Bill ‘Douchebag’ O’Reilly slapped with sexual harassment suit.

Straight from the Somehow-This-Doesn’t-Come-As-A-Surprise department is word that Fox News Network’s token obnoxious conservative, Bill O’Reilly, has been bitch slapped with a sexual harassment lawsuit by a female Fox News producer. The complaint—captured in all it’s glory by the folks at The Smoking Gun—makes for some interesting reading to say the least:

OCTOBER 13—Hours after Bill O’Reilly accused her of a multimillion dollar shakedown attempt, a female Fox News producer fired back at the TV star today, filing a lawsuit claiming that he subjected her to repeated instances of sexual harassment and spoke often, and explicitly, to her about phone sex, vibrators, threesomes, masturbation, the loss of his virginity, and sexual fantasies. Below you’ll find a copy of Andrea Mackris’s complaint, an incredible page-turner that quotes O’Reilly, 55, on all sorts of lewd matters. Based on the extensive quotations cited in the complaint, it appears a safe bet that Mackris, 33, recorded some of O’Reilly’s more steamy soliloquies. For example, we direct you to his Caribbean shower fantasies. While we suggest reading the entire document, TSG will point you to interesting sections on a Thailand sex show, Al Franken, and the climax of one August 2004 phone conversation.  (22 pages)

Fair warning: Some of the allegations are pretty graphic in addition to being highly amusing. Seems Mr. O’Reilly may not be as morally upstanding as he’d like us to think he is. No surprise there, really.

41 thoughts on “Bill ‘Douchebag’ O’Reilly slapped with sexual harassment suit.

  1. Not that I am supporting him or anything…

    Interesting that she waited until he accused her of something to pop up with this. If this had been going on for as long as it must have, why not bring it to light back when it had started? Waiting for something really juicy to be said before coming out?

    Hmmm

  2. It ceases to amaze me that these types of guys always get busted doing something that they’re vehemently opposed too.  Just goes to show why tolerance is such an important character trait these days.

  3. Dave M, the thing with harassment is that people sometimes think, “It’ll stop soon…”, and when it doesn’t, they work up the courage to complain.
    Maybe this is the case here, maybe not.

  4. I thought it was a little odd that she expressed such abhorrence to his remarks yet she refused to simply hang up the phone. I suppose she may have stayed on the line for recording purposes but if it was so appalling that she claims physical injury hang-up, damn! And why did she continue to agree to the dinner dates? Unfortunately for us the outcome of this case will be exactly how Bill described it:

    “…she wouldn’t be able to afford the lawyers I can or endure it financially as long as I can. And nobody would believe her, it’d be her word against mine and who are they going to believe?”

    And as Dave M. said, her timing is not going to help matters.

  5. Tish: Interesting how she “worked up the courage to complain” the moment that she was threatened herself.

    I’m sorry, this is exactly the kind of thing going on with Kobe Bryant! She first brings up a legal case against him, then after he doesn’t cave and try to give her money, she moves to a civil case to extort the money from him! If he truly did something illegal, then she should have stuck to the legal case. I felt the case was an extortion case to begin with, but now I’m sure of it.

    This is just an extortion case. Maybe he actually said these things to her since it’s been recorded. However, the moment that the conversation was finished and the recording saved, it’s time to start a harassment case. Not wait to use it as blackmail!

  6. The one thing I don’t understand is why she went back to work for the guy. To get more tape – possibly.

    This is just an extortion case. Maybe he actually said these things to her since it’s been recorded. However, the moment that the conversation was finished and the recording saved, it’s time to start a harassment case. Not wait to use it as blackmail!

    Fox and O’Reilly have countersued alleging extortion. I just heard speculation that $60M is a figure that her lawyers threw out in a settlement negotiation. (I say countersue advisedly, since I don’t really know who filed the first suite.)

    If this goes to trial, it will be a circus. Have fun Bill.

  7. Yep, I’m not making any calls on this specific case, it’s messy that’s for sure…should be verrrrrrrrrrrrry interesting to see how this one turns out!

  8. I’ve often had a theory that people who work for arseholl often are *holes themselves, or at least have some element of such in their chemistry:

    A producer for The O’Reilly Factor, who has accused the show’s host of sexual harassment, reportedly caused a scene with customers at a New York hotel bar.

    http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=c413c46b11c4a196

    BZW, so far my theory has proven extremely korrect.

    rob@egoz.org

  9. A british scientist Lord calvin had this to say about power “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutly” we are witnessing the abrupt decline of the conservative right. She has recordings that may or may not be admissable in a court of law. But that is not where this hooha will be judged. It will be discussed in the cake bakes and bingo parties, and bible studies across the heartland where his voice is considered the megaphone of God. Good luck you piece of work, I hope some gray haired old lady kicks you in the ……. knee!!

