It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fox's Bill O'Reilly charged with sexual harrassment

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 11:53 AM
link   
On October 13th 2005, Andrea Mackris, a Fox News producer who was accused of a multimillion dollar shakedown attempt has filed a complaint against Fox's TV Star Bill O'Reilly.

www.thesmokinggun.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">TheSmokingGun.com

According to an article from counterpunch.org, which refrences the NY Daily News, O'Reilly had settled with paying between 2 and 10 Million $$$ to Andrea Mackris. Howerver the settlement established there was no wrong doing.

Check out the TSG site for scans of the filed complaint. Theyve also bookmarked the entertaining parts of the complaint. Very funny.




posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 01:39 PM
link   
You made one small error. That complaint was filed on October 13, 2004.

OReilly, Producer Reach Settlement

O'Reilly Sues, Is Countersued in Harassment Case



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 04:34 PM
link   
All I can say is somehow this really doesn't surprise me. Mr. Bill "Everyone who doesn't agree with me is a dirty fascist liberal who hates America and wants to drive it into the ground" O'Reilly, is finally getting his comeuppance



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 04:36 PM
link   
This is OLD NEWS, and should be in PTS...

Bill did nothing wrong, this girls just wants to get $$$.

:down:

-- Boat



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 05:23 PM
link   
yea this is REALLY old news. i heard about this over a year ago. all the hype surrounding this is gone. bill even talked about it on his show.

but i see what your intention was with this article...nice try








Kind Regards,
Digitalgrl



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 06:01 PM
link   
THank you Gradyphilpott for pointing that out (the correct date being 2004). Had I realized that it was from 04 I would not have posted it, or at least as being something somwhat recent.

Digitalgrl, please, tell me what my intention was with posting this?



[edit on 7-2-2006 by Xibalba]



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xibalba
THank you Gradyphilpott for pointing that out (the correct date being 2004). Had I realized that it was from 04 I would not have posted it.

Digitalgrl, please, tell me what my intention was with posting this?



Since she didn't answer, I'll take a stab at it. Maybe she thought you were attempting to engage in character assassination for posting a very old story as if it were new news. An issue that had already been resolved in the courts, I believe in Mr. O'Reilly's favor. But you didn't mention that part - for some reason.

Just a guess on my part, of course.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Centurion1211 An issue that had already been resolved in the courts, I believe in Mr. O'Reilly's favor. But you didn't mention that part - for some reason.



Originally posted by Xibalba
counterpunch.org, which refrences the NY Daily News, O'Reilly had settled with paying between 2 and 10 Million $$$ to Andrea Mackris. Howerver the settlement established there was no wrong doing.


*Note: Above emphasis added by me, Xibalba

So, it appears I did mention it had been resolved. Maybe not in the fashion you would have liked to seen, but...



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xibalba

Centurion1211 An issue that had already been resolved in the courts, I believe in Mr. O'Reilly's favor. But you didn't mention that part - for some reason.



Originally posted by Xibalba
counterpunch.org, which refrences the NY Daily News, O'Reilly had settled with paying between 2 and 10 Million $$$ to Andrea Mackris. Howerver the settlement established there was no wrong doing.


*Note: Above emphasis added by me, Xibalba

So, it appears I did mention it had been resolved. Maybe not in the fashion you would have liked to seen, but...


So, again, then why post the thread in the first place? Unless you were trying to drag O'Reilly through the mud again ...



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 10:53 PM
link   
OMG, have we reached the stage where Republicans stick up for those who represent them even if its sexual harrassment?

He COULD have done it. I dont care if he's on my side or yours.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
OMG, have we reached the stage where Republicans stick up for those who represent them even if its sexual harrassment?

He COULD have done it. I dont care if he's on my side or yours.


OMG, have we reached the point in this country where democrats conclude guilt just because someone "COULD have" done something? The court said he didn't. "COULD have" doesn't convict in this country. No matter how much you might wish it were so. And I do care whether a person is fairly judged no matter which side they're on.




[edit on 2/7/2006 by centurion1211]



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

OMG, have we reached the point in this country where democrats conclude guilt just because someone "COULD have" done something?


I'm not from the US, but I think this statement can be said of both sides, what with all the new anti-terrorism laws you guys have.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 11:22 PM
link   

So, again, then why post the thread in the first place?


Because a search on ATS didnt bring anything up regarding O'Reilly and this sexual harrassment complaint against him.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Beachcoma

Originally posted by centurion1211

OMG, have we reached the point in this country where democrats conclude guilt just because someone "COULD have" done something?


I'm not from the US, but I think this statement can be said of both sides, what with all the new anti-terrorism laws you guys have.


Even with the new anti-terrorism laws (and gee, why do we have those anyway?), "could have" might get someone's attention, but it still doesn't convict. Our laws are set up in such a way that the guilty go free to guard against possibly convicting an innocent person. Can't say it hasn't happened, but how many countries try that hard to keep it from happening?



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 11:38 PM
link   
Actually I was referring to rendition, but that's for another thread.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 11:41 PM
link   
I think O'Reilly's conduct was consistent with an honest man. Just compare the way he handled it with those who have been caught dead to rights. This is not a Republican/Democrat issue, even if many wish it was. It's over, done with.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 12:40 AM
link   
Although it was a while ago I do remember that the young lady had tapes of their conversations and part of the settlement was that the tapes be turned over to O'Reilly. I wonder what happened to those tapes?
When will Bill play them to exonarate his good name.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 03:05 AM
link   
Why would he need to play them? His name has already been cleared by the courts.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 08:54 AM
link   
I have to explain myself as usual.

Perversion, sexual molestation, anything indecent can be perpetreted by anyone, and that includes Democrats and Republicans, the green party, Libertarians, Devil worshipers, Catholic priests, etc.

My observation is, its always politicized here. Did he do it or not??? That is the question.

I disagree with O'Really all the time, but i get a kick out of watching him. He's entertaining, and i dont think he would stoop to the level he's being accused of.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Why would he need to play them? His name has already been cleared by the courts.


The case never reached the courts jsobecky.

www.cnn.com...

and another more in depth look at the settlement

www.washingtonpost.com...

[edit on 8-2-2006 by QuietRenegade]




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join