Posted on 11/07/2011 1:43:38 PM PST by justsaynomore
by Political Arena Editor Chuck Norton
When Sharon Bialek said that he was with Herman Cain at the Chicago TEA Party event with Herman Cain I reached out to one of the key voices and leaders of the Chicago TEA Party C. Steven Tucker and he says “I did not recognize her Chuck and I was there all weekend.”
I have been reaching out to my other friends in the Chicago TEA Party and so far no one recognizes her. Gloria Allred portrayed Bialek as a TEA Party Republican. Having seen her picture Bialek is not someone who goes unnoticed easily.
Tucker comments further:
I have spoken at Tea Party events ALL OVER Chicagoland including TeaCon Midwest 2011 where Gloria Allred says her client “confronted” Herman Cain. I have never seen nor have I ever even heard of a Sharon Bialek.
Steven Tucker with Herman Cain Steven Tucker with Herman Cain
Steven Tucker with Michelle Bachman Steven Tucker with Michelle Bachman
Steven Tucker with Sarah Palin Steven Tucker with Sarah Palin
Bailek has not been seen at any other TEA Party events. Even if she had gone to just one, why go to the one with Herman Cain and no others? It makes no sense.
Sharon Blailek said that this happened in 1996 so where was Blailek when Herman Cain was running for Senate in 2004?
We have been doing internet searches on Sharon Bialek. Her linkedin and all social networking/employer networking sites where her name appears seem to have been scrubbed. When you are telling the truth, why make the attempt to scrub your past?
Speaking of not making sense, why would a supposed Republican TEA Party activist/sympathizer call a known leftist hatchet man like Gloria Allred, as any association with Allred would impune her credibility?
“Do you honestly think if this happened the way she says it happened, she would have told only 3 people that he harassed her and not speak of the sordid details?”
If this was factual, she would have started telling friends and neighbors that, “that SOB tried to get into my pants some years back, the dirty bastard”!
I did not make such a comparison - the molestation example proves my point quite nicely, but there is no comparison being made.
The “innocent until proven guilty” standard applies to the Government, not to private citizens. Citizens are free to think and say whatever they wish to about those who are accused. We do this when, for example, we won’t let our children be near accused child molesters. We all know that the allegation might be false, but the risk is too great. Even if the person is acquitted at trial we would most likely be wise not let our children go near him.
I have a little trouble taking anything from CBS seriously after the TANG forgeries with Mary Mapes and their attempt to set up their own fake “secret prison” using that fraudulent “soldier” Jack Idema in Afghanistan. He and his assistants are serving time over that.
I'm sure the MSM is looking into all that now!!!!!.....S/(eye roll)
If the the matter is CRIMINAL then the standard the GOVERNMENT must use is “innocent until proven guilty”, but even then, when there is enough credible evidence the accused is detained in jail prior to the verdict. Citizens are free to treat the person as if they are guilty, but need to be careful about defamation.
If the matter is not criminal, then “guilt” is not even at issue so that standard should not be mentioned.
Unfortunately, people like make the error frequently, as you did. Why are you so defensive? You are wrong and I pointed it out to you. You should be thanking me and apologizing for your mistake.
It’s not evil to consider that possibility. There’s an even chance she offered a Lewinski in the hopes of landing a job. It’s also possible some organization may even have paid her to set up a honey trap; after all the Soviets used to do it all the time and even recently the Russians were doing it by trying to get in with Hillary Clinton. I think the Muslim sisterhood bat them to it, though.
Why not? We have big corporations backing OWS protesters and providing them with facilities and space, why not fund hookers too?
you really have reading comprehension problem
The problem is that you seem to be buying this dirty political trick.
If you read the post carefully, you would have noticed that I did not compare acts to acts, but expectations to expectations. Nor did I say that the retired defensive coordinator was guilty; I said he was charged.
You might want to refer to the Breitbart link I mentioned above. Breitbart claims a solid source who confirms that the woman was at the event. Even if that source is correct, we still don’t know that anything untoward happened between her and Cain. If you want to condemn Breitbart, go ahead. I was simply linking to a source that provides pertinent information.
I for one am condemning no one, neither the defensive coordinator nor Breitbart. I merely passed on that the former was charged with a crime and that latter reported a source.
In light of the inherent unpredictability of recent events, you might want to temper your confident assurances about how things just HAVE to turn out.
Nice grammar.
How do you come to that conclusion? You must not have read what I wrote.
It is better we find out what is the truth now then during the general election. As it is, even though the women are shaky, there is something not right about Cain. I have always had my doubts about all of his behavior after all this started. He has been lying/backtracking since day one, from what I can tell.
“there is something not right about Cain”
Care to elaborate?
Plenty of people have come forward to testify to Cain’s character.
Joseph Fassler
National Restaurant Association chairman during Cain’s tenure: ‘It’s a hatchet job’http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/03/national-restaurant-association-chairman-during-cain%e2%80%99s-tenure-its-a-hatchet-job/#ixzz1cgsqrOLy
Sibby Wolfson
Cain’s Former Secretary: This Is Not the Herman Cain I Know
http://www.cainblog.com/2011/cains-former-secretary-this-is-not-the-herman-cain-i-know/
Karol Markowicz (2004 Campaign Staffer)
Why this guy’s no sexual harasser
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/why_this_guy_no_sexual_harasser_0ByzbPJgotwpzSAPZVu2bO
So far, almost NOBODY on FR is blithely assuming she is innocent.
Except some Perrywinkles.
Cheers!
I mailed T-bags to Congressmen long before 2009, but there was NO T-Party then. It was in response to feedback from talk radio programs.
“Troll” doesn’t cut it.
I am a big Cain supporter and a FReeper for 11 years.
These “allegations” are ancient incidents and can’t be prosecuted, so “innocent until proven guilty” has no place in the discussion.
Yeah? Well at least I have a cell phone!
I don’t like how he has handled this at all. It doesn’t seem like a truthful man’s reaction. Maybe it’s just more of his not-ready-for-primetime, I don’t know. It just seems that there is a pattern with men in politics, and the vast majority have been proven to be predators of some kind, of different degrees. I have been watching these situations from afar since what, the Gary Hart affair c1984, and they generally turn out the same, especially when there are multiple women. Of course, Cain could be innocent, but his inability to get a clear message across is killing him.
From your posting history, your most recent pro-Cain post was Oct.13, and before that no pro-Cain posts which mention him by name going back as far as April 29.
You *do* appear to be a staunch Roman Catholic which is all to the good.
Cheers!
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.