  10. I do some activity in German-mostly political forums, so it’s mostly out of habit.  Plus, i like BZW better than BTW.  It reminds me of ZsaZsaGavor and one of my classic favorite show GreenAcres, just behind MaryTylerMoore’s Phyllis, both of whom became nascent role models for me as a child of overly career and cocktail-party distracted parents.

    Make no mistake:  i’m extremely American.  I love America, a wicked lot.

    It also highlights my growing campaign against Grammarists.  For many, many, many years correct was spelled “korrect” in America’s newspapers.  Why, for a great and grand era, American newsprint totally disregarded “proper” spelling and grammar for spelling that was both interesting and provocative and grammar that embraced the street-tongue of the age.  They were more concerned with content and ideas than form and appearance.

    We need to return to that day.

  11. I found it interesting watching the late night talk shows last night.  whenever someone mentioned O’Reilly’s current problems the audience cheered.

  12. From The Daily Kos:

    Scandal-hit Fox News moved yesterday to fire an employee who says she was sexually harassed by Bill O’Reilly – but wants a judge to declare the canning isn’t retribution.

    Andrea Mackris, 33, said she was served legal papers about her termination by a man lying in wait for her at her Manhattan apartment building.

    The documents said Fox had asked a judge to let the TV station dump her from a $93,200-a-year job as associate producer on “The O’Reilly Factor” – and to rule that the firing was not in retaliation for her accusations about the show’s host.

    Hmmm… Ok, now I’m just not sure what is going on over there other than a lot of really stupid people doing a lot of really stupid things.

  13. If she IS trying to extort them – and I don’t care if she is or not (they fucking deserve it), they would never risk resorting to THIS!

    Anyway, me and the oldies were a little surprised… that his first court appearence wasn’t over child molestation.

  14. I think that it should be noted that Andrea Mackris’ Lawyer is a huge Kerry supporter, and that it is interesting about timing. 
    Also, many view O’Reilly as a conservative and if he was considered liberal he would could have gotten a BJ in the Oval Office and lied about it on television, and still be revered by all the victims in this counrty.
    To all you victims, big government is not the answer.  Franklin D. Roosevelt was a hack and has screwed this county with welfare and social security. 
    Keep taxing the Rich, they are at fault!  Big Governments are wastefull. Only business’ are effecient if not they go out of business and file for bankruptcy.  What will happen when the Government files for bankruptcy?

  15. No, O’Reilly would have had to provide us with the first budget surpluses in decades in ADDITION to getting a blow job in the oval office for us to revere him.

    It wasn’t just that Clinton got laid that made us admire him…

  16. Clinton never got laid, BJ.  Third base, no home run.  Clinton never did anything for the economy accept pass a recession to Bush Jr.  Reagan and Bush Sr. handed prosperous times to Clinton.  That coupled with the Dotcom Boom made Clinton seem righteous.
    Regardless of the 9/11 Report let me break this down:

    The World Trade center was bus bombed in 1993 under Clinton (maybe not his fault, short time in office, and as i am sure you will try to make a point of that it was Bush Sr’s fault, since it was the end of his term, however remember that Bin Laden was put into power under a Carter, a Democrat).  The USS Cole was bombed in Yemen in October 2000 under Clinton (Not to mention other serious terrorist bombings in foreing countries inbetween).  So what did Clinton due between 1993 and 2000 about terrorism?  Spend $150 million trying to prosecute Bill Gates for anti-trust and monopoly laws. In Clinton’s last year of office defense spending was 1/3 of what it is today.  Money well spent?

  17. Well, Les, then from your inhability to make a point on anything, thus far, then i must ask what you meant by “Yeah, actually, I think it was.”

  18. Actually, I’m quite good at making my point, but I was answering your question.

    I find it somewhat amusing that you want us to ignore the 9/11 Report so you can try and pin the event on Clinton while trying to simultaneously claim that the prosperity we enjoyed for over 8 years was entirely the result of the two Republican Presidents who proceeded him. Sorry, I’m not buying your bullshit.

    The facts are that under Clinton this country saw budget surpluses and under Bush this country has an all-time record deficit. While the question of how much influence Clinton’s policies actually had on that prosperity might be open to debate, what isn’t open to debate is the fact that Bush is directly responsible for the deficits our children will be paying off in the future. America under Bush is worse off on almost all fronts, but particularly economically and militarily.

