[RWRbestbyfar]

Is he guilty?

Little primer for you non-lawyers from a lawyer: there was never any criminal prosecution, so the term "guilty" would never be applicable to this case. The terminology is "liable" or "not liable" for the alleged acts of sexual harassment.

I must assume that the settlement agreement will contain a standard "by settling, nobody admits anything" clause, so history will be the only judge.

[k2blader]

Little primer for you non-lawyers from a lawyer

Er, thank you.

Regardless of the way codified law defines it, guilt or non-guilt exists in any circumstance.

I suspect the court of public opinion will peg him guilty.

[Endeavor]

Here's a brief for you, Mr. Lawyer - we don't care about your terminology. O'Reilly's guilty regardless of jargon. Nobody here is foolish enough to believe he admitted to such in his settlement. It doesn't matter, it's clear he's guilty.

[wimpycat]

Whether he's civilly liable (that's 'guilty' in everyday language) most of the time has nothing to do with why he settled. I work for a company that will settle a totally bogus claim because at some point it costs more to defend than to just pay up. It's a business decision.

I bet Fox News made him settle--defending his honor is bad for business.