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 ...
“Trillions of dollars...for what?”
To use the MSM’s favorite phrase, “It is a quagmire and should be exited!”
I thought in this country you’re innocent until proven guilty.
No one should be asked to prove a negative. Its impossible.
Its like the Salem withcraft trials all over again, only through the media.
There is no proof Cain did anything wrong. And in civil cases, where you do have to settle, you settle without admitting guilt.
This is not like a criminal conviction.
“Serious charges and it appears wide spread.”
This is absolute BS.
“Cain will never get my vote unless he could prove he is innocent.”
Do you agree with that sentiment for all other citizens? Sounds rather similar to show trials, improsining political dissidents, etc......You sure you want to take that stand?
You are so correct and so what. Obama scandals are far more serious than Cain going thru a mid life crisis if that even happened.
I am still voting and supporting Cain
When I say experience counts, I mean in real life, not in some sense of having it on your resume like a list of jobs performed.
Experience counts because it provides you with memories and behaviors that you can draw on in a crisis.
Obama didn’t need experience because he faced no crises in his campaign of 2008. With the leg-tingling media 100% on his side, and with John McCain criss-crossing the country telling everyone what a great American Obama is, Obama cruised to victory without lifting a finger.
No Republican or conservative can ever expect those conditions to prevail.
For non-Democrats, experience counts.
That does NOT mean I think that Cain will lose. What I do mean is that Cain should be aware of his limitations and work harder to overcome them. So far, I fear he is not doing that.
It’s almost like he’s expecting the Obama treatment and surprised that he’s not getting it.
That’s gotta change.
Only if the other party to the agreement--the NRA--decides to sue her in court. There is no law being broken; the police aren't going to show up at her door and arrest her.
As someone pointed out, the current head of the NRA is a former AARP executive. Odds are they aren't going to lift a finger to help Cain--no release of the actual info in the files, and no suits against anyone for breaking the confidentiality agreement.
No DA would even file those charges.
Last I heard, sex harrassment isn’t a felony.
Oh - Bill Clinton is a felon but because he tried to suborn perjury and obstruction of justice and not because he gave Monica Lewinsky BJs.
People seem to forget that critical distinction.
For the time being, it's time to back off CAIN and see where he takes this. Oh so much Drama, and we have so far to go yet.
“He didn’t behave appropriatly. That is why he paid out hush money.”
You’ve obviously never worked in the private sector at any large corporation. I’d also wager that you believe that “the customer is always right.”
“Settlements were involved. The guy at the radio station a staunch conservative said he acted wrong with the women there.”
No. There were no “settlements”. Cain has said explicitly that it was a severance.
As for that “radio station” guy. Do you even KNOW the horror of what Cain said? Wait for it....it’s horrible!
He actually asked a woman “Darling, do you mind doctoring my tea for me?”
I’m so sick of the lies and innuendos going on. People really need to stop with the lies!
No need to mention who you are for, and don't. Leave them guessing, and embarrass themselves.
As for me, I am still watching the games.
I'm a Cain supporter who is sitting back hoping that (a) detailed facts come out; (b) they clearly show Cain did nothing improper; and (c) they simultaneously create additional sympathetic support for him, rabid distrust for media with an agenda, and the political death sentence for one or both of Romeny and Perry.
However, I think we need to be careful about two things.
The first is pointing out that "these were severance packages, not settlements." Of course they were. Unless an EEOC claim was filed, the provisions of the settlement agreement will invariably state that the parties paying money denies any wrongdoing and will describe the payment as a severance package. Describing it as a settlement payment is an acknowledgment that there was a claim of some validity - you don't pay a claim and then argue you did it for the nuisance value. The parties will waive any claims they may have against each other. But the payment will be described in the agreement as a severance package if the party who received it left the NRA.
Second, I've read repeatedly that reported payments of $35K, $45K, and $85K are clear evidence that the claims had no validity. Cain was President of the National Restaurant Association from 1996 to 1999. I've searched for the average settlement amount of a sexual harassment claim during that period. The best I've been able to find is a reference to the 1998 book, Sexual Harassment Claims Step By Step, by Dale Callendar. According to section, "Settlements: Why Should I Settle"?, "It can be difficult to prove a sexual harassment case. The EEOC made "no reasonable cause" findings in almost 40 percent of the cases that it decided."
Remember that harassment claims range from the "the guy next to me has a photo of his wife in a bikini on his desk," to "my co-worker keeps grabbing my breasts and the supervisor won't discipline him," to "my boss demoted me because I wouldn't have sex with him and promoted his mistress." It sounds as if, even during the height of sexual harassment witch trials, almost half of all claims were being rejected by the ultra-liberal, 'we have an agenda', EEOC. Unless the NRA was simply trying to avoid headlines and publicity, I'd like to think that merely indicating to a female subordinate how tall your wife was by using a hand gesture would easily fall into that 40%. Lawsuits and EEOC claims are different things, but EEOC findings frequently, if not generally, precede lawsuits. A 'hand gesture of height" harassment claim? The NRA probably wouldn't have paid to make it go away.
Also, as the book states:
"You often read in the newspapers about large settlements received by victims of discrimination. In fact, the EEOC recently settled the class action sexual harassment claim of seventeen women, who together were awarded $1.3 million. A brokerage firm settled the sexual harassment claims of six women for $750,000. The Army settled a civilian's harassment claim for $60,000. But the average settlement is actually much smaller. One study found that the average settlement in a discrimination case is $38,500."
So there were large settlements - in excess of $100,000. But the average settlement was only $38,500. When you consider that some settlements were in excess of $100,000, and others were certainly in excess of $38,500 (in Cain's case, we have a $45K settlement and potentially a $85K settlement), that means that there were settlements during the era of the claims against Cain for under $38,500. And if physical groping, quid-pro-quo sex, repeated harassment, and similar claims settled for more than "this is how tall my wife is" claims, thenthe NRA settlements of the claims against Cain for $35K, $45K and (possibly) $85K start to sound . . . disproportional.
As an attorney (we all make poor decisions in our youth), and based an average settlement reported in a 1998 book of $38,5000, I'm not willing to announce as fact "only $45K? That proves it was a nuisance settlement.
Of course, I've searched for a copy of the book itself, and I don't know the date of the study.
But I believe stating that a $35K settlement, as a matter of fact, proves there was no merit to a 1996-1998 claim, is a reckless as Politico's suggestion that Cain did something wrong simply because a charge was made.
It is supposed to be but never has been, especially when it comes to public opinion.
Hell even in court. Try the no defense tactic and see how far that gets you.
Innocent until guilty sounds good but in reality it isn't true...I wish it were.
BINGO!!!!!!
Gunwalking and media is focused on this. YUK
Government suing states. and media is focused on this
I love Cain.
Melissa
I love you Mr. Cain
It was a pretty safe bets. The Romneybots are few-and-far-between around here. Most all the anti-Cain posts come from Perrybots these days. The Perrywinkles being the most frequent and vociferous.
It seems the people closest to Cain dislike him the most.
And just as it didn’t hurt Obama with women about him running around on his wife. Probably helped him. It will not hurt Cain with women.
Also if the people there did not like the words Cain spoke, that is enough for me. The guy seems to have a problem and I don’t wany a sleaze in the White House. America deserves better. Cain evidently isn’t smart enough to conduct himself in public. The things being said that he did are not smart. America can find a competent candidate who doesn’t have a self control problem.
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.