Spicy McHaggis Posted October 15, 2004 Report Posted October 15, 2004 I find this scary and hilarious: Those quotes look so obviously fake, it kills the credibility of the other ones... unless she has audio tapes.
DerangedHermit Posted October 15, 2004 Report Posted October 15, 2004 So is Bill anally stimulating himself with a glistening plastic dildo, vibrating deep inside his red ancient anus as his liverspotted arsecheeks clap playfully together in encouraging applause. I can only hope REAMS of disgusting details come out and defame him for all eternity. I love scandal. That's hot
Jobber of the Week Posted October 15, 2004 Report Posted October 15, 2004 from the "Spin Room" thread on Fark.com.. sorta related They also make spurious claims that Windows is vulnerable to viruses and worms. I have in my hand right here a report clearly stating that there are some viruses and worms that can infect Macintosh's as well. What do you have to say about that, Maccies? Sounds like he's been reading from Zealot Miller's notes.
bobobrazil1984 Posted October 16, 2004 Report Posted October 16, 2004 well the lawyer (I think its the lawyer) was saying on the news, they have "irrefutable evidence"... but they dont specify WHAT that evidence is. IF they have it and are not lying out their asses, i'd be interested in seeing/hearing.
MrRant Posted October 16, 2004 Author Report Posted October 16, 2004 Perhaps they have the vibrator in question? Complete with Bill's anal DNA.
Guest MikeSC Posted October 19, 2004 Report Posted October 19, 2004 What I still don't get is, you know, how you can FORCE somebody to engage in phone sex? Is she incapable of hanging up the phone? -=Mike
2GOLD Posted October 19, 2004 Report Posted October 19, 2004 What I still don't get is, you know, how you can FORCE somebody to engage in phone sex? Is she incapable of hanging up the phone? -=Mike He tricked her Mike. Bill snuck into her home and stuck super glue on the receiver so when she picked up she was FORCED into the situation. It was horrible for her! Have some compassion!
kkktookmybabyaway Posted October 19, 2004 Report Posted October 19, 2004 Complete with Bill's anal DNA. That is probably one of the most disgusting images I have ever come across. Good job. Here's another thing I thought of -- unless she has a tape recorder, how in the hell did she write this all down? I mean, whenever someone gives me information over the phone, I have to tell them to stop what they're saying about a dozen times so I can keep up...
DerangedHermit Posted October 19, 2004 Report Posted October 19, 2004 Scandal-hit Bill O'Reilly's accuser had a crush on the talk show host and voluntarily engaged in "intimate" phone talks with him, according to a former friend of the woman. http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/243876p-208987c.html
Special K Posted October 19, 2004 Report Posted October 19, 2004 This will: A) Really hurt O'Reilly B) Not get that woman a damn cent.
Downhome Posted October 22, 2004 Report Posted October 22, 2004 I smell something. http://www.drudgereport.com/foxff.htm XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU OCT 21, 2004 17:23:09 ET XXXXX O'REILLY ACCUSER DEEP IN DEBT **Exclusive** The DRUDGE REPORT has obtained O'Reilly accuser Andrea Mackris' financial records which show a combined debt of nearly $100,000! FOXNEWS producer Andrea Mackris, who filed a multimillion dollar sexual harassment suit against top talker O'Reilly earlier this month, has I.O.U's scatted throughout the financial world, records show. Mackris was making $93K a year when she returned to FOXNEWS in 2004 [she earned $69,088 in 2003], but records dated October 18 show she holds $37,578 in credit card debt, and $61,913 in student loans. "It appears Ms. Mackris was living way beyond her means," a source close to the situation told DRUDGE late Thursday. A spokeswoman for Mackris' attorneys, Morelli & Associates, said the firm was unaware of their client's heavy debt load and laughed off any suggestion her financial burden was a motivation for a cash demand from FOX. Mackris, 33, and her attorney have been ordered to appear for a hearing in New York State Supreme Court next week to divulge whether sex phone tapes exist and "show cause" why they should not be opened to examination by lawyers for O'Reilly and FOXNEWS. Developing...
Jobber of the Week Posted October 22, 2004 Report Posted October 22, 2004 It's a Drudge "exclusive." Beweare his exlusives, because the other links on his sites at least are just links to organizations with credibility. The exclusives, however, do not. And lovely for you to go through someone's records like that, Drudge.
kkktookmybabyaway Posted October 22, 2004 Report Posted October 22, 2004 Fuck that shit. If it's true, good job Drudge. Perhaps if she had sued for $59 million, a certain cable news channel would have been more accepting...
Guest MikeSC Posted October 22, 2004 Report Posted October 22, 2004 It's a Drudge "exclusive." Beweare his exlusives, because the other links on his sites at least are just links to organizations with credibility. The exclusives, however, do not. And lovely for you to go through someone's records like that, Drudge. You mean like the Dems and MSM going through Ryan's divorce files for no good reason whatsoever? -=Mike
Guest MikeSC Posted October 28, 2004 Report Posted October 28, 2004 The case was settled today. No details offered, but there was a statement that O'Reilly engaged in no wrong-doing. -=Mike
kkktookmybabyaway Posted October 28, 2004 Report Posted October 28, 2004 Come on, Bill, quit hiding behind legal mumbo-jumbo. We want the NO-SPIN truth...
