Skip to comments.With No Specifics to the Accusations, Herman Cain Wins This Fight
Posted on 11/04/2011 7:40:06 PM PDT by Maelstorm
Joel Bennett, the lawyer for one of the former employees of the National Restaurant Association who accused Herman Cain of sexual harassment, spoke to Wolf Blitzer live on CNN moments ago.
Bennett said that in his legal opinion, what occurred between Cain and his client met the legal definition of sexual harassment. But despite repeated questions from Blitzer, he refused to specify what the alleged actions were, and he said his client would not be appearing to shed any further light on the matter.
When Blitzer pointed out Cains vehement, blanket denial, Bennett replied, In all my years of lawyering, Ive never seen anyone accused of sexual harassment say, I did it.
In short, Mr. Bennett is arguing, I wont say what he did, but trust me, hes guilty of wrongdoing. This is ridiculous. To Politico, the public is supposed to take this into account in their assessment of Cain but we cant even get any sense of what triggered the original complaint, and whether this was much ado about nothing or whether Cain actually did something wrong.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
And the Democrap Libtards are RACIST for going after Herman Cain the way they have been.
Saying “He’s a black man who knows his place”
I wonder just how much drinking is going on tonight at the Rove and Romney homes.
I haven’t see “The Justice Brothers” out defending this black many who has been unjustly targeted by the media!
He DOES know his place- its in the WHITE HOUSE.
If Cain actually looks like he will win the nomination, you can be sure these woman will come out of the woodwork.
Bennett said that in his legal opinion, what occurred between Cain and his client met the legal definition of sexual harassment.
How ambiguous is it possible to be? So basically, to anyone with a liberal mindset and thin-skin, this may meet the "legal definition" of sexual harassment. To the rest of us, it is a pile of steaming caca de toro. He probably said he liked her earings.
I take it this lawyer backed out of his announced press conference this afternoon?
Yep. I’ve never before seen anonymous statements be so vauge. This is a lot of second hand smoke.
It will be too late. The same trick doesn’t work twice and if they did wait and come out no one that matters would believe them. Rightfully or wrongly it would be like Bill Clinton and I am certain Herman Cain is not a Bill Clinton. That there is not real salacious specifics released means that most likely there were none. People tend to be much more open when they are anonymous than when they finally have the spot light on them.
This really has the feeling of there being no ‘there there’.
You can bet that whatever happened is so far from sexual harassment that to release it would make his accusers look like thin-skinned cry babies.
Nope they had it to say that the lady didn’t want to talk not even to release an anonymous statement through her lawyer.
Bennett replied, In all my years of lawyering, Ive never seen anyone accused of sexual harassment say, I did it.
Guess he never heard of Clinton admitting he did have sex with that woman. And he paid Paula.
They come out swinging later and NO one is going to pay attention. The 1st question will be why are you coming out now when you were offered the chance a year ago.
This story is dead.
I heard that!
Two ways to destroy a man....call him a racist.....call him a sexual harrasser. They actually tried the first and it didn’t work. So they go to number two.
That is the only explaination. If they really wanted to hurt him and take no flack they could just say whatever it was that he did that was so clearly bad. I’ve never seen allegations be this weak in this kind of situation. It’s like that Steve Deace chump from Iowa. Cain commented on how nice the ladies looked he worked with and he went all anal.
I wish that were the case, but for Republicans, the rules are different. They will trot these girls out later on in an effort to suppress the evangelical turnout.
“If Cain actually looks like he will win the nomination, you can be sure these woman will come out of the woodwork.”
Maybe so but the effect will be greatly diminished by then. In a way it will be old hat.
Yeah and I’ve never seen sexual harassment based on so little.
Always remember the first rule of power tactics:
1. “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.”
2. “Never go outside the expertise of your people. When an action or tactic is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear and retreat.... [and] the collapse of communication.
3. “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”
5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.”
6. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”
7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time....”
8. “Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.”
9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”
10. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign.”
11. “If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside... every positive has its negative.”
12. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and ‘frozen.’...
“...any target can always say, ‘Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?’ When your ‘freeze the target,’ you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments.... Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the ‘others’ come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target...’
Wow. This is really bad for Cain. Has anyone ever seen an attorney say that their client's position is correct before? (/sarcasm)
Politico REALLY showed their true colors with this folks.
They are eqivalent to the New York Times as far as I’m concerned.
Have no doubt the establishment will attack Herman Cain because they know he can defeat Obama. Romney is supose to the fall guy just like McCain in 2008.
Don’t you see how it works 8 years Dems 8 years Pubs now it’s 8 years Dems again. It’s a rigged game.
However, Cain could ruin that and this is why the esatablishment is going after him. Keep in mind too Obama won 2 of his 3 elections by getting his opponent thrown out.
