Wiehl: “Rooting” Lindsay?

From Lindsay Lohan’s “Freaky Friday” to Lis Wiehl‘s “Hump Day”? After reading Fox News legal analyst Wiehl’s “Just Go to Jail, Lindsay,” the author was still not sure what the sexy former prosecutor had in mind for the wayward waif. After Wiehl encouraged the troubled starlet to take the high road, serve her time, and be an example to her young female following, she exhorted Lindsay to do it for herself. Subsequently, sounding like one of Lindsay’s possible reality-series-bad-girl cellmates, Wiehl concludes, “And we’ll all be rooting you.”

Copy edit error or artistic license by the racy New York Times best-selling novelist?  Rather, Lis Wiehl: Lindsay Lohan cheerleader or cellmate? Either way, Lis, it might make for a “mean” book.

Lis Wiehl: Body in Evidence

Pole dancing liability? Lis Wiehl, Fox News legal analyst and author of the Face of Betrayal, brought the body and spirit of seduction to her segment on the Fox & Friends Weekend show this morning. Clad in her sharp black stilettos and super short sloe-hued dress, the former prosecutor WAS taking prisoners, including the co-anchor Dave Briggs and her F&W audience.

When Dave introduced the case of an injured pole dance exercise student against her NY gym to Lis and criminal defense attorney, Mercedes Colwin to  debate, Lis saucily coquetted, “Are you [Dave] going to do some pole dancing for us?” Seemingly smitten with the leggy legal eagle, Dave responded, “I will do that in the commercial break.” To his viewers, he said, “That is not for your eyes.”

When Lis alluringly cocked her crossed left leg high, Dave asked, “So she [the student] is upside down on this pole when she injured her shoulders, does she have a legal leg to stand on?” Lis asserted that she indeed did. Then, she explained that one taking a pole dancing class is doing it for the “cute guy” spotter (who did not do his job and, thus, the gym was liable). Interjecting, Mercedes jested, “Sounds like she’s got a lot of experience in this, Dave. An abashed Lis laughed, “I’m not saying.” Dave flirted, “Again, at the commercial break!” Lis smiled, “Exactly.”

After Mercedes had countered that the student had probably signed a waiver and assumed the risk (by wrapping her “legs around a slippery pole” and that she was assuredly “going to go down” if the spotter was not there), a grinning Dave concluded, “So much innuendo! I’m staying away from it all.” A lusty Lis did not. She temptingly teased, “Stay through the commercials [for] the pole dances.”

Whether a body of evidence or a body in evidence, Lis excels at them both.

O’Reilly: “Cu* Activity”?

Did Bill O’Reilly really just say THAT about Jennifer Lopez’ “sex tape“? I.e., the “c” word that rhymes with “sum.” Listening to the O’Reilly Factor tonight, the author could not believe what he apparently heard–even after listening to it repeatedly on DVR.

During the “Is It Legal” segment (with his legal lovelies, Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle), O’Reilly asked about the wisdom of Jennifer Lopez’ suing her ex-hubby Ojani Noa over their honeymoon romp video.  He seemingly said, “Jennifer Lopez’ first husband [is] trying to make money off of her. He’s got some tape showing cu* activity that Jennifer doesn’t want out there. Jennifer’s suing the guy for $10,000,000: Is that a smart play?” [Italics added for emphasis.]

Please say that it is not so. However, reader, listen carefully for yourself. The apparent Freudian slip occurred at @ 8:44 p.m. ET. Yikes!

Megyn Spanks O’Reilly

America’s Newsroom co-host Megyn Kelly smacked down cable news king Bill O’Reilly on the O’Reilly Factor last night. He even seemed to like it!

In a segment on the holiday-display-in-the-Washington-capitol controversy, O’Reilly opined that WA guv Christine Gregoire was violating her own “freedom of speech” ruling by ending any further signs. Megyn riantly replied, “I’ve never met a non-lawyer who argues the law so confidently albeit so wrongly.” When O’Reilly posited that Gregoire could have “rejected the atheistic sign because it violated decorum,” Megyn emphatically asserted, “You’re wrong. You are so wrong on that. You don’t get it. It would be same as rejecting a Jewish menorah.” When O’Reilly persisted, she sarcastically asked, “Because you say so? No. You’re wrong. You are wrong.” When O’Reilly appealed to Lis Wiehl’s siding with him, Megyn retorted, “Lis doesn’t know the background of the case: Liz gave you a one-line answer that you liked without the analysis behind it.”

A passionate, confident Megyn gave O’Reilly no quarter. Is FNC readying its fastest rising star for prime time? Better watch out, Greta!

*8:20 p.m. ET

Megyn Kelly: “Fu**”?

Megyn, did you say that? During a legal segment on Gina Salamino, a hot-for-student teacher suing her school district for firing her for her relationship, Megyn seemed to forget she was on air on America’s Newsroom. In the heat of the debate, Megyn pointed out that the student Joshua Walter (now an international model) did not attend school the year in question and apparently asked, “So does she have a legitimate defense? And if he wasn’t a student, they could fuc(*), * they had no right to fire her. Being the consummate pro, Megyn seemed to recover well with the elision of the “k” and the smooth transition to the alternate assertion.

Perhaps, Megyn was a bit overly enamored with the Hugo Boss and H & M model. At the end of the story, Megyn asked, “Can we just see that picture one more time…of the two of them? She added, “Look how happy she is! He is one very good looking seventeen year old.” One of the discussion participants Lis Wiehl cautioned, “That’s not a defense, Megyn.”

* 10:37 a.m. ET