Posted on 11/02/2011 7:09:17 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Herman Cain said he was not comfortable addressing whether he wanted the woman who had accused him of sexual harassment and now wants to speak up, but is barred by a confidentiality agreement, to be allowed to speak to the media.
“I can’t answer that now because there are legal implications,” Cain told Fox News regarding the Washington Post article that the woman would like to speak. “If the restaurant association waives that [confidentiality agreement] … I just found out about this today. There are legal implications associated with that that I’m not totally familiar with yet, so I can’t give you a definitive answer on that until we consult with our legal attorneys and also talk to some others. We can’t answer that right now. It’s too soon.”
Cain said he was “absolutely” certain he had not violated his side of the confidentiality agreement because he had not named the women involved.
He admitted that he could have been “better prepared” for the media questioning that followed the allegations in light of his awareness that the story was going to come out.
In response to whether he thought his being a black conservative was related to the charges coming out, Cain said, “I believe the answer is yes, but we do not have any evidence to support it.”
Asked about his response to PBS last night when he had said he had “no recollection” if he had invited a woman up to his hotel room ever, Cain said that he had never done such a thing. “I am sure that I hadn’t done that,” he said. “Absolutely sure.”
Consider this current trial as a TEST on Herman cain's mettle to handle political pressure ( He'll be facing GREATER PRESSURE as POTUS).
If he can pass this with flying colors, this is an indicator that he will make a strong leader.
If not, well, what to say? He was never meant to lead this country...
It is un-American.
He needs to tell them STFU, I can’t say anything.
Then the NYSlimes can surely find out what happened.
If this was a settlement and he has broken an agreement by saying anything, then he’s had it.
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
The title alone is stupid enough to cause me not to read this. The media has been picking at him like a bunch of vultures. This question doesn’t even pertain to him, It is a question for the person who brought this accusation or for her lawyer. They are just dragging this out and it is making them look desperate. If you want to dig up some real dirt, how about finally vetting Obama?
Right, but I would stilll like to know who broke this story - who is behind all this distraction!
“Consider this current trial as a TEST on Herman cain’s mettle”
You are absolutely correct. So far, so good. He comes across so far as an innocent man. His innocence is the basis of his strength. If he has something to hide, he will become weak.
BTW...it appears that the 2nd woman made the claim after Cain had aleady left NRA..and he 1rst claim was settled. Sounds like the 2nd lady thought sh'e try and get a piece of the $$$.
Agree,...Payback’s gonna be a bitch for these two ladies....the equivalent of public, televised gynecological exams....anything they ever did is gonna gome out...home they enjoy it..
Mike
Agree,...Payback’s gonna be a bitch for these two ladies....the equivalent of public, televised gynecological exams....anything they ever did is gonna gome out...home they enjoy it..
She can legally break it and not have to pay back her payola?
( I guess she could and get $ reimbursement from the DNC.)
RE: What if there is truth to what they claim? What then?
That is a rhetorical question.
The women should speak and cause Cain trouble 12 years later only IF you don’t believe in the rule of law.
The confidentiality agreement was an agreement signed by the woman not to pursue any further litigation and in consideration of the termination of her employment with the Restaurant Associtaion. Mr. Cain was not a party to the agreement and has no authority over what the Restaurant Association may or may not decide on the issue. Most likely, the agreement would subject the woman to possible litigation if she violated it and from what I hear, her Attorney has not made any contact with the Association about a “release”.
You see folks if they speak without being released, and esp if Herman is not elected president:
They can be liable to pay out every penny they make on this AND in the legal action Herman will find out everyone who paid and encouraged them.
He should say the agreement is the law, the women should make their own decisions aided by their lawyers. End of story. Rule of law.
Sexual harassment is in the eye of the beholder. They felt “uncomfortable”. Whaaa, whaaa!
Just like Anita Hill was apparently the *only* person Clarence Thomas harassed.
Yeah, right.
Sexual harassers are sexual harassers. A leopard does not change his/her spots. Look at the Clintoon.
There’s no way that if Cain is indeed a sexual harasser he would have stopped at just two. In the 90’s sexual harassment claims were all the rage. It is like a slip and fall. Quick, easy money for a scammer and her shyster lawyer.
Bottom line, unless someone out and out says “date/sleep with me or you don’t get the job/raise/promotion” it shouldn’t be considered sexual harassment.
Completely agree. If Cain did ANYTHING less than than that, including propositioning a woman, telling a dirty joke, etc. he would be on much stronger ground right now if he had just spelled it out and said he was made a mistake. It would have been end of story instead of a slow bleed.
I’d like to hear what the precise allegations were by these two women. I suspect, but of course do not know, that if made known, the allegations would pale compared to what the media want to imagine they are. If the actual claims were publicized, I doubt anyone except the truly hateful, would claim that their identity needed to be revealed.
Unless the claims are that Mr. Cain touched someone in an appropriate way, or propositioned someone, or demanded sex in exchange for job benefits, the press should uniformly apologize to him— not that that would ever happen.
If, on the other hand, the allegations are more serious, then further investigation may be warranted.
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.