So no matter WHO it is you can count the Complient Obama worshiping Media and Press will attack the Republican candidate.
Cain is on top and THAT is why he is under attack.
The wicked flee though none pursue;
but the just, like a lion, are confident.
The media is less influential than they used to be. Internet and social media has changed how people get their news. Most people I know, weigh whatever they see on TV against whatever they follow online like Daily Caller, Right Scoop. Plus, there is a rather captive audience on Facebook. They are watching streaming feeds from their friends and the truth can spread nearly as fast as the rumor!
Even if they try and trot this out again, I think it will be buried pretty fast.
The media is not as they think they are.
Bring it on!
Unless he unzipped his pants and asked her to kiss it,
or groped her against her will,
or raped her,
or was getting blow jobs during working hours from an Intern,
....wait a minute, I am thinking of the wrong president, who was re-elected because sex is a personal matter?
“Yeah and Ive never seen sexual harassment based on so little.”
Here is my theory:
It was bait. That wasn’t supposed to be the real story. Politico got a vague tip from someone who knew this about Cain’s past and threw it out there hoping to hook the bigger story. If one woman was coming forward, surely several would. They were banking on the fact that Cain had a real scandal somewhere out there that would come forward. Meanwhile they retooled this story into 90 articles... waiting for someone to come forward.
Then, when nothing was happening, and they started becoming the object of ridicule, they walked it back.
Like I said, just a theory
You are probably right. It sure doesn’t look like there was any substance too it. Cain is pretty well vetted now and all the talk about a poorly run campaign seems to be irrelevant. He has money flowing like water into the campaign now. He has been essentially exonerated to all but the partisans who really not credible. I’m just relieved this worked out. I had a sense the tide was turning and it appears that now it has.
Evangelicals care if someone is not faithful in marriage. Just look at Newt Gingrich’s diminished support after his divorce. I think the Latte-licking Stalinists in the media will try to produce someone in public who will say that Cain had an affair or will start mentioning modified coke cans, etc. I would suspect this later in the nomination process.
Guess Bennett is banking on the "little people" being wowed by his nifty sounding soundbite, when it actually signifies exactly nothing.
The question is not how many people who have been accused of sexual harassment admit to it.
The question is how many people accused of sexual harassment are NOT GUILTY.
I would imagine Bennett has seen plenty in the latter category, if he were honest.
In fact, this has pretty much inoculated Herman Cain against most, if not all, of the dirty tricks that might be tried.
From what I am hearing from people who worked with Cain for a long time, he is not the type to sexually harass women. I am taking their word over Politico’s and the accuser woman’s lawyer. Did you see the news today that she is refusing to come out and tell all? I have more faith in people on our side than the opposition. If this or any other woman does not come out in the open to detail the charges within a couple of weeks, it will be way too late later. People are not stupid. They will know what this is all about. The liberals are scared shyytless about their black voting block getting fractured perhaps for good.
I also think the response of most conservatives — some, unfortunately, played right into the Liberal playbook by cooperating with their Theater of the Absurd — has put the LSM on notice that we will scrutinize their work and we have the means to pushback if they spew garbage.
Politico is probably surprised that not only did they not put a dent in Herman Cain with their spewage, they lost a whole lot of standing, even by journolist standards.
Wow. I have even seen attorneys swear up and down that their client is indicated, can’t wait to go to trial, at which they will be vindicated and venerated. And then it’s “never mind” when they plead guilty or the case is a slamdunk against them.
Yes, I have seen this!
It's especially good to send it to people who were too young or not at a place where they were paying attention to how shamefully our Senate treated Clarence Thomas.
indicated = innocent
Innocent doesn’t rhyme with vindicated. Change it back.
I’ll let the reader choose, howaboutthat?
Indicated gives it a Cochranesque cadence, so this reader chooses the original.
True. Once. But the libs went to that well so often, the water ran out and Cain’s fundraising proves it.
Thanks to liberal stupidity, legitimate cases of SH, like racism before it, will now be ignored or treated less seriously.
They cried wolf once too often. Big win for all those women and minorities that voted lib huh? Idiots.
Maybe he's a crappy lawyer.
Must Read. The most ironclad case against Mitt Romney Its damning.
When I saw that error, I wondered how in the world I came up with “indicated” for “innocent.” But you are right: I was thinking ahead to “vindicated.”
Yes, it does have a Johnny-esque ring.
Also, it reminds me of “resist we much.”
That’s a good one. How do you come up with such creepy faces?
I noticed good old Joe Biden in that ad’s clip from the Thomas hearings.
Of course it was bait. At this point, even released from confidentiality agreements, we can’t get details of the complaint. It’s theater of the absurd.