New Bill O’Reilly Accuser Says He Called Her Hot Chocolate


hot no deposit free spinsBill O’Reilly used to leer at an African-American Fox News clerical worker and called her “hot chocolate,” according to attorney Lisa Bloom.

The woman worked for a different broadcaster in 2008 while this was going on, but The O’Reilly Factor host’s office was near her desk.

“He would never talk to her, not even hello, except to grunt at her like a wild boar,” Bloom tells The Hollywood Reporter. “He would leer at her. He would always do this when no one else was around.”

Bloom says she spoke with three witnesses who knew the woman at the time and confirmed she was upset and stressed at the end of each workday. “She’s not asking for any money,” says Bloom. “She just wants everyone to know her story.”

At the time, Bloom says the woman valued her job too much to risk speaking up.

“She was afraid if she told him to knock it off she’d get fired,” Bloom says. “Now that she’s aware this is all in the news, she’s decided to phone in a complaint to the Fox News hotline.”

Bloom is also representing radio personality Wendy Walsh, who says she was forced out of the network after refusing O’Reilly’s advances.

The allegations against O’Reilly follow a flurry of litigation and press involving women who say they were harassed by and-or retaliated against by ousted-CEO Roger Ailes. Gretchen Carlson was the first to sue last summer, and several other women have filed litigation since. Ailes was terminated shortly after Megyn Kelly spoke with Fox investigators about her experience, which she details in her book.

Earlier this month, Bloom sent a letter to the New York State Division of Human Rights asking it to intervene at Fox News and calling the network a “cesspool of sexual harassment, intimidation and retaliation.”

Impeachable Level Offense Found In Evidence Of Trump/Russia Collusion


In an exclusive published in The Guardian that discredits even further President Trump’s unfounded accusations that President Obama wiretapped him there’s a bomb of its own at the very end, with a source claiming that the official investigation now has specific concrete and corroborative evidence of collusion.

One source suggested the official investigation was making progress. “They now have specific concrete and corroborative evidence of collusion,” the source said. “This is between people in the Trump campaign and agents of Russian influence relating to the use of hacked material.”

This will be the turning point in the Trump Russia scandal. This is the smoking gun, the impeachable offense.

The article notes that at least seven countries tried to alert the United States about the Trump campaign conversations with Russia, which the GCHQ first became aware of in 2015.

Basically the entire Western SIGINT alliance knew there was something rotten between Trump and Russia.

“It looks like the [US] agencies were asleep,” the source added. “They [the European agencies] were saying: ‘There are contacts going on between people close to Mr Trump and people we believe are Russian intelligence agents. You should be wary of this.’

“The message was: ‘Watch out. There’s something not right here.'”

Malcome Nance pointed out that no matter how troubling the alerts were, “The FBI is the only agency that can touch those foreign intell reports. Until a FISA is obtained allied collection on US citizens is off limits.”

We now know that there was a FISA warrant on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. This warrant was renewed more than once. They got the FISA warrant because there was probable cause that the target was a foreign agent, and that he knew he was working with Russian agents.

The Gang of 8 were told in August and September that Putin might be trying to help Trump win the election.

Team Trump keeps crying persecution, but there is evidence that they were in constant dialogue with Russia and that Russia wanted Trump to win. The smoking gun is proof of collusion. That’s what the hold up has been.

The Guardian’s source says they have specific concrete and corroborative evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia relating to hacked material. This claim echoes the spy chatter that’s been going on for months now, and also echoes the partially corroborated dossier by the British spy. That dossier has only been corroborated in parts, but many of those parts went to the more important claims rather than the salacious claims that made headlines.

This is only one step in a long investigation, but it is a big deal. Except to O’Reilly, who has dismissed the whole story and refused to report on it, because it involves his friend Trump. Now imagine what O’Reilly would be saying if all this came out about a Democrat, especially Hillary Clinton. They wanted her put in jail over some harmless e-mails, if she had won and was linked to Russia they would want her burned at the cross, but when it’s Trump O’Reilly will not even report on any of it


Trump’s Fox Legal Hero Says Syria Attack Illegal & Unconstitutional


The so-called great legal mind Trump quoted in his tweet about Obama wiretapping him now says the Trump attack on Syria was illegal and unconstitutional, and of course Trump never says a word about it, he just ignores it. He went to the O’Reilly crisis management school, quote them as a great source if they say something good about you, ignore them when they say something bad.

Former Judge Andrew P. Napolitano write this on Wednesday:

Last week, as Holy Week was approaching, the United States launched 59 cruise missiles at a Syrian airfield.

Trump argued that the gas could only have been deployed intentionally by the Syrian government on its own people and that that behavior was so repellant, so contrary to civilized moral norms, so disruptive to the world order as to constitute a national security threat to the United States — hence his use of force. Was his action legal?

Syria, along with the United States, is a signatory to the United Nations Charter. The U.N. Charter is a treaty signed by President Harry Truman and ratified by the U.S. Senate. Under the Constitution, treaties are the supreme law of the land, alongside the Constitution, and the federal government has a moral and legal obligation to be bound by them.

The U.N. Charter limits member nations use of military force to defensive responses to actual attacks, pre-emptive strikes prior to nearly certain attacks and correctives pursuant to U.N. consent or pursuant to another treaty obligating military force to help an ally.

Under this international law, military force must be a last resort, used only when necessary to fight back or to prevent an imminent attack. It also must be proportional to the harm it seeks to eradicate and be likely to produce the result it seeks. Anything short of this violates international law, to which the U.S. is bound by numerous treaties.

Syria is not a threat to the U.S., nor is it likely to become one. Nor is the argument that we needed to send a message to Syria lest it use poison gas on the U.S. a valid legal argument or a realistic political one. Were this subjective fear a valid legal basis for the use of military force, the president could send missiles anytime and anywhere at anyone or anything with legal impunity.

The president’s revulsion at the sight of children suffering from the effects of poison gas is an emotional reaction — a very human and utterly normal one. Yet it in no way legally justifies an attack on a sovereign nation.

In addition to various treaties, the president is subject, of course, to the Constitution, which provides that only Congress can declare war. Yet Congress gave the president a small window in which to use military force on his own in the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

That law was written in the midst of President Richard Nixon’s undeclared war in Cambodia to limit the president’s emergency use of military force absent a declaration of war from Congress to defensive strikes, pre-emptive strikes and treaty obligations.

Did Trump have all the intelligence he needed in front of him before he attacked Syria? Apparently not. Did he use proportional force defensively or pre-emptively to prevent harm to the U.S.? Clearly not.

Can he legally use military force to punish or to teach a lesson to another sovereign state that poses no threat to the U.S.? Absolutely not, or there will be no end to government violence.