sotheanswer
so the answer to my question would be no, you have no idea what the allegations are, but youse know he be guilty because the biggest creator source of fake news in this country told you so
gotcha, thanks
and by applying such brilliant logic consistently, you can only surmise that anyone who takes the fifth must be guilty and when your brilliant political leaders whom you just adore say "I don't recall" hundreds of times at the most convenient moments they must be lying, A?
The sick, racist cop and wannabe Concentration Camp Commandant talking about O'Reilly, the mindless sheep and stormtroopers like himself, and intellectual dishonestyointer:. You can't make this shit up.
##)##)##)##)##)##)##)##)##)##)##)##)##)##)
The Guesser
Banned
</dd></dl>
Fox News' handling of the renewed harassment allegations is a reflection of greater company conflicts and a generational shift as Rupert hangs on to a bygone era and James and Lachlan plot a risky new course.
Last July, after Gretchen Carlson sued the Murdoch-controlled 21st Century Fox and Roger Ailes, the then-head of Fox News Channel, for sexual harassment, Rupert Murdoch told his sons, both Ailes enemies, that paying off Carlson without a fight would mean more lawsuits. Easy-money settlements always bring more claims. James and Lachlan Murdoch, however, were eager to get rid of their nemesis, and the most direct way to do that was to accept Carlson's claims after a quickie investigation and then use a big payoff — $20 million — to end the dispute and calm the storm.
Nine months later, the chickens coming home to roost, Fox has continued to collect a string of look-alike claims against Ailes and against ratings giant Bill O'Reilly, with a firestorm of recent press attention on what The New York Times is calling the "O'Reilly revelations." What has been revealed is not evidence nor an admission of guilt but details of payments settling complaints against O'Reilly — not a small distinction. You can assume maximal guilt, which the Times and other Fox haters do, or you can assume, as many lawyers do, that when there is money to be had, plaintiffs come out of the woodwork. ("Coming out of the woodwork" is a virtual term of art in big settlement tort cases).
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...candal-exposes-a-murdoch-family-divide-993110
-------------------------------------
interesting article, there's more to it on the link, but the first few paragraphs sum up what I'm thinking pretty good
at this point in time, all we have is innuendo brought to us by the masters of lies and distortions and deceit and bias , so typical
Last July, after Gretchen Carlson sued the Murdoch-controlled 21st Century Fox and Roger Ailes, the then-head of Fox News Channel, for sexual harassment, Rupert Murdoch told his sons, both Ailes enemies, that paying off Carlson without a fight would mean more lawsuits. Easy-money settlements always bring more claims. James and Lachlan Murdoch, however, were eager to get rid of their nemesis, and the most direct way to do that was to accept Carlson's claims after a quickie investigation and then use a big payoff — $20 million — to end the dispute and calm the storm.
Nine months later, the chickens coming home to roost, Fox has continued to collect a string of look-alike claims against Ailes and against ratings giant Bill O'Reilly, with a firestorm of recent press attention on what The New York Times is calling the "O'Reilly revelations." What has been revealed is not evidence nor an admission of guilt but details of payments settling complaints against O'Reilly — not a small distinction. You can assume maximal guilt, which the Times and other Fox haters do, or you can assume, as many lawyers do, that when there is money to be had, plaintiffs come out of the woodwork. ("Coming out of the woodwork" is a virtual term of art in big settlement tort cases).
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...candal-exposes-a-murdoch-family-divide-993110
-------------------------------------
interesting article, there's more to it on the link, but the first few paragraphs sum up what I'm thinking pretty good
at this point in time, all we have is innuendo brought to us by the masters of lies and distortions and deceit and bias , so typical
BREAKING NEWS, bombshell revelation, victim speaks out
He (O'Reilly) said to me "when I was in college, professors didn't look like you do".
This ruined her life, she needs to be compensated, lock him up lock him up lock him up, he's a regular fucking rapist I tell you
No people, this is not a joke, this is not a dream, this is you life, this is what some Americans actually pretend is sexual assault when it serves their political agenda
At the end of the day, you just can't make shit this stupid up
face)(*^%
He (O'Reilly) said to me "when I was in college, professors didn't look like you do".
This ruined her life, she needs to be compensated, lock him up lock him up lock him up, he's a regular fucking rapist I tell you
No people, this is not a joke, this is not a dream, this is you life, this is what some Americans actually pretend is sexual assault when it serves their political agenda
At the end of the day, you just can't make shit this stupid up
face)(*^%
Hanging the guy over these latest accusations is certainly questionable based on the limited information available. One wasn't even sexually related and was for him berating a lower level producer. Two were right on the heels of the Ailes debacle when 21CF was scrambling to protect their image. The four recent instances totaled $4 million in payouts, which is incredibly insignificant for these type of situations. A payoff doesn't necessarily equal guilt.
That being said, it's equally questionable to defend the guy, especially with his past issues. We are talking about a guy who stalked and harassed a co-worker, calling her constantly, supposedly masturbating during these calls and threatening her position with the company unless she had sex with him. She was smart enough to record some of these calls which is why 21CF settled for $9 million immediately after she notified them and let them hear the tapes.
That being said, it's equally questionable to defend the guy, especially with his past issues. We are talking about a guy who stalked and harassed a co-worker, calling her constantly, supposedly masturbating during these calls and threatening her position with the company unless she had sex with him. She was smart enough to record some of these calls which is why 21CF settled for $9 million immediately after she notified them and let them hear the tapes.
link please
because I have to believe that if there is anything substantive to report, their focus wouldn't be on the weak garbage
I believe it's the same MO used by the same people that they used against Herman Cain and Donald Trump
I believe it's all orchestrated, until proven otherwise
I believe O'Reilly will have his day in court too, as the plaintiff
because I have to believe that if there is anything substantive to report, their focus wouldn't be on the weak garbage
I believe it's the same MO used by the same people that they used against Herman Cain and Donald Trump
I believe it's all orchestrated, until proven otherwise
I believe O'Reilly will have his day in court too, as the plaintiff
This is one of those things that neither the lovers or the haters have enough info to even have an opinion.
Very possible he's a sleazy sexual harasser that needed to get run.
Also very possible that these women found an easy way to collect a big pay check and all of this is all made up or blown way out of proportion.
Anyone who has a strong opinion about any of this who is not in the very deep inside , the opinion is baseless.
No matter what side you are on neither side has enough info to discredit the other side
Very possible he's a sleazy sexual harasser that needed to get run.
Also very possible that these women found an easy way to collect a big pay check and all of this is all made up or blown way out of proportion.
Anyone who has a strong opinion about any of this who is not in the very deep inside , the opinion is baseless.
No matter what side you are on neither side has enough info to discredit the other side
