[Springfield Reformer]

Well, I’m glad you found satisfactory evidence the MJ accusations were untrue. I am troubled by your premise for demanding proof. Proving a negative is inherently difficult, and sometimes impossible. It’s the converse of innocent until proven guilty. Like the McGinniss book on Sarah, we can’t subject our candidates to a “guilty until proven innocent” burden of proof and expect any of them to survive. That mentality only serves one person in this race, and he’s not on our side.

[Tex-Con-Man]

My response was to the person looking for a ZOT for the poster rather than addressing the information contained in the article. At the time I hit “post” that was the only response to the article on my screen. Discount the source or the messenger all you want, but ultimately that becomes irrelevant to whether the story is true or not.

Several posters have offered proof that Cain was removed from the lawsuit, so the “proving a negative” standard does not really apply when the story claims Cain is responsible for the financial woes, but the additional information provided says otherwise. Rather than pushing for a ZOT, that's the kind of information needed to counter anti-candidate propaganda.

Anyone who believes Cain is fully vetted hasn't been paying attention to politics for very long. But any solid conservative better hope it happens during the primary rather than the general...because then it will be too late.