Skip to comments.KEY- Sharon claims that Herman Cain upgraded her room at the Hilton 14 years ago?
Posted on 11/08/2011 3:04:15 PM PST by dictatorMA
Why isn't someone tracking down Sharon's claim that Herman Cain upgraded her room at the Hilton 14 years ago???? Seems to me that if they can de-bunk that claim by her, he is home free as her story will completely crumble.
The double standard our people face is unbelievable and highly depressing.
My guess is that records are not kept for 14 years.
I’ll bet you that they are completely unverifiable. No telling of the IRS/HSA/FBI can burrow back to 2001, but otherwise who cares?
I don’t think it’s possible to call up a hotel and pay them to upgrade someone else’s room that you didn’t pay for to begin with.
I suspect she was upgraded or she would not have mentioned such a otherwise meaningless factoid. If he did upgrade her room, he probably had some staff person do it - something not at all uncommon, especially where large organizations have special deals with hotels. We use to do that frequently when we had out-of-town visitors with a Company I ran, and I myself have had my reservations upgraded after the fact by businesses with similar special rate deals with hotels without me ever asking them to do it.
It would certainly surprise me if you could, since you’d be committing someone else’s credit card. I’m sure Bialek called the Hilton before she came forward to make sure that her story couldn’t be “verified” by the Hilton.
CNN busted her on this today. She contradicted the story by saying that Cain asked her where she was staying.
She claims this high level of moral authority, yet, her finances and her life are a mess. She needs to shut her stupid piehole.
It’s the key question, and I can’t believe the press didn’t ask it. Are they even looking? One is that I know of: Geraghty at NRO has called the Hilton, but has no answer, at least not yet. The press conference was a FAIL all around. The press and the candidate were both retailing generalities. Specifics like the hotel have to be addressed, and either proven or disproven.
He upgraded her hotel room, wined her and dined her and wined her some more at the hotel, then goes for the Lewinski in the front seat of the car. Yeah, that adds up.
I said this exact same thing to my husband and son. it would be interesting to find out if Gloria had already contacted them to find out if they keep records back that far
Upgrading her room proves nothing... whether he did or didn’t.
From my experience, hotels will not tell anyone what room you are in unless given permission to do so. I call bs...
That would require a random act of journalism.
There were plenty of meaningless factoids. She remembers what she was wearing but can’t remember the exact date. And show me a CEO who will (out of the blue) have dinner with an employee who was fired (with just cause, I might add). This busy man, without her making an appointment...if she did it wasn’t through his Administrative Assistant...would somehow make contact with this person. How did she contact him? How likely is it she had his private number? Why the heck would she go to the CEO to get a job back (who wouldn’t be responsible for a low level hires). Anyway, she checks into her room. Did she make contact with him? How? Did she call the NRA? Because I don’t know a CEO who answers his own phone, do you? The point of an AA is to screen him from frivolous things like this. And even if she had contacted him ahead of time wouldn’t he take the time to look at her file? Seriously there are way too many holes here.
Oh, and if I was going to have a little tryst with some trashy little skank, I wouldn’t ask her to service me in a car. I’m going back to the cushy room. There is absolutely no logic to this woman’s story. Did she find this plot in a porn movie or something?
I doubt records exist or they’d have them, but I don’t see how this is relevant, other than in a very circumstantial sense. Even if he upgraded her room that doesn’t prove he groped her as she claims - the two acts are totally independent.
Hubby was thinking that Herman Cain missed a great opportunity in his press conference this afternoon. When asked about the veracity of his accusers, hubby said that Herman should ask the members of the MSM who were asking the questions, why THEY’RE not doing some investigation of these charges, to discover their veracity, since they clearly don’t trust Cain’s denials.
Excellent analysis. You can always tell a liar by the way they embellish, and by how they give an over-detailed account.
This part was hilarious: “He reached for my genitals.” ROFL! Without the aid of a table with stirrups?
All true, Cindie, but I still think that critical analysis of the likelihood of her statement won’t be nearly as effective as disproving the hotel claim or some such thing. At this point, someone has to *demonstrate* that she’s lying, not just argue that it’s likely. I know that the burden shouldn’t have to be on Cain, but this is politics and that really is what someone needs to do. The press won’t dig (except for Geraghty at NRO), because they want Cain gone. So they spin and spin (the lazy bums). At the end of the day, Cain doesn’t get off without contrary proof. I hate it, but that’s what he needs.
It is possible because I’ve taken care of things like this for clients under special circumstance. However, you have to provide credit documentation and complete specific forms to do it. If Cain did this himself, he would have had to have provided copies of a credit card, ID, and a signature authorization to make it happen. If the records still exist, it could be easily verified.
I don’t believe someone in his position would ever do something like that or even know how to do it.
If this woman was fired for falsely accusing someone of sexual harrassment and Cain took her to dinner, he’s got lousy judgement.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.