some mom-and-pop retail shop she's suing, it's a large and profitable company and its star asshole. There are laws against this kind of behavior and Fox is responsible for ensuring that this kind of thing never happens -- or pay the price (whatever a judge decides is appropriate).

[Kool Kitty]

30. I did notice that little Billy wasn't hosting his show tonight.

Tony Snow was the stand-in. What's the matter, Billy? Can't take the heat?

[stewert]

34. O'Reilly..........

O'Reilly never works friday nights, he only works 4 days a week now. Unless a big news story is out, otherwise he never works fridays.

I have all kinds of information about O'Dummy and his sexual harassment lawsuit on my web site at www.oreilly-sucks.com

I have it all on the forums because I am getting so many hits it almost used up my entire months bandwidth in 2 days. So if you want to get all the details just visit my web site.

[RollergirlVT]

44. don't ya just feel like slappin the bastard?

well we can always slap a shrub http://www.slapthecandidate.com/

[napi21]

31. I just read the entire complaint, and I do have a few questions.

Did she ever complain to anyone else at FOX?

It sounds like there were other women at FOX who were treated similarly in the past. Could at least some of them come foreward as whitnesses for the prosecution?

It was mentioned that someone at CNN was terminated for sexual harassment. Is this entire business rampant with this crap?

[Eloriel]

47. American businesses are

rampant with this crap.

Maybe some of the othe women WILL come forward -- they certainly don't have to do it publicly, just in court (of course, that would probably put their names in the public domain). Unfortunately, women who dare to speak up are usually villified, or discredited -- as we've already seen in this thread, by innuendo -- as doing it "for the money," or having a grudge, LYING about it, etc. No woman in her right MIND would file a suit like this for any other reason than that it happened. Same with rape allegations. The whole subject is humiliating enough if you've been a victim, but even more so with the public humiliation and discrediting that ALWAYS accompanies the matter (which of course is intended to serve the perpetrators' goal of preventing or discouraging women from coming forward to press their complaints).

If other FOX women employees come forward, their jobs are in jeopardy too. FOX is trying to fire this woman even as we speak.

[LuminousX]

32. Learn from Jon Stewart

Don't bother thinking about this

[trixie]

35. Court TV had a good come back for Fox

They were discussing this case yesterday and a hack from Fox was on and said that the whole thing is a political scam by the Democrats. This hack went on and on and the Court TV people just sat and listened and when Ms Hack said that the Dems were targeting good Republicans blah blah....Well Ms Court Tv comes back with, "Well I thought Fox was fair and balanced are you telling us different?"

I laughed so hard. :spank:

[bloom]

38. LOL

:)

[October]

40. Bartcop might've said that first -- LOL --