Bill O'Reilly: Secret Tape Exists Of Woman Offered $200K To File Sexual Harassment Charges Against Trump (AUDIO)

Content originally published at

Hours after several of Donald Trump's accusers assembled for a Monday press conference to call on congress to launch an investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct lodged against the President, Bill O'Reilly appeared on Glenn Beck's radio show to discuss what he claims is the existence of a tape showing a woman being offered $200,000 to accuse Donald Trump of 'untoward behavior.' 

O'Reilly told Beck that his lawyer listened to the tape and that there are at least three crimes contained on it: 

O'Reilly: There is a tape, Beck, an audio tape of an anti-Trump person offering $200,000 to a woman to accuse Donald Trump of untoward behavior. 


Beck: Is this tape going to be released? 


O'Reilly: I may have to go to the US Attorney myself. I don't wanna have to do that and inject myself into the story, but I had my lawyer listen to the tape. He's listened to it. There are at least three crimes on the tape. So as a citizen, I may have to do this. 


Beck: I will tell you Bill, the first thing that you say - well I'm trying to get it, I'm trying to get it so it can be released. You weren't talking about getting it for YOU to release it, but it had to be out there. And I think the first time I said to you, I mean, if they don't - you've gotta bring it to the US Attorney.


O'Reilly: Again, it's in the hands of someone who knows the seriousness of the situation. 


Beck: What is their hesitancy?


O'Reilly: You know, I can't really get into that at this point. But I can tell you that Donald Trump knows about the tape. And I'm, for the life of me, sitting here going "Why on earth are you allowing a movement to try to smear you when you have a powerful - and I mean it's powerful - piece of evidence that shows that this is an industry. That there are false charges and money changing hands." It's so frustrating but I wanted your listeners to know it, it's there, it's amazing, and it will change the whole discussion if it ever gets out

Watch below: 

O'Reilly first divulged the existence of the tape six weeks ago in a largely unnoticed interview with Newsmax

O'Reilly told Newsmax on Monday that investigators working for him had uncovered an audio recording of "an anti-Trump attorney" offering an unidentified woman $200,000 to file sexual harassment charges against then-presidential candidate Donald J. Trump.


"It exists," O'Reilly said. "We have urged the person who has the tape to hand it over to the U.S. attorney, because my investigative team believes there are three separate crimes on the audio tape."


O'Reilly tells Newsmax his attorneys have listened to the tape. O'Reilly stated he is not in possession of the recording, but the conversation is believed to have taken place before last year's presidential election.


"It's related to my situation," O'Reilly insists, "and when the tape emerges, you will see why. I can't say any more than that, but it is related to my situation."

With the 'Russiagate' witch hunt fizzling out amid revelations that Special Counsel Robert Mueller's probe is stacked with several anti-Trump team investigators, O'Reilly warns that there's going to be a huge push to rehash sexual misconduct allegations against the President. While several of these claims have been debunked or refuted, and Trump even threatening to sue the NYT at one point, it will come as a surprise to exactly nobody if and when 'Russiagate' shifts into 'Gropegate' in 2018.

Follow on Twitter @ZeroPointNow § Subscribe to our YouTube channel


Justapleb Dec 14, 2017 4:46 AM Permalink

Meh.  Trump has the NSA, just for starters, and what I already know as a simple person capable of reading and using logic would have me on an NSA computer doing keyword searches, establishing communication frequency nodes, mapping the relation space...And instead I get treated every day to some new historic corruption low, worse than the most paranoid conspiracy theorist could come up with.   There is no cavalry coming.   Only more news of what abject slaves and pathetic cowards we are.  

Reaper Dec 13, 2017 10:37 PM Permalink

The power from lying corrupts easily.  We need to use the Law of Moses, where a false accuser is given the same punishment they expected on the falsely accused.

VideoEng_NC Dec 13, 2017 7:51 PM Permalink

Hope women aound the country see how contradictory the current message is lately.  For all the active feminism that's being claimed there sure seems to be a lot of delayed response that completely negates any message of independence.  There's simply no excuse at this point because nobody is coming out in real time, nobody.  If these women are so independent, like they portray on The View, why didn't they come forward immediately?  Someone could easily make the claim that feminism is dead. 

