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


PT Paul Kersey Wed, 12/13/2017 - 18:44 Permalink

Trial with tape or no trial with tape.  There is no secret audio.Man, its so easy to get people's hopes up around here.  Anyone want some Pizza?We nearly got 'em.  We nearly got 'em.  I won't pull the football away this time Charlie Brown!Don't forget to tune in to tomorrow's episode of "We Really, Truly, Nearly, Absolutely, We're-So-Close-Now, Almost, Just-About Super-Duper-Right-There, Closer-Than-A-Bee's-Dick, Just-You-Wait, Not-Long-Now Gonna Gotta Got Them This Time."

In reply to by Paul Kersey

swmnguy PT Wed, 12/13/2017 - 21:25 Permalink

No kidding.  All I learned from this article is that Bill O'Reilly is more cynical than I'd thought and needs money.  Glenn Beck was already a known commodity, pretty much up for anything if there's a nickel in it.These guys' contempt for their audience is astonishing, and depressing that it's so accurate.  The story is that somebody somewhere has a tape?  Uh, right.  Who are the people on it?  Can it be proven to be them?  What's the chain of provenance and possession of this tape?  Why would someobody tell Bill O'Reilly about it if it were real?  Why would Bill O'Reilly go talk about it on Glenn Beck's show if it were real?These guys make Pro Wrasslin' story lines look atristic.  But then, people go for it and the money rolls in, so I can't criticize them too much.  Why would they stop their game, or come up with a new gag, until their tried-and-true stops working?  I do like to see who falls for it, though.

In reply to by PT

techpriest GunnerySgtHartman Wed, 12/13/2017 - 17:43 Permalink

Maybe they will do just that, or something like it, right at the moment Trump is most embattled and MSM thinks "We got him now!" (if the tape actually exists)

Because I don't have an ideological dog in this fight, the transition from Russia to sex scandals has sufficiently convinced me that the DNC is trying whatever it thinks will work, and now it looks like they are going to be caught out, twice. I took bets with my dad on which of the two parties is going to implode first, and the race to the bottom is nothing if not entertaining.

In reply to by GunnerySgtHartman

11b40 DrData02 Wed, 12/13/2017 - 18:49 Permalink

We can all hope, but this sounds like BS.  If you have it, and he implied that he did when he said he had his attorney listen to it, just make if public.  If he has been sitting on something like this for weeks, his ass ought to be kicked.  This would have changed the race in AL, and he could easily handed it off to someone at FOX or another media entity who would put it out.  Just watch.  He has nothing.

In reply to by DrData02

new game IH8OBAMA Thu, 12/14/2017 - 06:45 Permalink

sessions is in a state of absolute zero. frozen in tyme still thinking potheads jump out of windows.remember this is on trump as he appointed this looser. and not to mention his seat went demotard.not that dem/repub matter, mind you, but still it happened. trump is the looser here. and he deserves to be impeached. almost as if he wants it to happen. the fucker can't even help himself. sad...

In reply to by IH8OBAMA

Jon_Locke Wed, 12/13/2017 - 13:49 Permalink

The Atlantic website has a list of all the accusations and the details of them. Most at even just a quick glance you can tell are complete BS. One lady claimed he attacked her in First Class on a flight and she did nothing, yet NOT a word , not a story, no complaints to the crew. Even something mild like being drunk on a plane by an average joe makes national headlines, and this alleged incident didn't. It's BS. I could go thru pretty much all of them and explain why they are BS or at the most inappropriate, but not illegal. Like walking back stage at the Pageants. Inappropriate? Maybe. But only if there was a clear expectation that no male NONE would be walking thru. Odds are he was not the only one that could walk thru. Gay men do not get a pass on this either.

SybilDefense mr1963 Wed, 12/13/2017 - 20:40 Permalink

What girl would have ties with both ORielly and Trump?  Hmmm. Let me guess.  Could her initial be M.K. and she's now working for MS LSD?Will soon be hard to find anybody morally worthy to lead the rest of us perfect and pure citizens.  At some point I'm sure everyone of us but Jesus has committed some inappropriate dating act as we were forced to learn thru experience the difference between when a girls says no and when a girl means "No!".  Life doesn't come with instructions.It used to be they said no and ment no.  Now they said yes but 40 yrs later they really meant No (for a fee of course)  The Libs are hoping the millenials will be presented a social faux pas and vote as persuaded accordingly.  i guess when you grow up in video game land, reality is what you are told it is.  Life lessons are to be avoided at all costs Nemo, just vote D and resist like good little guppy.

In reply to by mr1963

Consuelo Wed, 12/13/2017 - 13:55 Permalink

  Bolsheviks never stop (give 'em credit for their tenacity) They only understand (1) thing: Total, crushing Defeat.And a kick in the teeth afterwards for good measure.  

