Posted on 11/04/2011 6:45:59 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The Republican race has officially been hijacked by the Herman Cain sexual harassment controversy, and the furor shows no signs of dying down. Everyone in Washington is now trying to decide whether Cain is more like Clarence Thomas or Bill Clinton. Or maybe even Anthony Weiner.
But the media firestorm has overlooked one key fact: We still don't know what Cain actually did.
New details emerged Thursday night about the two unnamed women who Politico originally reported had accused Cain of making "sexually suggestive" remarks and "improper" gestures toward them while they were employees at the National Restaurant Association sometime in the 1990s. The new reports provide some clarity to the scandal, mostly by providing information that differentiates the two original accusers:
According to both stories, one of the women was paid a $35,000 termination settlement after Cain made "unwanted sexual advances" at an NRA event in a hotel, apparently after a night of heavy drinking. The NYT reports that Cain asked the woman to come up to his hotel room, and made repeated advances even after she declined.
Politico reports that the second woman reached a $45,000 termination agreement with the NRA to settle harassment claims against Cain. She is the same woman Cain was referring to when he recalled that employee had "falsely" accused him of sexual harassment after he "made a gesture saying" she was the same height as his wife. She is also the same woman who has requested to release an anonymous statement through the NRA that would "counter" Cain's statements, while leaving out the details of the incident.
But in the end, the new revelations raise more questions than they answer. In fact, the Cain harassment story has actually gotten more vague and confusing as new details and allegations emerge.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
You lie about my personally... you lie about me smearing Cain. Cain is no different than Palin... who I would have gone into the gates of hell with... or Bush or any other politician. He is not anointed and what has happened to him is unfair and sleazy... I didn't start it... I have defended Cain here since it broke... and he is the only person that I could easily vote for in this entirely unqualified field of candidates that we have to choose from.
This is not a court trial... the press assumes guilt because of his Conservatism... just like with Bush. Do you want Cain's numbers to go to Bush lows? How many times does one try the same failed tactics of ignoring accusations and allowing the media to control the discussion? How many times do we fall into that trap. The best Defense is Offense... George S. Patton said that... and it was true back then and it is true now.
I have stated that I do not believe these scandalous accusations... several times... but my words will not penetrate your bias. You want evidence of innocence? So do I... and Cain has already approved the release of all documents surrounding the investigations as of yesterday on Hannity... all I have done is to ask Cain to go public in a news conference demanding what he said he wanted yesterday afternoon in his Hannity interview. I want Cain to win... savvy? I do not KNOW anything... neither do you... but I have faith in Can and that he is innocent. I do not fear the release of anything. Why do you?
LLS
Thing is, this was never taken to court.
Tells me it really wasn’t worth the legal fees.
Politics has always been a down and dirty game, I think. But it’s now in the gutter and the rules have changed. And I think in this day and age, with people willing to try the lawsuit lottery, it’s a real jungle out there for men (and sometimes women) in powerful positions. I don’t know what he did, altho it doesn’t sound like he is much of a tomcat or we would have heard about it before now. I suspect most men in high positions get at the least threatened by these sorts of actions. And lots and lots of businesses and organizations, I believe, settle them if they can afford to, just to make them go away as it’s cheaper and cleaner, since for the most part they are just going to end up being he said/she said, and you will be at the mercy of a jury.
The amount of the settlement and the non-disclosure agreement mean not much. And the media and the democrats are smacking their lips in glee since it appears Cain terrifies them. He’s made some missteps in this (I think he needs some better advisors —it’s part of the problem with having a non-slick politician) but what does this really have to do with how he will handle the economy? Or whether or not he believes what he says about small government?
The problem with your post is you are using today’s standards, not the 1990’s standard. The two are very different (thanks in large part to Bill Clinton).
Take Cain’s recent radio statemtn: “Darling, would you doctor my tea?” It’s so sill that we’re rolling over laughing at the radio host that made the claim Cain said something inappropriate.
In the 1990’s, calling a woman “Darling” in a work setting was grounds for sexual harassment. And one time was all it took—it was a zero tolerance standard.
