Statement from the National Restaurant Association

The Right Scoop ^ | Nov 4, 2011

[BagCamAddict]

The significant part to me is that the NRA has now publicly said that the woman can talk ALL SHE WANTS. And she is choosing not to.

[org.whodat]

What are their names and statements, those two numbers came from the same source as the non story. Which has the current value of a dried dog turd.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

And in reference to #51, the bikini car girls were over 21.

[MN_Mike]

The woman is choosing not to......now.

But this is the opening act. Now that she is free to talk, she is free to be published.

A win, perhaps, but I don’t trust the sleaze on the other side.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

It won’t slow down the MSM a bit because everybody “knows” that he’s guilty. If it’s proven that he didn’t do it, he crucified because he coulda’.

Funny how the MSM dummies up whenever Jesse Jackson or one of their golden children get jammed up with their extracurricular activities. Marion Barry was a wonderful guy, hookers, crack, and all.

[gov_bean_ counter]

So true. I read yesterday or today that they had been working their response with an attorney since Sunday.

One thing that was accomplished through the way they handled this was to smoke out the unfriendlies and expose some of the history of other candidates staffers. Mr. Cain is an gentleman. The other camps have been put on notice that Mr. Cain's gentleness should not be mistaken for weakness.

[OrangeHoof]

I think the NRA should release it anyway. Whoever this chick is, she opened the Pandora’s Box by claiming she would talk... Herman Cain isn’t allowed to get cold feet over this, so why should she? We’re not talking about a rape or any violence here. At worst, we’re talking about “Man behaving badly” so I think she now owes it to let the agreement be released, at the minimum, even if she doesn’t want to appear to tell her side of the story. By releasing the report, it allows Cain to tell his side.

[bcsco]

No, the significant part is that Herman Cain argued against the complaint It was the NRA that settled with the complainant; not him. He wasn’t a party to it. That’s BIG!

It justifies Herman Cain’s handling of this. Politico never told the Cain campaign any of the particulars. Thus Cain, not being a party to the settlement, had nothing to defend himself against. Those who believe he handled this wrong are just plain wrong themselves.

[bcsco]

Do you always live with a glass half full?

[Diogenesis]

Joel Bennett enjoys a good plan for future scheme with John Podesta

“Former President of National Restaurant Association has Ties to the Mitt Romney Campaign
Steven C. Anderson … took over the helm as Chief Executive Officer at the National Restaurant Association
Herman Cain's departure in 1999”

Whenever Team Romney had rumors they wanted to start about other candidates,
Jonathan Martin has been their go-to guy to get those rumors in writing in front of a national audience.

“And The Most Irresponsible Journalist Award Goes to The Politico’s Jonathan Martin!
So tell me, how do you write a “news” story about an organization paying for a speaker when you don’t even know if the organization is paying for the speaker?
Ask “journalist” Jonathan Martin. He knows all about it.
You see, Jonny wrote a piss poor story the other day about how the Iowa Family Policy Center will be paying a large speaker fee if Sarah Palin comes to Iowa to keynote the IFPC’s fall funderaiser.
The only problem is that Jonny has no sources confirming that any exorbitant fee is being charged or paid.
Jonny also got some inside info from David Kochel, who was a top aide to former (and future) presidential candidate, Mitt Romney.
Hey Dave, didn’t I just read a story about how Mitt Romney tried to buy off the Iowa Christian Alliance?
I heard you helped facilitate that little scheme. And somehow you are shocked at the thought of a well-known political figure (who very likely isn’t running for president) getting paid a speaker’s fee for (gasp) a public speaking appearance? ..
and then we’ve got Tim Albrecht quoted. He was the Iowa spokesman for Romney’s 2008 caucus campaign.”
And it always seemed like, whenever the Romney people had rumors they wanted to start about other candidates,
Jonny was their go-to guy to get those rumors in writing in front of a national audience.

---

"Who's the Palin Leaker from the McCain Campaign?
National Review Online The publication of a Vanity Fair profile of Sarah Palin
appears to have opened old wounds in the McCain campaign.
... the source of the “Diva” leak was Nicolle Wallace’s husband."

---

Who benefits most from Sanford meltdown? Californian (that's right) Mitt Romney

---

"Peeking Out From the McCain Wreckage: Mitt Romney"

"Someone's got to say it: IS MITT ROMNEY RESPONSIBLE FOR OBAMA'S VICTORY?"

"Vanity: Team Romney Sabotaged Palin and Continuing to Do So?"

"Romney Supporters Trashing Palin"

"Romney advisors sniping at Palin?"

---

[NautiNurse]

Politico should be sued for running with an unsubstantiated story.

More accurate = 90 Politico stories at this writing

[MNJohnnie]

Ah no she is not. The minute down the road she trys the 1st question will be “why did you not come forward when the Cain camp asked you to a year ago”

By refusing to come forward now, she has nuked her credibility.

[Chode]

and the RATS, take another one in the.........HA ha!!!

[MNJohnnie]

Don't bother wasting time trying to explain the basic facts of this issue to Sklar.

Sklar is a die hard Palin supporter. Sklar still thinks if they keeps screaming bile laced tirades at the existing candidates long enough Palin will magically swoop into the race and “save” us.

[PhilDragoo]

“Based upon the information currently available, we can confirm that more than a decade ago, in July 1999, Mr. Bennett’s client filed a formal internal complaint, in accordance with the Association’s existing policies prohibiting discrimination and harassment. Mr. Herman Cain disputed the allegations in the complaint. The Association and Mr. Bennett’s client subsequently entered into an agreement to resolve the matter, without any admission of liability. Mr. Cain was not a party to that agreement. The agreement contains mutual confidentiality obligations. Notwithstanding the Association’s ongoing policy of maintaining the privacy of all personnel matters, we have advised Mr. Bennett that we are willing to waive the confidentiality of this matter and permit Mr. Bennett’s client to comment. As indicated in Mr. Bennett’s statement, his client prefers not to be further involved with this matter and we will respect her decision.

Charles Laughton, Witness for the Prosecution:

"Were you lying then, are you lying now, or are you not a chronic and habitual liar!"

[MNJohnnie]

Yep A settlement to which Cain was not a party. Try actually reading the statement the NRA released

[9YearLurker]

What’s that snark about? I read the release, but I hadn’t even posted to this thread.

[BagCamAddict]

You're right. And everyone who jumped on him for “not remembering whether he was involved in a sexual harassment lawsuit or not” gets to eat crow. But they won't.

And the lawyers who told the press that Cain had seriously breached a confidentiality agreement also need to eat crow.

And the media who published that shinola without knowing the facts also need to eat crow.

And Cain's camp should sue Politico and everyone else who published that CAIN was PARTY TO an agreement or settlement or whatever else you want to call it. CAIN wasn't party to it, just the NRA and the woman.

[MNJohnnie]

The agreement was made between the NRA and the client with no admission of liability. And Cain, just as he said, wasn’t a party to the agreement.

From this story.

[EDINVA]

IIRC, Bennett was first heard of by commenting the Cain had possibly breached the confidentiality agreement, then pimped the story all week. Of course, as a non-party to the agreement, Cain was not bound by anything.

It seems to me that Bennett himself may have violated some of the DC Bar’s rules governing attorney conduct. Rather than a lawsuit, maybe a grievance should be filed there. Anyone can file such a grievance against any member of the bar, it doesn’t have to be a client or party to any litigation or situation involving that lawyer.

Whether a grievance, if filed, would be investigated or prosecuted even if there are grounds, is another story. If Bennett is ‘big’ enough in the legal community, they won’t touch it.