This Podcast Is... Uncalled For - The Return of the Falafel Fatwa (Mackris v. O'Reilly)

Episode Date: February 13, 2026

It's one of Mike's favorite all-time political media stories - Bill O'Reilly sexually harassing one of his producers and confusing loofahs with falafels.  Well, it resurfaced in recent years, and you better believe "We'll do it LIVE!"

Check the mic will go live Stories told their eyes and dive Topics fresh with every spin You won't guess what's coming in Every week A new surprise Mind's a way to never lives Conversations bold and free

Just press play where is a sharp Hi everybody, welcome to the podcast So A little blast from the past with all the right wingers going down with sexual harassment suits and it remind me of the the big one back in 2004 2004 the whole Epstein thing in current events at this point in time and before I actually read an article about this.

Let's define a couple of words. I'll help you out with this particular story. One of them is the word lufa. What is a lufa? Well, a lufa is a shower accessory that's commonly used for a dual purpose of cleaning and exfoliating the skin.

Lufas are named for the tropical and subtropical gourd within the cucumber family called Lufa, L-U-F-F-A. That is used as material to make the shower sponges. As the lufa plant matures, its fibers dry out, allowing the shell left over to be used as the sponging material for the exfoliation tool. their seeds are removed and the gourd is sliced and shaped. Lufas often offer benefits beyond exfoliation. They effectively spread soap around the body to cleanse as they stimulate blood circulation during use and because lufas are porous,

they are more susceptible to harboring bacteria and fungal organisms that can be harmful and cost of affections. Proper care of the lufa includes rinsing and drying the lufa after every use and soaking the lufa in a diluted solution of

bleach to clean it weekly. It is also recommended to replace a lufa every three to four weeks. Okay, so that's lufa. Now let's look up the word falafel

falafel is a deep fried ball or patty-shaped fritter of Egyptian origin that features in Middle Eastern cuisine particularly Levantine cuisines is made

of ground fava beans and a nice canty chickpeas or both and mixed with herbs and spices before frying falafel is often served in a flat bread such as a pita samoon lafah that's what confused with lufa or taboon falafel also frequently refers to a wrap sandwich that is prepared in this way the falafel balls may be topped with salads pickled vegetables and hot sauce and drizzled with tahini based sauces falafel balls may also be

eating alone as a snack or served as part of a meze tray. Falafel is a popular street food eaten throughout the Middle East. In Egypt, is often made with fava beans while in Israel, Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria. it is typically made with chickpeas or sometimes a blend of both. Now, why am I defining these two words, lufa and falafel? Because the guy I'm going to be talking about

confused the two in a shower sex fantasy. And I'm going to take the other hand with the falafel thing and I'm going to put on your pussy, but you have to do it. Yeah, yeah. So the article slate.com.

Bill O'Reilly launched a new attack on his first Fox News accuser last year in secret until we found out. So in 2004, she became Bill O'Reilly's first accuser. Nearly 20 years later, he went after her again. newly uncovered legal documents showed how the old NDA negotiated between the former Fox host and his producer still binds them both written by Molly

Homestead published October 23rd 2004 so 20 years so 20 years for this article 21 for us talk about it and likely 22

when this comes out. So of course, if you're not familiar with Bill O'Reilly, well, good for you. He is a far right-wing pundit

who has show probably the highest rated show on Fix Noinche for many, many years until he was fired for excessive sexual harassment

before fixed annoying cheated other TV case most notably a little show called

Insight Edition which is still on today but he's not hosting it anymore and there's that very famous

blooper of him saying you know fuck it we'll do it live yeah that guy

So, all the way back in 2004, Andrea Macris became the first woman to accuse Fox News host Bill O'Reilly of sexual harassment. Her story did not gain her much support. Two decades later, and long before, hashtag Me Too, the public seemed more primed to joke about O'Reilly's lasciviousness than to empathize sympathized with Macris, who was a producer on the O'Reilly Factor. The specifics of the alleged harassment didn't help either, somewhat infamously. O'Reilly imagined Rubbinger with the Falafel thing. When he had meant to say Lofa, he meant the fibrous sponge, but it came out Middle Eastern cuisine.

