Jules Galen
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2013
- Messages
- 3,726
I wish.
Have hope, friend!
Hey...it's not like Bill is going to go into obscurity overnight, but the stage has been set for him to pretty-quickly fade away.
See...there's hope.
I wish.
Unless their lawyers are incompetent, I'm sure there's a way out. They certainly can't go with any morals clause, though, since they signed him while knowing the score...which is great news for anyone else with a case to make as the company can't pretend they were unaware in order to get off the hook in future lawsuits.
Pure greed isn't that interesting. The bottom line is the only thing that matters to some people. That applies to Cosby as well; people who knew had their own interests to look after, and decided those interests were more important than helping potential victims.The interesting wrinkle is that much like with Bill Cosby this isn't new information about Bill O'Reilly. This has been an ongoing problem with O'Reilly for a long time. Fox knew what they were getting when they renewed the contract.
Pure greed isn't that interesting. The bottom line is the only thing that matters to some people. That applies to Cosby as well; people who knew had their own interests to look after, and decided those interests were more important than helping potential victims.
CNN just had a story about how his top advertiser is some outfit that sells gold. Apparently they're sticking around. Makes me wonder if O'Reilly can cobble together a team of advertisers similar to a blue-chip version of what Alex Jones uses. Survivalist stuff, weirdo health supplements, water purifiers and like that.
Gold was also a huge thing for Glen Beck. It seems that the right wing have this obsession with the economy crashing and everyone needing gold to buy things in the new economy.
I agree. I don't think he'll disappear....just become irelavent and eventually forgotten.
Gold was also a huge thing for Glen Beck. It seems that the right wing have this obsession with the economy crashing and everyone needing gold to buy things in the new economy.
Unless their lawyers are incompetent, I'm sure there's a way out. They certainly can't go with any morals clause, though, since they signed him while knowing the score...which is great news for anyone else with a case to make as the company can't pretend they were unaware in order to get off the hook in future lawsuits.
Yes, but they would have a difficult time enforcing the clause (without losing a lawsuit) for something that a) happened previous to the current contract and b) they knew about prior to signing the current contract.Almost every contract in Television has a "morals" clause where if the guy doe something that hurts the companies image he can be fired.
One of these women is said to have phone recordings and perhaps why O'Reilly didnt fight it out on court as Trump suggests he should have.
Links in the link.On this date in 2004, Bill O’Reilly was accused of sexual harassment by Andrea Mackris, an associate producer who worked with the TV host at Fox News Channel. Mackris’s New York State Supreme Court complaint is bursting with examples of the 65-year-old O’Reilly’s alleged sleaziness (which apparently was surreptitiously memorialized via Mackris’s tape recorder)....
A decade later, Mackris’s complaint--filed by attorney Benedict Morelli--remains a better read than any of O’Reilly’s subsequent best sellers. Mainly because the lawsuit includes topics such as:
Vibrators
Masturbation lessons
Phone sex
A “short brown” Balinese woman who allegedly was “amazed” when she saw O’Reilly’s penis
Threesomes
The loss of O’Reilly’s virginity in a car at JFK airport
Sex with two Scandinavian stewardesses
A Thai sex show
Al Franken
O’Reilly’s masturbation
O’Reilly’s climaxing
Caribbean shower fantasies
“One of those mitts, those loofa mitts”
Falafel
O’Reilly’s “big cock”
More vibrator-aided ejaculation
So, put aside a few minutes and enjoy the lawsuit again for the first time (23 pages)
Allegations come in, advertisers go out. You can't explain that!
Yes, but they would have a difficult time enforcing the clause (without losing a lawsuit) for something that a) happened previous to the current contract and b) they knew about prior to signing the current contract.
Yes, but they would have a difficult time enforcing the clause (without losing a lawsuit) for something that a) happened previous to the current contract and b) they knew about prior to signing the current contract.