    Yes, bin Laden was put into power under a Carter, with the help of George H.W. Bush then director of the CIA. He was happy to help considering that the Bush family and the bin Laden family have had a long and profitable relationship, but then you knew that already I’m sure.

  19. First off i would like to say that although both of us do not agree, we can make valid points.

    Clintons’ “surplus” caused us our security.  It is easy to spend inhearted money.

    I am not for “Pork Barrel Spending,”  and unfortunately Bush is subjected to it so Kerry can not complain about another thing that the “victims” in American can adhear to.

    The whole problem of Big Government goes back to FDR and the “victimization” of everyone. 

    I may not agree with Bush on every aspect but i am sick and tired of hearing that “Bush has caused the loss of 2.7 million jobs.”  I appologize if your only talent is screwing a nut onto a bolt. 

    If you can not be competative then you fail.  Unions have destroyed our competative capabilities.  Protectionism and Antiglobalization is the cry of the uneducated.

  20. I don’t know about you, but I don’t feel all that secure at the moment. All I see are huge deficits with no increase in security to show for it.

    What I have seen is a stunning assault on our civil liberties, a war started under false pretenses with unrealistic expectations, and the complete failure to bring to justice the leader of the group considered directly responsible for 9/11. On top of that I’ve seen our relationships with our traditional allies heavily damaged, an amazing demonstration of how to flush all the goodwill and sympathy America received from the rest of the world after 9/11 down the toilet, and not a single person held accountable for the security failure that led to 9/11 in the first place.

    Considering your stance with regards to those folks who have lost their jobs under the Bush administration (whom, I’ll remind you, made a campaign promise to increase job opportunities) I guess it’s safe to assume that—should you be unfortunate enough to find your job outsourced overseas—that you’ll forgo collecting unemployment even if you’re out of work for several months? After all, you wouldn’t want to contribute to the problem of Big Government, would you?

  21. The fact you are insecure is what the terrorists want.  On the deficit, i can agree, they are not good.  Unfortunately Bush had to spend more money on pork barrel spending to create the Department of Homeland Security.  If he hadn’t then John Kerry would have complained that “Bush has not even tried to create a more secure country because he failed to listen to the recommnondations of the 9/11 Report.”

    “On top of that I’ve seen our relationships with our traditional allies heavily damaged, an amazing demonstration of how to flush all the goodwill and sympathy America received from the rest of the world after 9/11 down the toilet” 

    Let me respond to this…France, Germany, and Russia are watching out for their own economic interest (by the way Russia’s President supports Bush)  All three of those countries where owed money from Iraq due to the Iran Iraq War.  Now we have found out even more evidence in the Oil-for-Food program.  Kerry is not going to get these countries to follow us.

    Related to the job issue.  The President does not create jobs, he levies tariffs and subsidies.  People with money and capital create jobs.  What i am going to say requires a grasp of Economic Understanding (hopefully you have taken Econ outside of highschool)  If the government levies a tariff on imports which costs other countries a total of a billion dollars then our exports go down by a billion dollars, and dollar for dollar export business creates an average of 21 more jobs than import companies.  If a subsidy is issued all of the US tax payers are responsible for inefficeincy of that company.  Does that make sense?

  22. Let me respond to this…France, Germany, and Russia are watching out for their own economic interest

    The governments of these countries would be derelict of duty if they wouldn’t. Was the invasion of Iraq in the best economic interest of the US?

    (by the way Russia’s President supports Bush)

    How many troops will Russia send?

    All three of those countries where owed money from Iraq due to the Iran Iraq War.  Now we have found out even more evidence in the Oil-for-Food program.  Kerry is not going to get these countries to follow us.

    Are you saying that both Bush and Kerry will prevent Iraq from settling these debts, which is the reason why these countries will not follow the US?

  23. The fact you are insecure is what the terrorists want.

     
    Are you a terrorist?  All this time I thought they wanted to destabilize American capitalism and liberty in some sort of extremist attempt at revenge for our influence on their culture.  I don’t feel anymore more or less secure than I did before 9/11.

    Unfortunately Bush had to spend more money on pork barrel spending to create the Department of Homeland Security.  If he hadn’t then John Kerry would have complained that “Bush has not even tried to create a more secure country because he failed to listen to the recommnondations of the 9/11 Report.

  24. First off commenting on econmics, i did not mean to come off so brash.  I wanted to point out that the majority of people in this country don’t know anything about economics or what the government and what the President actually does.  This was not to imply that you don’t understand economics in your own respect.