GotAFriendInBen Wed, 12/13/2017 - 13:56 Permalink

Oh My!!And I have a secret tape of someone making a secret tape of a plot to make a secret tape of a secret that was never a secret until a woman in a black dress walked by

Trogdor Wed, 12/13/2017 - 13:58 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.

el buitre Trogdor Wed, 12/13/2017 - 14:13 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

Harry Lightning el buitre Wed, 12/13/2017 - 14:54 Permalink

Nonsense. You must not work for one of the big American or British companies. If you did you would see that even suggestive conversation among employees of equal position gets the man in hot water with the HR department just because the woman was offended with what the guy said. It can be something as innocuous as complimenting a woman for how she looks in a dress. Any communication not directly related to work is grounds for referral to human resources. When the time comes that the company downsizes, guess which employees get let go first. The ones with any thng bad on their HR file, liike complaints about harassment. Its totally ridiculous but it happens because companies do not want to pay the legal bills from harassment lawsuits. Even if they win every case, they still have to pay lawyers to defend them, and that's a huge expense for a big company with 5000 or more employees.So their solution is to say fuck it, no communication other than business-related, and fire anyone who is most likely to cause you a problem down the line. All because some woman did not like what some guy said to them. Eventually this is going to get really bad and violent, because you can't ruin a guy's life over something he said and expect him to just sit back and accept it. Similar to what happened in the postal industry, you will start seeing guys accused of harassment take revenge. When 20 or 30 women wind up dead all at the hands of the men they acused, then you will hear calls to investigate why this is happening, and eventually society will realize what it has done. But a lot of people are going to die before some degree of sanity is brought to the issue, where fairness is established in the process.My feeling is that the best way to establish fairness is to set a policy that says unless their is clear and undeniable proof that a man intentionally tried to sexually harass or attack a woman, then in cases where there is a complaint, both the accuser and accused are fired. This would significantly reduce the ridiculous claims of snowflake women whose skin is not thick enough to work in a workplace. It also will eliminate most of the revenge claims of harassment as well as those where the woman sees a way to a promotion if she can get rid of the man in the position she wants. Society cannot allow injustice to occur and not expect a backlash. That backlash is coming and its not going to be pretty. Men have been shit on in every possible way in American society. Its starts when they pour ritalin or adderall down the throat of all these young boys because the boys were being what they are - boys - and their fucking cunt elementary school teachers don't want to do their jobs and teach the boys discipline. Then they grow up and get married and half the marriages fail - leaving nearly half the men in America having to pay alimony regardless of whose fault the marital dissolution was or their relative degree of fault. Now men have to be concerned that their careers can be destroyed by unsubstantiated claims that they were offensive in a country that prides itself on its freedom of speech. Small businesses have an easy solution : don't hire women. The government could never investigate all the small businesses in America for discrimination, so the chances of being caught are insignificant. And if there are fifty ways to leave a lover, there are 500 ways not to hire a woman. The time has come for men to be men again.  

In reply to by el buitre

RovingGrokster Harry Lightning Wed, 12/13/2017 - 16:36 Permalink

Around 20 years ago, when PC was relatively new, a woman in a California workplace joked that there was “not enough sexual harassment around here”

Fast forward to the present, and I accidentally displayed a cartoon/photoshop of Hillary, which was not flattering, and had the word “Slime” emblazoned across it. Turns out that a young engineer, who I thought I got along with well enough as “he” and appeared to still be OK while “transitioning,” felt compelled to run crying to HR, because the word “slime” is somehow offensive to trannies, and I *must* have been denigrating him/it/her regardless Hillary being the obvious butt of the joke.

Humor and flirtation are dead in he workplace.
Hiring of lawsuit prone “types” is down, because managers of any gender are risk-averse.

Anybody remember Gloria All-Red’s accusers of Herman Cain? One of them was such a workplace hazard that managers would only meet with her in pairs for their own safety.

Let us concentrate of real abuse by persons in power, and check our excessive sensitivities at the door of the workplace.

In reply to by Harry Lightning

SummerSausage el buitre Wed, 12/13/2017 - 16:58 Permalink

Oh, yes they are.  I'm not a Glenn Thrush fan and am happy to see him being crushed by the political correctness that he uses as a blunt instrument on people who disagree with him but that's EXACTLY why is was suspended - at a bar, drinking and he made a pass at another reporter.In a saner time, they both would have been admonished and that would have been that.  Now it's a cause for suspension and investigation.

In reply to by el buitre

Harry Lightning CHIIEFHANGMAN Wed, 12/13/2017 - 15:16 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 Wed, 12/13/2017 - 23:59 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

Harry Lightning giggler321 Wed, 12/13/2017 - 15:23 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