The only one that had an ax to grind was the woman. I doubt that any of the clerical staff in both the legal offices stashed away memories about this incident. The lawyers involved would be looking at a potential disbarment if they divulged. The woman was the only one that had a grudge to be satisfied
I don’t know that Cain said anything about the Confidentiality Agreements. AFAIK, he spoke about accusations, and said that he recused himself and let the legal and HR teams handle it.
Of course I didn’t hear every remark he made and maybe he did say something, but it seems like a trap (which he may have avoided) to accuse him of something sinister, and then turn around and say he cannot repeat, refute or acknowledging what is already printed in newspapers and mentioned on 5 news networks because he signed an agreement. He didn’t, to my knowledge, divulge any info about the settlement except to admit that there were accusations.
Anyone hear anything different?
That was the first thing I thought when Cain was pussyfooting earlier yesterday: confidential means confidential.
We don't know who disclosed the agreement to Politico, and we don't know who disclosed the name of the woman to Politico.
Now the attorney says "If an employer makes a confidential agreement, and then discloses it, there's a reasonable assumption that the employer has waived the confidentiality part of the agreement." But, the attorney says, he doesn't know if Cain signed any such agreement. Herman Cain was not the employer, the National Restaurant Association was.
But, relying on the fact that the agreement has been disclosed, the attorney now seems to feel free to talk about it on the basis that the confidentiality has already been breached.
In a transparent attempt to preempt any allegations that he himself may have been the one who disclosed the agreement to Politico, the attorney makes it a point to say that he doesn't remember the terms of the agreement. Therefore, he must have lacked the means to leak the existance of the agreement, its terms, or his client's name to anyone, right?
At this point, I'm thinking that IF Herman Cain was one of the signatores on the agreement, he may have legal recourse to a lawsuit and discovery against Politico to determine who disclosed the agreement and the woman's name to them.
I want this to be smoked out. The American electorate has a right to know who would criminally violate the legal terms of an agreement for purposes of interfering with the electoral process.
What have been the Sexual Harassment charges filed against the officers and ordinary employees of Politico?
Then the lawyer continues to tell us more about who the woman is.
This is such a non-story story. An attorney claims Cain “may have” violated the terms of an agreement but he won’t know for sure until he actually sees the agreement!
This is just plain dirty pool. You can say this about anyone. The President “may have” committed Treason, but I won’t know for sure until I see all the documents the White House has shared with and received from each foreign government.
Is he the attorney that represented her in a claim against, or about the confidentiality agreement with NRA? Seems a bit of a disconnect for him to swear by her fidelity without having a copy of the agreement or the allegations. (And usually these agreements don’t list every allegation, they are usually general releases absolving both parties from all known and unknown and consequential...)
I remember back during the Anita Hill thing, NPR was driving that story like a jackhammer every friggin day
Cain should start carrying a cigar everywhere he goes.
Fascinating that NPR can find the woman’s lawyer, who represented her in the 1990’s, when the woman’s identity isn’t known publicly. Gee, how would NPR have known where to look for her lawyer?
I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest this woman, the Ivy League grad, was in that first tide of women admitted to the Ivies with a bit of affirmative action assistance like Michelle O.
Cain fans need to realize this is not going away.