    It makes sense if you’re using a Macro Economics text from the 1960’s

    My rant is published in a 2002 edition of International Economics textbook.  Also this burden on the middle class is a direct result of the subsidy needed to protect those jobs.  The government should not protect industries that can not compete in the world market.  If you don’t believe me take a look at what happened to India after World War II, their government did everything in their power to make India self sufficient and protect industries. So if that is what you are looking for in a government try India out.

    I would like to make a point also on my arguments.  I am arguing an idea and not responders personally, so i hope no one becomes overly upset, i am not trying to attack you personally.  Also, i Would like to thank les for arguing and responding to my points/opinions as a whole.  Anyone else out there that just pics bits and pieces, you are no better then media saying what they want to prove their bias.

  25. India is hardly a good example.

    Consider the costs placed on their economy for such things as…
    [] Literacy rates
    [] Rate of transmitted (and preventable) disease
    [] …want more ?

    The Indian economy, especially after WWII, was largely the result of British looting.  CottageIndustry economics makes sense, if you are concerned more about economic-justice than getting rich.

    rob@egoz.org

  26. Russell – I’m sorry I singled you out but your stance on this issue just seems a little off the mark.  If the business and government functioned in reality the same way they do in theory we may be able to apply some more of your logic, but alas, that is not the case.

    Anyone else out there that just pics bits and pieces, you are no better then media saying what they want to prove their bias.

    Didn’t you come into this thread with Limbaugh ditto-head six-shooter ablaze?

    Also, many view O’Reilly as a conservative and if he was considered liberal he would could have gotten a BJ in the Oval Office and lied about it on television, and still be revered by all the victims in this counrty.
    To all you victims, big government is not the answer.  Franklin D. Roosevelt was a hack and has screwed this county with welfare and social security. 
    Keep taxing the Rich, they are at fault!  Big Governments are wastefull. Only business’ are effecient if not they go out of business and file for bankruptcy.  What will happen when the Government files for bankruptcy?

  27. in response to .rob adams

    India is hardly a good example.

    Consider the costs placed on their economy for such things as…
    [] Literacy rates
    [] Rate of transmitted (and preventable) disease
    [] …want more ?

    Honestly i can not comment on the Transmitted diseases, i did not know they had a problem.  However their government thought that it would be a good idea to take from the productive and rich and give food to the poor.  Know what happened?  More poor unproductive people.  Considering the weather there you dont really need shelter and clothes, so once you have food what other incentive is there.  I can drown the world in ants if you give me enough sugar.

    The Indian economy, especially after WWII, was largely the result of British looting.  CottageIndustry economics makes sense, if you are concerned more about economic-justice than getting rich.

    This is absured.  At the time Britain was for the most part for free trade and democracay.  Britain controlled Hong Kong for many years…I wonder how they are doing?

  28. to deadscott

    Russell – I’m sorry I singled you out but your stance on this issue just seems a little off the mark.  If the business and government functioned in reality the same way they do in theory we may be able to apply some more of your logic, but alas, that is not the case.

    The government functions today because everyone wants whatever they can get from the government.  The only thing that government should do is provide courts, military, and police….NOTHING ELSE.  Leave me and my stuff alone, if i am not productive than i suffer the consequences.

    Lastly, the best form of government “IN THEORY” was communism.  Last time i checked it failed because without the right to property no one cares.  If an individual takes property from one person to give to another, that is stealing.  Criminals can’t do it but the government can.  Does that make sense?

  29. Actually, the most efficient form of government is a monarchy. The communism that really developed from the 1917 revolution, and others, was only a modified form of monarchy, called despotism. Where the government is all powerful, it is all corrupt. The U.S. Constitution was not written to give power to a government, but to tie the hands of those who governed and prevent them from gaining too much power. It hasn’t always worked too well, has it? grin

  30. Russell:

    “Clinton Recession:” ‘Clinton never did anything for the economy accept [sic] pass a recession to Bush Jr.  Reagan and Bush Sr. handed prosperous times to Clinton’
    Your arguments have a huge logical flaw in them. If you concede that 6 years of non-inflationary growth in the nineties have little to do with Clinton, then 7 years of growth in the 80s would have little to do with Reagon. And therefore, all one is left after the Reagon era is a huge sum of debt. You either take the position that government affects the economy or does not affect the economy. And if it does

    “Hindsight”
    Again your arguments have a logical flaw. If you adopt the position that Clinton’s lack of offensive action following the attacks under his terms in office as reason for 9/11. It means that one can be faulted for lack of hindsight. If that is so then the same criticism is reflected on Bush. Since Bush obviously knew of the two initial attacks and also he has the memo that “Bin Laden is determined to attack inside US,” it would suggest that if you find Clinton responsible for 9/11 because of negligence then Bush would be even more responsible for 9/11 for the reckless disregard of intelligence.