Critics delighted in the hypocrisy of a family values conservative cheating on his wife in such a sordid way, but did not stop to ponder what it must have been like to actually work for this guy. Her accusations came to light only because Macris and O'Reilly filed lawsuits against each other and the filings were both posted on the website, the smoking gun. Unfortunately, I don't think you be able to find it to...

It's really hard to find today. Certain details were printed verbatim from the transcripts of recordings Macris had made that became public via the lawsuits. They were both salacious and memorable in a way that lent

credibility to Macris' claims and provided fodder for comedians and bloggers like the falafel thing it says lufa thing but falafel it's just funnier in this contest but the settlements

that macris and o'Reilly eventually signed soon prohibited them both from speaking about the subject which is why it must have been such a relief

when in summer 2021 Macris seemed liberated enough by the Me Too movement to start to talk about what had happened to her. It was a few years after Harvey Weinstein's fallout. It seems that the shift in power away from abusers to accusers was no blip, at the women who took down powerful men still had the public on their side. More critically, by this point, O'Reilly had long been ousted from his job after several more women levied similar accusations in 2017. The reasons to doubt her story seemed seriously reduced.

Macris kicked off her campaign with a tell-all interview with The Daily Beast for a story titled Bill O'Reilly's accuser finally breaks her silence. A month later, the Daily Beast dropped a podcast interview with Macris, diving into the forces that protected O'Reilly and her forced NDA, that she was now willing to breach. She next made plans to go on the view. Then suddenly, when no further statement, she went quiet. and we now know why. According to previously unreported legal documents

surfaced by my colleague Josh Levin and me, O'Reilly launched a legal challenge against Macris over her going public because, as she herself said, doing so violated her original NDA. There's also the confidential arbitration that followed were unsealed this past March. That arbitration panel found that both parties were guilty of breaking their agreements.

Macris and O'Reilly each had to pay nearly $100,000 for the cost of their legal battle, with the power of the NDA reasserted over both of them. Wow. Just wow. So the end result shows the ways the system is still... regged towards the rich and powerful. In some ways, it's because of the obvious reason the legal costs were likely nothing to a rally, but based on mentions of Macris' financial strain in the filings, they were likely significant for Macris. But more interestingly, is what was revealed about the original NDA and legal agreement that Macris signed.

when she negotiated the settlements 20 years ago. A declaration publicly filed in court in 2021, Macris said that she signed the original NDA in tears and under pressure from attorneys who told her how unsympathetic she would seem to the world. Not only that, the NDA itself is a fascinating thing to consider among other oddities they required Macris

to turn over the recordings she had over O'Reilly and bound her to lie about their validity if ever confronted with them an odd element that attorneys for the National Women's

Law Center say is highly unusual we do a lot of lot of advocacy against use of NDA agreements in sexual harassment, says Jeffrey Mondino,

the senior director of the NWLC's Times Up Legal Defense Fund. I can't think of anyone that has language like this where it's telling people

to lie. So that seems like a wild thing for lawyers on both sides to be saying. It's an indication that society may have changed in regards to NDA's sexual harassment and Bill O'Reilly's reputation,

but the legal documents made before Me Too are as binding as ever. Which, oh, that's pretty fucked up, if you ask me, being contractually obligated to lie about what happens.

I don't know. It's like Kevin Dumboff Only with sexual harassment And to use another O'Reilly quote MFER break out the iced tea Andrew Macriss time at Fox Began to say her when she and her fiance

broke up This was in May 2002, close to two years into her time as an associate producer for the O'Reilly Factor. And Macris suddenly found herself in need of a raise to afford her rent. She asked a Fox executive for help and he had spoken to O'Reilly. O'Reilly, they invited Macris to dinner. If I were Miss Macris at this, this point I would have brought a friend with me to make sure everything was on the up and up. But that's just my opinion.

