O'Reilly: He's sweating bullets

The size of the settlement

If the $60M was too high, then the court-jury could've determined that, lowered the amount to something that was reasonable. But, O'Reilly chose to accuse someone with extortion.

One really interesting thing to note on the "complaint" against the Plaintiff, is the reference to the maximum amount awarded, $3M.

O'Reilly isn't primarily objecting to the negotiations or the lawsuit, he's objecting to the amount.

Notice the key point of his public statements are about the 60M, not that there are tapes, nor that the charges are without merit. Let's focus exclusively on "what $60M vs $3M" means.

O'Reilly's complaint is that the amount of money [$60M] was "extortion." Does this mean that an amount "far less" than $3M would have been agreeable? Then "if the amount that was requested" was too high, then O'Reilly could have requested the amount be lowered; or have a court litigate the issue.

Again, it is absurd for a defendant in a sexual harassment lawsuit to claim that a request for settlement is "extortion" when the issue is not the grounds of the complaint, but the amount. You can only claim extortion when someone threatens criminal proceedings in something is not done; it is not extortion to threaten civil proceedings if there is no settlement.

In fact for extortion to occur, there must be a threat made involving violence, which Plaintiff Mackris has said occurred: O'Reilly is alleged to have said [per the Mackris complaint] that O'Reilly could bring bad things if someone crossed him:

"If any woman ever breathed a word I'll make her pay so dearly that she'll wish she'd never been born. I'll rake her through the mud, bring up things in her life and make her so miserable that she'll be destroyed."

We see O'Reilly cannot back his words with actions

The Worst good old Bill can offer at this point is some e-mail; and Mackris has already "thrown it all out on the table." Again, lacking any substantive information at this point clearly indicates O'Reilly is at a disadvantage, has nothing, and cannot actually do anything to back up his previous threat, however convincing it might have been.

O'Reilly is turning the tables

The classic game people play it to play the victim. Don't fall for this ruse.

Take a look at a sample jury instruction for extortion; and Ref.

Mackris did not threaten violence, rather it appears O'Reilly made suggestions that some sort of harm would come to "some lady"; and "threatening a civil lawsuit" is not extortion; rather, using arbitration and pre-litigation is something the courts prefer. That O'Reilly and counsel have sought to imply that this "preferable course of action" [non-litigation] is somehow "extortion" flies in the face of what the courts have come to embrace: Private resolution of civil matters.

Private talks broke down because O'Reilly took the case to court

Thus, because there could be no "civil resolution" of a "private dispute," O'Reilly appears to have taken the complete opposite approach, implying that counsel and Mackris have threatened him. Again, notice the interesting contrast: It is Mackris who alleges that O'Reilly made statements threatening harm against "any woman"; and now it is O'Reilly playing the victim. He's getting little sympathy from this end of the universe.

We'll have to see whether a Grand Jury is empaneled; I would venture to say the US Attorney in NY is going to say, "This is a private matter"; however if there is an allegation of a crime, then barring any formal complaint with the FBI, US Attorney, or law enforcement, it would appear that Mackris and the Law Firm would have a reasonable basis to bring a cause of action for defamation.

Settlement information is irrelevant

Note that in the complaint, O'Reilly specifically mentions the attorney's website of a maximum amount of $3M.

Actually, the amount the law firm has won on other cases is irrelevant to whether the instant case has merit. Also, the courts know that bringing "settlement amounts" into the court room are a no-no--this amount is not relevant, nor admissible.

Is O'Reilly hoping to litigate through the media?

It remains to be seen whether the court finds O'Reilly's attorney is attempting to litigate this case in the public arena. This is a very big no-no before the bar.

It remains to be seen whether O'Rielly is hoping to taint the jury pool by ensuring that "only the least knowledgeable" of the case are going to "never hear anything" about the $60M vs $3M.

Problem O'Reilly has is that he doesn't know what's on the tapes, if there are any, or whether someone else is also going to bring a suit against him.

Was the conduct isolated?

How many other people have allegedly been treated this way?

O'Reilly actually believes he's the President's special friend?

Plus, the whole reference to "the Attorney being a Democrat"...uh, what difference does that make -- surely, O'Reilly doesn't have such an inflated opinion of himself, that he believes the lawsuit against O'Reilly is about the Democrats against Bush?

Oh, please!

O'Reilly was the one who distanced himself from the President when he said:

if the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clear he had nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush administration again." -- March 18, 2003

So to accuse anyone of "going after him" because he "supports the President" is ridiculous. O'Reilly, by his own words is no longer related to the President; and any action broght against him is too tenuous to have anything to do with the election.

We could only speculate that O'Reilly, despite making teh comment that distanced himself, is actually reversing himself and still aligned. Thus to presume that "a lawsuit against O'Reilly is politically-motivated" seems more than a stretch, but merely a conformation that O'Reilly's public statements and promises cannot be trusted; and despite public denial to the contrary, O'Reilly continues to support the President despite no evidence of WMD.

Once again, it is O'Reilly's own words that are digging him into his own problematic cess-pool.

Come, on Bill. You may have alot to say, but don't think for a minute that right wing conservatives blindly believe you.

Your problems in New York are minor compared to the impending war crimes allegations against Bush.

How many prisoners did they kill in Guantanamo, Iraq, and Afghanistan?

Come, on -- Earth to Bill: You're a nobody when it comes to world affairs. You're on the wrong side of history -- Hitler and his thugs finally went down after the truth came out.

Don't align yourself so closely with the President. He's nobody's best friend, unless you're looking for an excuse to avoid reality. Welcome to the club; too bad a producer decided to wake you up.

How you liking this, Bill?