Oldwood VideoEng_NC Dec 13, 2017 11:20 PM Permalink

Power is not easy to resist when given. Progressives create their power base by removing power from white men and giving it to every other group, who while enjoying the "gifts" of the new found power, are also behden to their benefactors.While women (and viryally everyone else) knows better, the power to crush any man, especially powerful men, is irresistible. As with so many Muslims who are not terrorists or even supporters, they still empathize and take pleasure in the oppression.

In reply to by VideoEng_NC

jin187 Oldwood Dec 14, 2017 2:40 AM Permalink

It's actually the exact opposite. Progressives are rich white men that get their power by convincing women and minorities that they are "on their side", thus providing useful idiots to act as foot soldiers in their endless struggle to usurp even more power and wealth.

It's pretty much the same thing with conservatives, except their useful idiots are just other white men that aren't as rich.

In reply to by Oldwood

JailBanksters Dec 13, 2017 6:00 PM Permalink

First Off ....Bill O'Really on Glen Beckz radio show, two of countries biggest Zionist cheerleaderz on one show !!!This is like Jesus Campos going on a Comediens TV Show to be serious and tell the truth about Las Vegas. WARNING WARNING, Bullshit detected, WARNING WARNING 

Chandos Dec 13, 2017 4:29 PM Permalink

So..."tick tock tick tock" I guess?.....3 weeks ago we had a guy dying from cancer who would spill the beans on the Klintonz;then it was Bongino, now there's a tape that COULD get released.....Boring!I'm all tick-tocked out.

MoreFreedom CalifornianSeven Dec 14, 2017 12:29 PM Permalink

I'd bet the Democrats have been paying women to make these allegations, at least since the Clarence Thomas hearings almost 30 year ago.  I remember a Democrat Senator Metzenbaum came up with obviously false and outrageous sexual allegations against a witness unfriendly to Hill (John Dogget) at the time of his testimony, which he wasn't previously informed about, and for which he wasn't allowed to address or confront the witness.  There is no law that prohibits such payments to people that I'm aware of.  Thus, the only negative consequence to any such woman, would be the publicity, for which she'd obviously get lots of support for expressing from Democrats regardless of the truth.  But if her story has verifibly false evidence (e.g., the yearbook which Alred wouldn't let anyone examine and the validity of which is obvioulsy false now that the accuser told us she wrote part of it - but she wouldn't say what part showing her deceit) there's no consequence exept to her reputation. Don't you think these politicians would pay their lawyers to send out investigators to dig up dirt (true or not) to help win an election, and then claim it was a legal expense (just like Hillary and the DNC paid Fusion GPS and eventually Russians thru their lawyers)?   What's amazing is that O'Reilly claims to have a tape.  I hope it gets released if it's true, which it might not be.  Heck, I'd bet that Schumer called the police about a fake allegation he had sent to his own home/office to protect himself from what he's done. He's sneaky and dirty as they come except for perhaps the Clintons.

In reply to by CalifornianSeven

hannah Dec 13, 2017 3:14 PM Permalink

this is all bullshit. why would oreilly withhold the tape. threats he might be killed. well that boat has sailed. also when has glen beck ever come thru with fucking anything.this is all bullshit....

techpriest hannah Dec 13, 2017 5:48 PM Permalink

No idea of the tape's existence, but it isn't O'Reilly's. It belongs to a third party, and that third party isn't willing to come forward.

I saw one aside he made which says his own harassment case has to do with the tape. Maybe his lawyers were listening because he was also a target for fraudulent accusations, and his lawyers found something.

Or maybe it's his own version of Fusion GPS. Time will tell.

In reply to by hannah

Dragon HAwk Dec 13, 2017 2:17 PM Permalink

You know,usually you get all this dirt  before the election, you know  like 2 weeks before when it hits the hardest.  Dirt after the election, man this is like heaven I can't take all this Winning..

bigkahuna highwaytoserfdom Dec 13, 2017 7:53 PM Permalink

The replublicants are the same as the dems. They are working to the same ends and are on the same side. They laugh every time there is a "vote" to "choose" a candiate. Trump bought his way in and forced all of the rethuglicans to the side. They are all ngry with Trump because he has not spen a life bowing at the rethuglican altar to worship their pedogod.Everyone should forget what they think the know about political parties. The have not existed for the benefit of the American people since they were formed - but they have become progressively worse. That is why we see all of this law breaking and pedo activity out in the open. They all see us as piss ants that they can squash - and for the most part we are. As the comment about bolsheviks stated earlier - the only thing they understand is crushing obliteration.