Maccas had traveled with O'Reilly before without an incident. But according to her original sexual harassment lawsuit at that dinner, O'Reilly suddenly began talking about his masturbation and his past sexual escapades. He urged Macrace to use a vibrator. to blow off steam. She would later tell the Daily Be safe, finish the dinner by saying, Stick with me, and you'll go far.

That's not a bill. That's not appropriate business conversation. All right. Oh, boy. According to the affidavit, given during that 2021 legal dispute, she said, O'Reilly continued the harassment. he tried to ask her and a friend for a threesome

repeatedly asked her to engage in phone sex shared sexual fantasies about her and masturbated on the phone while speaking to her how could she know that because this was before video phones were really that's common at one dinner Macross testified she warned him

and she knew he harassed other women too and he should be careful. Mr. O'Reilly vehemently responded with threats to the effect of If any woman ever breathe a word I'd make her pay so dearly that show which she'd never been born her filing said

I'll take her through the mud bring up things in her life and make her so miserable that she'll be destroyed. And besides, she wouldn't be able to afford the lawyers I can and or endure it financially as long as I can. And nobody would believe her. It'd be her word against mine and who are they going to believe? At the time these accusations became public and every time they had come up since O'Reilly has denied any wrongdoing. The problem for Macris is that this.

all allegedly happened before there was a real playbook for how to handle it. Plus, Macris loved her job, and O'Reilly was still a highly respected figure in broadcast media. I don't know about respected. Maybe on the right,

but he was certainly mocked by the mainstream. So instead of quitting or taking other more drastic action, she says she attended a sidestep as advances insisting in her legal filings that she repeatedly asked O'Reilly to stop talking about sex. O'Reilly, she alleges, ignored her.

And it continued for years, she claimed, Maccas recorded many of these calls. She claimed in her 2021 affidavit. which explains the detail in the Shire Sex fantasy. It goes from Alufamette to the falafel thing. For six months in 2004, she left for CNN, but she didn't like the workplace and returned to Fox. Until August of that year,

a rally treated Macris professionally. Then, she said, he started up again. calling her on the phone and masturbating. Well, he spoke to her. The final straw for Macris was an incident in September, in which E. Call never laid a mutual masturbation fantasy, ending with a promise that next time you'll come up to my hotel room

and will make this happen. Again, O'Reilly denies doing any of this. So once again, like every other time I asked him why he continues to do this when I only ever said no and please stop and you're my boss, she reclaimed regards to the Daily Beast. Instead, he's like, I know, but I'm going to make you play. here was my boss a man who held my career and future in his hands acknowledging

that he knew I would never consented but he didn't care after that call she hired lawyers who sent a sexual harassment complaints to Fox but before Max

could go any further. O'Reilly hit her with a lawsuit, alleging that she and her lawyer were trying to extort him out of 60 million in. Hush many. Jeez, that sounds vaguely familiar. The Nogalusion! The windbuth that cause cancer.

Yeah, that guy. This is the single most evil thing I've ever experienced, and I've seen a lot. Riley set on his show that day. Within 24 hours, she filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against O'Reilly and Fox. The information contained in these suits was ultimately published and widely consumed. But the focus was more on mockery of O'Reilly than on support for Macris. Some doubted her motives.

Others seems to question how bothered by it she had really been. in his column in the Wall Street Post, I'm sorry, the Washington Post. Richard Cohen argued that Macris either lacked common sense or was playing O'Reilly in order to get better assignments and pay. She had, he wrote, undermined her own victimhood by going to dinner with him, by going up to O'Reilly. So telling him to watch her presidential press conference by a return to Fox after a stint at CNN.