Highland Posted October 28, 2004 Report Posted October 28, 2004 Either he paid her hush money, or he found information on her that wouldn't be good for her if publically known. *shrug*
kkktookmybabyaway Posted October 29, 2004 Report Posted October 29, 2004 Or she could have made it up. Wait, what the-? Link All cases and claims have been withdrawn and all Parties have agreed that there was no wrongdoing whatsoever by Mr. O'Reilly, Ms. Mackris, or Ms. Mackris' counsel, Benedict P. Morelli & Associates. So NOBODY'S at fault? Okie dokie. Oh well, I'm sure Neal Gabler will have something to say about this on FAUX News Watch (lol2004...)
Highland Posted October 29, 2004 Report Posted October 29, 2004 Or that. But, all parties have said neither have committed any wrong-doing, so there won't be a huge counter-suit by O'Reilly.
bobobrazil1984 Posted October 30, 2004 Report Posted October 30, 2004 I've heard that FOX didn't want to settle, but O'Reilly paid with his own money to do so? Anyone else hear that or is that specified in an article somewhere?
Guest MikeSC Posted October 30, 2004 Report Posted October 30, 2004 Instapundit --- I think --- actually has a very good opinion piece on the O'Reilly verdict. Namely, the woman likely had the goods on him in a major way. -=Mike
bobobrazil1984 Posted October 30, 2004 Report Posted October 30, 2004 nobody did any wrongdoing! It never happened! It was all a baaaaaad dream.
Guest Salacious Crumb Posted October 31, 2004 Report Posted October 31, 2004 Instapundit --- I think --- actually has a very good opinion piece on the O'Reilly verdict. Namely, the woman likely had the goods on him in a major way. -=Mike That doesn't make sense though. She was demanding 60 million from Fox just a couple of weeks ago. Why would she suddenly buckle and probably take a pitance in a settlement?
geniusMoment Posted October 31, 2004 Report Posted October 31, 2004 I have heard Bill paid her between 2-10 million of his own money, she can now retire. All thanks to having to listen to a little dirty talk, now that is what I call a deal, call me, actually don't call me, no please stop.
Guest Banders Kennany Posted October 31, 2004 Report Posted October 31, 2004 O'Reilly is always a little too sue-happy, but not when the litigation is from someone else. I wouldn't doubt he payed out himself, after all he has a fat contract with Fox and isn't the kind of guy who needs 3 houses in the tropics to be happy. Whatever though, if Mackris lied, I can only hope she's happy with her blood money.
Vyce Posted October 31, 2004 Report Posted October 31, 2004 Instapundit --- I think --- actually has a very good opinion piece on the O'Reilly verdict. Namely, the woman likely had the goods on him in a major way. -=Mike That doesn't make sense though. She was demanding 60 million from Fox just a couple of weeks ago. Why would she suddenly buckle and probably take a pitance in a settlement? Because in the vast majority of these cases, all the plaintiff is looking for is a settlement.
Guest MikeSC Posted October 31, 2004 Report Posted October 31, 2004 Instapundit --- I think --- actually has a very good opinion piece on the O'Reilly verdict. Namely, the woman likely had the goods on him in a major way. -=Mike That doesn't make sense though. She was demanding 60 million from Fox just a couple of weeks ago. Why would she suddenly buckle and probably take a pitance in a settlement? Actually, you have to look at the figure for what it is: A negotiation point. O'Reilly sued big because he wanted to scare her off. She sued big because she wanted to make some money. They both worked down to a mutually beneficial figure (shame, because I wanted to hear her answer the question of how you can be forced to have phone sex). Think about this, why would he settle his extortion suit by paying her money? -=Mike
Vyce Posted October 31, 2004 Report Posted October 31, 2004 It's easier for him, really. He COULD fight her over it, but that would cost him money in the long run. Money which he has to burn, quite frankly, as he could drag out the lawsuit until she was flat broke and thus couldn't continue litigation anymore. But why do that when you can likely settle the case - and make the negative publicity go away - for less money than it would cost to pursue the countersuit? Whether the phone-sex really happened or not (and who cares if it did), the woman was looking for a handout and O'Reilly essentially did a cost-benefit analysis and decided it was easier just to throw some money at her to go away.
Guest MikeSC Posted October 31, 2004 Report Posted October 31, 2004 It's easier for him, really. He COULD fight her over it, but that would cost him money in the long run. Money which he has to burn, quite frankly, as he could drag out the lawsuit until she was flat broke and thus couldn't continue litigation anymore. But why do that when you can likely settle the case - and make the negative publicity go away - for less money than it would cost to pursue the countersuit? Whether the phone-sex really happened or not (and who cares if it did), the woman was looking for a handout and O'Reilly essentially did a cost-benefit analysis and decided it was easier just to throw some money at her to go away. Which happens a lot. Which is why tort reform is necessary. But, the Dems won't do it because they are in bed with tort lawyers and will proclaim any plan to deal with the overabundance of nuisance suits --- which this clearly was --- as attempting to remove somebody's rights for redress. -=Mike
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now