Claiming that the New York Times was using “incomplete stolen or leaked documents,” Bill O’Reilly says that a recent article showing O’Reilly settled a sexual harassment suit for $32 million was a “malicious smear.”

In a piece posted on O’Reilly’s website, Mark Fabiani, a political strategist and crisis management expert, claims that the Times chose not to publish certain documents that would have cast O’Reilly in a more favorable light.

Here are the facts: after the Chairman of Fox News Roger Ailes was fired in July 2016, dozens of women accused scores of male employees of Fox News of harassment – including the current co-president of Fox News Jack Abernathy.

21st Century Fox settled almost all these cases, paying out close to $100 million dollars. Six months after Mr. Ailes left the company, Fox News Corporation signed Bill O’Reilly to a record breaking new contract after the company had analyzed and considered all allegations against him.

In its first article about Mr. O’Reilly on April 1st, The New York Times printed inaccurate settlement figures while fully understanding that O’Reilly and his counsel are legally bound by confidentiality and cannot set the record straight.

In its latest diatribe against Bill O’Reilly, the Times printed leaked information provided by anonymous sources that is out of context, false, defamatory, and obviously designed to embarrass Bill O’Reilly and to keep him from competing in the marketplace.

The Times piece in question unearthed a previously unknown sexual harassment suit against O’Reilly that was settled for a whopping $32 million. The revelation comes at a time when Hollywood is still trying stay afloat against a growing number of similar allegations against people in the movie industry, and awareness of harassment and sexual assault are at an all-time high.

That is not to say that the Times is trying to spotlight right-leaning sexual harassment and assault (although duh), and it’s not to say that O’Reilly is innocent. There was something that led O’Reilly to settle the case for $32 million, as that is way more than a sweep-it-under-the-rug sum. Of course, with there being non-disclosures apparently involved, we may never know.