I almost pity O'Reilly, he wrote. If he did it, it's wrong, just plain wrong, but it's also wrong for a woman to be even a bit complicit and then act as if she played no role whatsoever in the oldest game known to mankind. She screamed for help a bit late in the game. Still, I'm going to interject here. No, you couldn't get away with that.

stuff today. So, the New York Post, owned by Rupert Murdoch, ran with two stories that portrayed Macris as unstable, cruel,

entitled, and sexually aggressive. Funny, her public statements seems to indicate to us the exact opposite. O'Reilly, meanwhile, had begun his own public relations, campaign,

portraying himself as a victim of a politically motivated attack by Maccress's attorney who had donated to Democrats. Were we hearing this now? Seriously. Seriously, Donnie and O'Reilly

are using the same fucking playbook. There comes a time when enough is enough, O'Reilly proclaimed on his own show the night of his lawsuit. The next day he went on live with Regis and Kelly to spell at his extortion accusations. I knew I would perhaps ruin my career, he said with the lawsuit.

If I have to go down, I'm willing to do it. Barachia, double entendre. On October 28, 2004, the news broke that O'Reilly and Macrace had settled. No details emerged, but O'Reilly's lawyers put out. statement declaring that everyone involved regretted the pain caused by the litigation

and argued that there had been no wrongdoing whatsoever by anyone. On air, O'Reilly told his audience, this brutal ordeal is now officially over and I will never speak of it again.

This matter has caused enormous pain but I had to protect my family and I did. All I can say to you is please do not believe everything you hear and read. Maybe you shouldn't be sexually harassing your employees. There, Bill. All right. Later, thanks for reporting in the New York Times.

The public would learn what had happened. O'Reilly had agreed to be. pay Macris $9 million, $3 million of which would go to her lawyers as contingency. Maccress agreed to leave Fox and both parties agreed to send a non-disclosure agreement

an NDA, binding them to not speak publicly on the topic. It seems to be a standard series of events, but in April 28, in a related legal filing, the original agreement was made public, revealing a few strange things.

For one, Macris had been required to turn over all for audio recordings, diaries, and anything else that counted as evidence to O'Reilly's lawyers to be destroyed. Macris and her lawyers had to agree that should any such evidence ever somehow emerged publicly, Macris was legally bound to lie about their validity. Here's the exact language. It is expressly agreed that should any materials become public by any means, including through third parties, after the day of this agreement, all parties will disclaim them as counterfeits or forgeries. Huh.

Uh, wow. Just, wow. Move on. Then there was the agreement by her lawyers to not provide legal help to anyone suing O'Reilly, and to instead provide legal advice to O'Reilly regarding sexual harassment matters. The easiest way to explain this is to say that it was bizarre and baffling, but as the Times noted at the time, it was considered unethical in the legal community. As Dahlia Lithwick wrote also at the time,

it's hard to read that as anything but Macriss's lawyer, changing sides and joining forces with O'Reilly, escudition of this settlement agreement. And the lawyer from Macris in 2018, looking back at her original agreement, called the arrangement profoundly unethical. Duh! Arguing that the lawyer switched left Miss Macrars virtually without legal counsel.

Macris had to agree to waive any conflict of interest claims arising from this particular agreement. Combined that agreement with the destruction of the tapes and the full silencing of Macris, only O'Reilly was allowed to relay to his millions of viewers a statement consistent

with the agreed upon public statement directed by lawyers and seems abundantly clear that O'Reilly came out of the agreement with a better public-facing resolution than Macris did.

but the strangest element was this the mediator of the 2004 element it turned out was Mark Kassavitz who is now known for representing Donny Dumbfuck but more relevantly

for this case Kassafitz would go on to represent O'Reilly against later sexual harassment claims. Jeez, Bill.

At this point, I would like to pause for a seconds so we can decompress and remind everyone of a little novel that Mr. O'Reilly wrote. It's called those who trespass a novel of television and murder. I'm not going to rate the whole thing. It just takes too long,

but I'm going to paraphrase a couple scenes. So this is a murder mystery. The murderer is a TV journalist that's based on O'Reilly. And he's been on and down by a cop who is, also based on O'Reilly. So O'Reilly, finding O'Reilly. It reads like soft corn porn, and especially the last bits.