    “Microsoft Monopoly”
    Whether you adopt Fama’s position that market is inherently efficient or you adopt the Thaler’s idea of how market behaviour may prevent the market from acting efficiently, Microsoft’s anticompetitive action prevents the market from working in an efficient and competitive manner that produces innovation. One reasoning is that they use their monopoly power to distort the market. After all if you accept that unions destroy competitive capabilities due to it’s control of the labor market, you have to accept that Microsoft’s near monopoly also affects one’s competitive advantage. So the spending of money on an antitrust suit is not a waste of money.

    “France, Germany, and Russia are watching out for their own economic interest”
    So are you saying that invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with the US own economic interest? While the invasion may not have been solely because of oil, without the oil there would have been no invasion. There may have been a few or a number of strategic strikes on areas where they suspect there was WMD but there would be no boots on the ground. A simple look at other nations where there genocide such Sudan shows how oil may act as the lubricant for invasion.

    By the way, the French was prepared to send 10,000 to 15,000 troops and have already set them aside. And their generals did visit the pentagon to discuss military plans and base of operations for their planes. But negotiations broke off after personal disagreement between Chirac and Bush.

    “…only thing that government should do is provide courts, military, and police….NOTHING ELSE”
    So the government should not also provide emergency services such as the fire service or the ambulance? What about funding for the CDC. How about Education, transportation, safety standards, environment. What about injuries during an emergency? So if there was a nuclear blast, the only health to be provided would be those who has insurance, specifically insurance that covers radiation?

    What do you mean by provide “courts.” I would assume it means enforcement of the law? If the government only provides for military and police then all laws by the government would relate to the police and military. Wait but since the police enforce the law but one is not suppose to provide anything then their only role is to support the military.
    “Leave me and my stuff alone”
    The problem is you and your stuff may have a huge range of externalities. What if I were to start up a nuclear waste storage processing plant at the heart of New York.

    Finally, would you please stick to the argument rather than running away from it by bringing up other topics. You went from praising Reagan and Bush and attacking Microsoft and 9/11 to invasion of Iraq to trade matters to economic development of India to how government should function and their role. Also please substantiate your argument by following through them rather than making a one line statement of claim without any concrete supporting argument and explaining the position.

    larkinsjapn:
    Your quote on power is attributed the to wrong person. It was Lord Acton who first said it. And furthermore your quote has effectively edited what he said.

    Lord Acton said “All power TENDS TO corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Then there is the follow up sentence “Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more, when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority.

    Although his words are directed on power, one must not forget that this sentence has a strong religious undertone. It is based on Jesus and the New Testament and the idea that it is easier for a poor man to go to heaven than it is for a rich man for if wealth corrupts, power which is a form of wealth also corrupts by multiplying opportunities for selfish actions.

  31. Well done, PT. I gave up trying to argue with Russell when it became clear he was going to toss out standard Republican one-liners without bothering to substantiate them. He’s not arguing so much as practicing Republican Apologetics.

  32. Pop Tarts – I know we haven’t seen eye-to-eye on other issues but, I’m developing a whole new appreciation for you as of late.  Another great post.

  33. I wasn’t bothering to follow the discussion too much, because I know next to nothing about economics.  And what I -do- know about economics came from reading the Communist Manifesto, which can hardly be considered an impartial source.

    This is one of those areas where I have to simply accede to the appeal to authority.

    Authorities like the Harvard business professors and two Nobel Laureate economists who described Bush’s economic policy as Teh Worst Polisy Evar!

    http://www.argmax.com/mt_blog/archive/000486.php
    Carter Reagan economics

    Economics Profs criticize Bush economic policy

    But Russell’s comments about the redistribution of wealth, and minimalist govt., sound more ideologically consistant with Libertarian philosophy, rather than traditional conservatism.

    While I like -many- aspects of Libertarian social philosophy, I think their economic philosophy is even more idealistic (and unrealistic) than Communism’s.

    Criticisms of Libertarian philosophy

    I enjoyed your post Pop Tarts—particularly when you pointed to the problem with the “have our cake and eat it too” way of looking at economic growth.  If it happened during a Republican’s term, he’s responsible for it, if it happened during a Dem’s term, the Repub that preceded him is responsible for it.  Heads I win, tails you lose.

    I think I’m going to adopt that as my personal philosophy, as it seems to have a decent rate of payoff.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.