In reply to by highwaytoserfdom

Trogdor Dec 13, 2017 1:58 PM Permalink

The fact is, within our gyno-centric society anything a "woman" says is taken as God's Honest Truth without a shred of evidence. "Harassment" is 100% subjective. If a super-hot Bruce Wayne-type guy says something complimentary to a woman, she goes all gooey ("OOOoo he NOTICED ME!") but if the same thing is said by Stinky the Ditch Digger, it's suddenly "Harassment!!" and an "Unwelcome sexual advance!"

So, who is it that determines what is "welcome?": The Woman. SHE gets to *arbitrarily* determine (depending on her time of the month and what she might have been thinking about at that particular moment) - what is or isn't harassment. Absolute insanity - and a significant reason that relations between the sexes are degrading almost as fast as relations between the Left and Right.

Good work, ZioFeminism - your job is nearly complete.

Harry Lightning giggler321 Dec 13, 2017 3:23 PM Permalink

I think that Chelsea Clinton and Chelsea Manning should be locked up together in the same cell. It would be interesting to watch what perversions then transpire. Chelsea Clinton reminds me of a joke. A woman who is completely lacking in any of the features that would qualify her as being called pretty in any way is walking towards the exit of Macys with her two kids in tow. Boy and girl, clearly of different ages.The security guard at the door wishes the lady a good night, and comments on how well behaved her twins are. The woman takes offense at what the security guard said, and asks him how he could make the mistake of thinking the children wiere twins considering how different they looked. The security guard apologized and explained that after he saw the woman, he had no choice but to assume her kids were conceived at the same time, because he did not believe that this unsightly woman could have been fucked more than once in her entire life. Alcohol does not work that well, and there could not be more than one man who could be that desperate. When I look at Chelsea Clinton, I think that she is the embodiment of the woman in the joke.

In reply to by giggler321

Harry Lightning CHIIEFHANGMAN Dec 13, 2017 3:16 PM Permalink

I would not go that far because I think there are a lot of women who make the workplace a lto more fun to work in. As with anything else, a few bad apples... Problem is that because the risk of having a female employee raise a harassment claim has risen so much in the near recent past, it now has become too great a risk for a company to employ them all. Which is why until the situation becomes more equitable and some degree of sanity is brought to the process of evaluating these harassment claims other than to just believe the woman, the safest course is not to hire women. Now having said that, there is a terribly saddening cause and effect relationship to the performance and behavior of children relative to whether or not their mothers worked. School grades and SAT scores are on average higher fr children whose mothers work primarily at being mothers. Drug use, out of wedlock pregnancies, and sexually transmitted disease all are giher in children whose moms work outside the home. This trend started in the 1970s when women in the oworkforce first saw a big increase. It has remained constant since then.Kids do beter with life and in the preparation to be adults when there is a parent home for them when they come home from school. Additionally, a parent in the home whn the kids come home is the main line of defense in preventing a child from doing things that will most adversely affect the coutrse of their lives. 

In reply to by CHIIEFHANGMAN

Peanut Butter … Harry Lightning Dec 13, 2017 11:59 PM Permalink

Kids always does better with father figures, thus men need to stay at home and take care of children so that kids won't turn up like criminals when raised by mommy. Mommy will have to go to work since she can't only raise criminals, it's time for men to make the sacrifices and take the role of raising the kids so that there won't be future generations of criminals.

So are you going to make any sacrifices for your sons and daughters?i

In reply to by Harry Lightning

el buitre Trogdor Dec 13, 2017 2:13 PM Permalink

I agree with you to some extent in spirit, Trogdor, but sexual harrassment really has to do with a manager of some sort in the work place, using his position over a person's employment or remuneration to extort sexual "favors."  Outside of the workplace (and in the case of Harvey Weinstein for sure in the workplace) you just have sexual assault of various degrees from groping and touching sexual parts to violent rape with a deadly weapon.  We still are not at a point (yet) where verbal sexual suggestions outside of the work place are a crime or grounds for dismissal.

In reply to by Trogdor