The O'Reilly Case

Enough · Post by **Enough** » Thu Oct 28, 2004 7:22 pm

They've settled.

Linkage

SuperHiro · Post by **SuperHiro** » Thu Oct 28, 2004 7:31 pm

There's nothing I can say that can make this any funnier than it already is.

Edited: Unless it involved some kind of midget... or a baboon. OR A MIDGET BABOON. A MIDGET BABOON WITH GONORRHEA!!!

noun · Post by **noun** » Thu Oct 28, 2004 9:21 pm

Well, that was anticlimactic.

me3000 · Post by **me3000** » Thu Oct 28, 2004 10:03 pm

He settled out of court? It means he's guilty of something. Maybe not everything - but she did have him then. It also show she was just in it for the dough.

jblank · Post by **jblank** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 8:33 am

me3000 wrote:He settled out of court? It means he's guilty of something. Maybe not everything - but she did have him then. It also show she was just in it for the dough.

Yup. In my mind, its pretty much an admission of some sort of guilt on his part, and probably shows that the case against O'Reilly wasnt as good as we all thought. It probably went down like this. O'Reilly harrasses her, does engage in the phone stuff, does try to do the "fallafel" thing. She tires of it, records a few of the conversations. Then, she can no longer tolerate it, gets a lawyer, presents him with her demands. He blows his top, countersues, thinking he has the upper hand. Then, she and her attorneys pull out the tapes, and start quoting him, completely catching him off guard. O'Reilly stews on it for a week or so, then realizes that if the tapes come out, he is probably done, or at the very least, he takes a huge hit to his popularity. He goes for a settlement. Mackris, knowing she has no shot at 60 mil, and that this could get very ugly if it goes to trial, agrees, but she probably gets some sort of financial package, or some sort of perk, for making this all go away.

She was no angel is what I think. I think the odds are that maybe she led this on a bit, maybe she exaggerated some things, because if they had damning tapes, and O'Reilly was this much of a douchebag, and she was squeaky clean, she wouldnt have given up this easily.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 10:13 am

jblank wrote:Yup. In my mind, its pretty much an admission of some sort of guilt on his part, and probably shows that the case against O'Reilly wasnt as good as we all thought.

Didn't you read the settlement papers? Both side withdrew their lawsuits and declared that no wrongdoing took place. Are you saying you don't believe him?

The only other interesting thing that I've heard was that there is now more doubt that any tapes existed. I would have thought less doubt would have resulted. At least among the talking heads. I'm sure the masses will conclude that she had the tapes and was in this for the money.

To Bill O'Reilly: Weasel. You can't go out on national TV telling the world that she is making up crap to try and shake you down, and that you are sick of it and are going to fight the good fight. Only to lay down and pay her off? Weasel.

Gizah · Post by **Gizah** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 11:13 am

Both side withdrew their lawsuits and declared that no wrongdoing took place. Are you saying you don't believe him?

I don't think that you can read all that much into that fact since almost all settlement agreements have similar language in them. That does not mean, of course, that O'Reilly won't throw that language around to spin himself out of any actual wrongdoing.

As an aside, entities that benefit from people believing that we are awash in frivolous litigation consider settlement agreements with such language in them (which is almost all of them) to be evidence that the case was a frivolous claim. As you can imagine, that sort of practice can have a significant effect on their statistics.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 11:17 am

Gizah wrote:I don't think that you can read all that much into that fact since almost all settlement agreements have similar language in them. That does not mean, of course, that O'Reilly won't throw that language around to spin himself out of any actual wrongdoing.

I was joking.

Of course I think there was wrongdoing. If there wasn't, or there wasn't "enough" proof of it - there wouldn't have been a settlement.

Exodor · Post by **Exodor** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 11:38 am

What are the laws regarding recordings of phone conversations in the state in which the case was filed?

Don't some states rule all such tapes inadmissable unless both parties are aware of the recording?

Perhaps she has tapes, but they aren't admissable in court. O'Reilly settled to make sure the tapes are destroyed - not out of fear of losing the court case, but out of fear of them becoming public.

[insert tin-foil hat smiley here]

SuperHiro · Post by **SuperHiro** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 11:43 am

Actually Exodor I'm sure that's what happened. I'm sure O'Reilly actually hired a competent atty this time who could get those tapes dismissed. But who's to stop the leak?

Mr. Fed · Post by **Mr. Fed** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 11:44 am

New York appears to be one of the states that does not require knowledge and consent of all parties to taping of a conversation. (In California, for instance, it's a felony to record a conversation without knowledge and consent.)[/url]

Gizah · Post by **Gizah** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 11:52 am

There are a myriad or reasons why litigants settle cases, and we can only guess at the motivations behind this one, but as Runningman said earlier, O'Reilly's pre-settlement posturing SHOULD make it hard for him to weather this storm. It will be interesting to see how quickly he gets back to promoting his "family-friendly" book line-up, and how well those items continue to sell. Lately, conservatives have seemingly been pretty forgiving of other conservatives.

[/quote]

SuperHiro · Post by **SuperHiro** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 2:27 pm

I normally don't listen to O'Reilly, I have no vagina so I don't need to douche it.

But has he mentioned the settlement at all?