In fact, asking a woman to get you a cup of coffee, or cream and sugar for your tea was cosidered grounds for sexual harassment. Again, one time is all it took, it was a zero tolerance standard.
“Darling, would you doctor my tea?” in the 1990’s would have been grounds for TWO sexual harassment complaints. And, they both would have been taken seriously. That was the working environment in the 1990’s.
Do I know what actually happened? No, but apparently not even the Politico people know what happened. Just that something did. What I do know is:
(1) The standards for what qualified as sexual harassment in the 1990’s was incredibly low. So low that they seem comical today.
(2) Thee were two complaints that were settled for what seem to be a relativly low amount of money, given what serious sexual harassment charges normally produce money wise.
(3) All the crisicism of Cain is comming for anonymous sources.
(4) Cain’s co-workers at the time at the NRA are comming out, on the record, saying they didn’t know anything about it and it doesn’t sound like the Cain they knew.
The UK and now TX have the right idea: If you fight the plaintiff and win, the other side has to pay your legal fees. If this were adopted across the US, we’d see a lot of crap cases go away.And didn't Perry push for this law?
--signed, former Perry supporter (just sayin')
We (and I mean the general we, you may not say this) say we are tired of politics as usual, we are tired of entrenched politicians and political insiders. Then we complain that a candidate lacks the political savvy to deal with this sort of goofy issue (and that’s what it is). This is all bread and circuses. Basically the media is yanking our chains and some of us are yelping.
Care to reconsider you stupid “guilty until proven innocent” standard now
To: SeekAndFind
Cain needs to force the NRA to release ALL the investigation papers and put this story to bed or he should resign from the race... nothing else will stop the attacks... if he is innocent of these charges... he will more than likely sail to the nomination... if he is guilty... he has destroyed his own reputation... I just want the truth to become public knowledge... and the truth is the truth... NO MORE clintonian bullshit in our America!
LLS
20 posted on Friday, November 04, 2011 10:00:36 AM by LibLieSlayer (”Americans are hungry to feel once again a sense of mission and greatness.” Ronaldo Magnus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
Its just easier to settle. You get sued. You want to fight back but your lawyer, who knows these things will tell you that you’ll be dead before you ever get your name cleared. Just pay up and don’t admit to to guilt.
That’s what JimRob had to do with Righthaven. Sure - he had a good case and could have even won. But the cost of winning is just too high.
In real life, people rarely take lawsuits in front of a jury, for good reason.
That wasn’t me, it was the Jack Daniels talking.
“Cain will never get my vote unless he could prove he is innocent.
Cain will get my vote until they can prove him guilty!!”
Hear hear!!
I think his fundraising indicates that a lot of people feel that way.
Time to take our country back from the professional politicians :)
A cursory glace at his profile would prove you to be correct.
Amazing what some of his supporters will stoop too, disgusting too.
c’mon, brytlea, that’s a stretch.
You’ve seen him in the debates. It’s the reason many of us like him. He’s a quick thinking with a sharp mind.
This is not rocket science, and anyway, he’s a rocket scientist!
All I’m saying is he could have handled it better and I think he needs better campaign management and he needs to SEE that he could have handled it better... and then move forward from here.
He’s ahead in this race. I want him to stay ahead in this race. That’s all I’m saying.
“The guy is not presidential material. The gop voters are wasting good time with a guy that has too much baggage.”
Who do you think we should support? I bet I could guess, but I won’t put words into your keyboard.
What I want to know is what happens now that the woman violated the non-disclosure agreement? Is there a penalty to her for doing that?
I’m thinking that Cain is biding his time while he seeks legal council. Of course, I can’t know that, but if I were in a similar position, I’d sure want to know what the legal ramifications might be, before opening my mouth.
And the fact that he honored the non-disclosure agreement on his end, despite the possible personal consequences, speaks volumes about the way he handles agreements.
Wow, you actually posted that?
I'm definitely picking up a strange troll aroma around here.
Only if the offender is a black conservative man running for president. If he's a white former democrat governor of Arkansas, well I'd hate to tell just what he could do to you with impunity.
Thanks for the article link, but it appears to be about his health, wealth and 9-9-9 plan and not about any sexual harassment involvements.
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.