Oh, I thought you drowned out there, snorkel man. Tommy O'Malley was naked and had attention. Drowning is not an option, unless, of course, you want me to perform a natural axe to you in this shower. as how the book ends, pretty much. So this whole lufa falafel thing in the shower, not an ice lot of the incense, clearly this dude likes fantasy about shower sex.

So let's continue with the article. So on April 1st, 2017, The Times, Emily Steele and Michael S. Schmidt published an investigation that found that five women working for Fox had entered Selmans with O'Reilly over sexual misconduct claims. The Times reported that Fox News and O'Reilly had hired a public relations firm to help him control the narrative and a private detective, Bo Diehl, who was also a Fox News, contributor to dig up dirt on Macrus. The goal was to depict her as a promiscuous woman, deeply in debt, who was trying to shake down Mr. O'Reilly, the Times reported. Macer's photographed in the article, but didn't speak about the details of the case. She instead told them about PTSD and identified struggles after being forced out of the company and out of the industry as she sees it.

O'Reilly responded to the article by going on the offensive, saying that the women who accused him of a politically, were a politiclin of extortionist. Again, where are we seeing this playbook right now? On the Today Show, speaking with Matt Lauer, who was another man later fired for sexual misconduct allegations. He had to discard the allegations as a hit, job, a political and financial hit job.

On his own podcast, he blamed smear merchants and said, My enemies who want to silence me have made my life extremely difficult. Who, Al Franken, Keith Olberman, that who we're talking about here? He told Sean Hannity they was conducting an investigation that would declare his name and exposed the whole thing. He told New York Times reporters that he could prove that it was all bullshit.

He was represented to turn to sign by Kassavitz. And Kassavitz would go on record as saying he had proof that the women's stories had been invented for political reasons. Bill O'Reilly has been subjected to a brutal campaign

of character assassination, unprecedented in post-McArthurist. America says Katzvitz in a 2017 statement. This law firm has uncovered evidence that the smear campaign is being

orchestrated by far left organizations bent on destroying Bella Riley for political and financial reasons. That evidence would be put forth shortly and it is irrefutable. If that proof was shared anywhere, it never surfaced publicly

and wasn't enough to overrule the women's Claims, oh, geez, post-McCarthurst, this sounds quite McCarthyists, to be completely honest with you. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left, no sense of decency, you in that putts, as currently run the country to the ground. Moving on. For Macris, this was galling. After she learned that other women had claimed that they had been harassed by O'Reilly had banded together to say, that he had broken the terms of their agreements by talking about them and also defamed them for what said macrus joined the suit

this effort wouldn't go anywhere the judge eventually decided that the women weren't singled out enough by o'reilly's vague complaints for it to count as defamation but to lead to the unsealing of the original settlements between O'Reilly and his accusers. When the public learned about the particularities of Macris' deal in April 2018, the Me Too movement had changed the public's perception of NDAs as well. perhaps it was that popular support that gave Macris the confidence to speak out in 2021. After her last hopes of getting a jury trial for her complaints were quashed. In July, the Daily Beast ran the interview with Macris, in which she recounted, she recounted the harassment as well as the story,

of the 2004 NDA. In her telling, she had been coerced and her lawyers had pressured her to take the money. There's no question that sharing the story of the NDA violated the terms of the NDA.

It's typically that the nature in terms of this settlement agreements including the existence of this agreement and the fact and amounts of any payments are to remain completely confidential. For the same, reasons Maccress couldn't talk to Slate for this article but during the brief moment

that she was one of the talks she told the Daily Beast that she had decided to take on the legal risk anyway that she felt it was the only way to regain power over her life to which I say bravo miss Macris bravo it's taking time to face the fact that there isn't any moving on while I am still bound to lie for Bellow.

She told the Daily Beast what more can attorneys and henchmen and the corporations continue to now do to me that they haven't already done.

