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 are right, let’s cave into the media hysteria.
We are being played like a cheap guitar.
If you're willing to add a zero to each number, i'd say . . . Bill Clinton?
It isn't my first time at the rodeo, so the number "two" bothers me if Cain was only at the NRA for three years. However, details are nebulous; it's difficult to separate fact, fiction, and innuendo at this point; and people are convicting and - just as surprisingly - acquitting Cain based on gut instinct.
Three accusations in a three-year period would make take a long, serious look. If we actually have three or more accusations and people begin posting "well, yeah, that was/is typical for an executive; you know how those false sexual harassment claims are," then I'll know that we've abandoned all common sense and reason.
The odds of three totally unjustified claims against Cain in his three years at NRA are about the same as the odds that Mitt Romney will keep the same position for more than thirty days in a row, or that I will feel compassionate enough to pay tuition for one of Rick Perry's illegals.
Wow, you're really something.
You have Cain tried and convicted on absolutely zero evidence, just accusations from unknown people and you cannot even tell me what it is he did. Tell me what he did that qualifies him as a groper?
He has not even been accused of groping yet you have him convicted of it? LMAO
In fact we not only have anonymous sources we have anonymous details.
Great thought process there sparky.
So tell me, are you incredibly naive, tearing Cain down to build up Perry, or a troll?
Which may be the reason no woman wants to come forward unless she can remain unidentified... If a scam paid off once and the perp got a year's salary without having to work for it, why not repeat the the procedure.
If she's ID'd, we can see if that has happened. I'm not saying we know that or that it happened, but there's some reason she MUST remain anonymous and not give enough details to ID her. Just something to consider.
An honest person doesn't have to worry about standing up for themself UNLESS they're standing up to a Democrat rapist, sexual predator, or harrasser. Speaking of which, I wonder how the Clintons are reacting to all the reminders of what they did and what they are.
Ok, that’s fair.
I accept all that. I had my say and now I’m dropping all my criticisms of Cain regarding this (which were all related to his blaming Perry, not related to the bogus original allegations).
That’s it for me. I am willing to accept and expect that the Cain Train is continuing on down the line stronger than ever.
Stand up post, kudos!
Why, yes, it would be an inappropriate request if Cain KNEW the young lady was a reporter (and had not confused her as an intern or employee of that radio station).
The point is that there is some percentage of our population that is just plain loony. In every large organization, they exist and they file frivolous lawsuits. This smells like one of those times.
BTW, who are you supporting to win the nomination? I’m holding off on guessing for now...
There are people being played like a cheap guitar, but there are also hundred of people on Free Republic who have already decided the facts on Herman Cain's innocence . . . without having any facts. Believing what Cain says at 100% face value isn't having facts, it's hearing his side of the story. Stating that a $45,000 payment is absolute evidence that there was no merit to her claims isn't fact, it's sophistry.
WE DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING.
Instead, we post hundreds of comments about how Cain did nothing inappropriate.
I want to vote for Cain. But I think we need to give it a week or so before we pass judgment one way or another (well, we can all agree that Politco is a slime rag).
What if they manufactured a scandal and nobody came?That calls for one of my favorite Monkees songs:
I would rather have an inexperienced man with integrity than a lying bastard in the White House.
Excellent observation.
Also, because men in his position are so busy, he wouldn't have given it another thought unless it was truly serious and had some merit.
Good leader will delegate/relegate these types of "nuisances" not only to the right people but to the proper "file"
“women often don’t like to discuss things like that.”
Unless it invlolves the possibility of getting that blackmail payment!
Oh, I see. Asking an intern to put sugar in your tea is not harassment; and asking a reporter to put sugar in your tea is harassment, unless you mistake her for an employee, in which case it's not harassment.
You should be a workplace sensitivity trainer. You'd be perfect.
thanks
That’s just sad.
It’s pretty weak minded to use lame anonymously sourced attacks to sway your opinion. But I suspect you’re backing another candidate and faking your “concern” anyway.
Cain’s not going anywhere. Bad publicity is still publicity. His name recognition is through the roof and this is backfiring. People are outraged over this transparent hit job and are flocking to him in droves. If there was any real evidence we’d have it. It’s like the Bush drunk driving scheme or his National Guard fakery. People can see right through this and we’re sick of it.
And we’re too smart to fall for it.
Call me naive, but I cannot even fathom just what that gesture might be.
Cain demonstrated what he did Sunday. Said same height as wife put his had out flat and then under his chin. This is what supposedly was in the “harassment” complaint.
No. Thankfully, I successfully avoided listening to that uber-RINO today. What fake conservative posture did he try on this time?
That’s it?? Good Lord, how infantile can they get?
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.