Turns out they could continue to deny her even that. The day before Maccress plans to go on the view, O'Reilly's lawyers served her with a restraining order. The public

would not hear directly from Macris again. Even though Macris can't tell us what happens during this period, we know from her core filings and from her conversations with the Daily Beast that she was aware. She was,

was taking a risk of speaking about O'Reilly. If I have to pay a breach, it's less than the cost of the past 17 years, she said in a Daily Beast podcast from July 2021. I'll tell you that I welcome the risk because this is intolerable. Maccas has said the harassment, the litigation, and the aftermath. all took a toll on her mental health. In speaking to the Daily Beast, she emphasized how hard it had been to feel suddenly frozen out of the world, broadcast news media, derailed from a promising career that had been central to our identity. There's also the unselling amount of attention, her case drew.

according to the newly unsealed arbitration testimony the period right after the publication of the 2017 Times article had been particularly miserable for Macris she said she became afraid of

intruders and others who may wish to cause her harm in documents that were referenced in but not unsealed. She spoke of the returner for PTSD. It's hard to see how Macris envisioned it ending in anything but a rolling against her. The NDA specified that she could not discuss or disclose directly or indirectly by expression,

implication, or inference. Any information concerning the agreement, its terms, and its underlying. claims. But in the recent round of litigation, Macris contended that she had real reason to think she could breach the NDA. O'Reilly, she asserted, had nullified the NDA by himself speaking out against his accusers in 2017.

So let's continue. So this wasn't an argument any legal experts slate spoke with thought was particularly viable but it's possible that Macrists really believe that after all what is was it fair for that one party could share his opinions on the matter while the other party remained muzzled also the laws around NDAs have changed by this point in 2018 the New York State legislature passed a law

banning NDAs related to sexual harassment unless the victim wanted one. And clearly in this case she did not. And even in

the latter scenario and an alleged victim was to be given 21 days to consider whether to sign such an agreement with seven more days to change their mind. as Claire Macch was not given three weeks to consider the NDA and confidentiality was clearly not her preference. Mirian Clark, a labor and employment lawyer at the New York firm Ritz Clark and Ben Asher,

said it was possible to make the argument that this law could retroactively apply to old agreements. but that it was unlikely to succeed. Similarly, Clark said an attorney could try to nullify an old agreement. Under a 2023 decision from the National Labor Relations Board that related to disparagement clauses in several agreements. and according to Clark, courts should need to workouts whether the terms could affect agreements made over sexual harassment claims and involving high-salary non-union employees. There's some reason to think that in the future things could change for women like Andrew Macris, who are tied to old.

agreements drafted before these laws addressed the inherent power imbalances. Maccress's 2004 NDA almost certainly wouldn't come about today, but for now she is still bound by it. And yeah, you definitely see parallels between Bella Raleigh's behavior and that's of the current schmuck in chief. and and uh... oh by the way how those uh thirty four felony counts

uh... going there, Donnie so so uh I think we're going to close with that and of course

and of course as Olderman with uh he still does this on a countdown in his podcast form he still names worst persons in the world

every episode and I'm always reminded that he really loved to name O'Reilly as a worst person in the world and yeah here we go Bill O'Reilly. Today's

worst person Say baby put down that pipe and get my pipe up I would like you to unhook your bra and let it slide down your arms you can keep your shirt on. Off with those pants. I wish I were a lesbian.

To slate.com for the article that we just read during this episode. And always remember the O'Reilly Defense. Should he send a schmuck after you? Lomabee, Macris, Lufus. This podcast is Uncalled for is hosting, produced and edited by myself, Mike Cheneffs. Our opening music is the podcast, this podcast is an call for theme, which was made at suno.com, SUNO.com. Our closing music is Tokata and Fugue and D minor by Johann Sebastian Bach.

This particular recording was available at the Internet Archive at Archive.org. And it is in, and also credit to YouTube user Papaya 473 for the, uh, Bill O'Reilly, the Jam, various credits. We'll do it live. Fuck it. We'll do it live. And we will talk again soon. Please support the podcast and purchase our exclusive, uncalled for merchandise, t-shirts,

sweatshirts, mugs, stickers, and so much more. Go to www.comfeypress.com slash uncalled for pod. Thank you so much for listening. We will see you next time.