Skip to comments.PJM Sources Report Details of Alleged Cain Incident
Posted on 11/03/2011 10:04:50 AM PDT by bbernard
Adding to the ongoing Herman Cain sexual harassment controversy, two sources have now confirmed to PJ Media that a female employee of the National Restaurant Association told associates she had been brought by Mr. Cain to his Crystal City, Virginia residence where she alleged he had taken advantage of me.
One source, a male, told PJ Media:
Herman took advantage of seniority and power with a young woman. It was an abuse of power.
Implying that coming forward with the accusations was an ordeal for the young woman, the source also said:
Who do you believe, a CEO or a mid-level staffer? It was unsettling for her to make charges.
The name of the woman who was in her early twenties at the time of the alleged incident has been confirmed by PJ Media. We have chosen not to reveal her identity for reasons of discretion.
Both sources, one male and one female, worked at the time mid-1990s for the governmental affairs department of the National Restaurant Association, as did the woman.
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
The female source told PJ Media that she witnessed the woman and Herman Cain break away from the large group as part of a smaller group.
Wowzer! She saw Cain and a woman leave the large group and go off by themselves -- no, wait -- go off with a smaller group.
Neither source has direct knowledge of what occurred at Mr. Cains residence, but several days after the alleged incident, the female source witnessed the woman returning to her workplace distraught. She was very upset.
Several days later she is noticed "returning to the workplace" -- from where? -- "distraught." This tells us exactly what? Even this story doesn't make a connection between the allegation of the incident and where the employee was returning from and why she was distraught. Could it be she had just learned she was being terminated for some completely unrelated reason?
Some people didnt believe [the accuser] at the time she made the allegation.
In another example of pathetic journalism, the author of this piece "forgets" to ask or forgets to tell us, the reader, what these "sources" understood the allegation to be or to whom it was made. Are they talking about an "allegation" she told them later? Are they claiming they know she made an "allegation" to HR and what exactly the woman alleged?
As I said, stupid, pathetic journalism.
Mr. Cain has steadfastly denied that he harassed any female employees at the National Restaurant Association when he was president. He originally said any allegations of his harassment of women are totally baseless and totally false.
Is this supposed to set up some kind of claim that Mr. Cain made inconsistent statements? WTH? These two statements say exactly the same thing, without nuance. Why the redundancy? Ridiculous.
CORRECTIONS: A previous version of this story mentioned that a source witnessed Cain and the woman entering a taxi together. This was incorrect.
So the only thing these "sources" know, allegedly, is that this woman told them she went in a taxi with Cain.
Just wondering: do they have direct knowledge of this woman's state of mind at the time she claimed all this happened?
(Actually, we don't know IF or WHAT the woman claimed. All we have in this story is the recollection of two people who claim the woman made a claim and who claim they know what she claimed.)
The previous version also mentioned that the woman awoke in Cains bed the source only claimed that the woman awoke in Cains apartment.
One thing that hasn't been said about this correction is this: hey people thinking about piping up -- please be aware that YOU will be misquoted and misttributed and misrepresented and it won't always be as easy to walk back as it may have been here. Then the next thing you know, YOU will be defending yourself from a media smear. Watch what you sign up, is my advice.
There’s no direct evidence in this piece that this woman actually made a complaint, or that it was investigated, or that she was terminated over it.
All that’s in this story is that these people claim the woman told them (or others and they heard about it) about an incident. And that some people didn’t believe her.
We have no information on which to conclude that she actually made a formal complaint based on that allegation. The article doesn’t directly say she did, and it mentions something like it would have been an ordeal for her to do so and “who would be believed, a CEO or mid-level staffer?”
So, if anything, there’s some indication that the woman in fact never made a formal complaint, she just jawboned about the alleged incident to her co-workers.
Then, the author tells us, that, out of the blue, several days later, the woman is seen “returning to the workplace” — from where? — I guess we have to assume for the moment (since this “journalist” did such a crap job) that she was returning from a meeting with her supervisor or HR. They said she was distraught.
Nothing in this crap article even begins to try to connect that with the allegation she made, so far as we know, only to her co-workers, much less with her having filed a formal complaint (which, again, is never mentioned in the article).
For all this article tells us, she could have been called in to HR and given a pink slip for some completely unrelated reason. After which of course she would be distraught.
And, if she thought she had any legal grounds for overturning her termination — (sounds to me if you try to legally fight your termination, it is not voluntary, it is “for cause,” which is not good at all) — she’d look into that, as would her parents, who would understand the impact on her employment history of being terminated for cause.
Look. When, out of the blue, you come back from HR “distraught” and then you are gone shortly thereafter — um, isn’t it more likely that what happened was that you got FIRED rather than that you made a sexual harassment complaint, it was investigated and found unsubstantiated (in less than a week), and thereafter you took a VOLUNTARY settlement (rather than taking your case to court)?
The previous woman had expressed to co-workers that she was very unhappy at the NRA. She would not have come back crying from HR when she was offered a shut-up and get-out termination with the usual one year’s severance pay.
Bottom line: there’s zero evidence here that the woman ratted out in this story even ever made a formal complaint or took a voluntary termination.
Rather, if one wanted to go on innuendo, it would be more likely that she just got fired for some reason and, while she considered fighting it, ultimately she didn’t have a case or otherwise decided not to.
BTW, Politico also buried in one of its stories (need to find the link) that the HR director at the time was recently interviewed and she said she was unfamiliar with ANY complaints having been filed against Herman Cain. That shows you just how inconsequential it was!
Also the fact that lawyer phoned it in and never even went to the office or met with the women who did file a complaint — he couldn’t even remember who the complaint had been made against. Again, business-as-usual.
Here’s the link I mentioned in my last post, where the HR director at the time says she wasn’t aware of any complaints having been filed against Herman Cain:
And I`m sure by now you`ve seen “in his bed” does not exist.
—But I expect better than BJ Clinton for a Republican.—
That remark puzzles me for two reasons: First, Clinton is running and, second, nothing like what Clinton did has even been alleged here, much less, confirmed.
The rush to judgement here is pitiful.
—Dont forget Curt Anderson - the other named person - whose denial has been accepted by Mark Block.—
My understanding is that Block’s heat is off Anderson, but not off the Perry campaign.
—LOL You mean lying, changing stories, blaming everyone else and snapping at the media for asking questions?—
Huh? What lying? And when you mean changing stories, what exactly did he change and in what timeline? You say blaming everyone else, what everyone else. Who is “everyone”.
And I really liked the way he snapped at the media. He kept them focused on the event.
Sanctimonious self righteousness is a sure way to lose a political race
Can’t believe you’re doing the ‘blame the woman’ thing.
So you think Herman had sex with a staffer?
And you think it’s okay because it was consensual?
Weird way to support your guy.
Anyone who changes stories like he does is lying. I can’t help it though if you refuse to see the truth. He’s NOT fit to be the POTUS.
Women have no responsibility whatsoever for their actions, just like minorities, the poor and Democrats.
Thanks for supporting the liberal agenda!
—Anyone who changes stories like he does is lying.—
I strongly disagree with that statement. I’m focusing on the words “like he does”. I’ve changed my story about past events as information becomes clear. I’ve even made complete about faces. And honestly so.
We don’t yet know enough to pass judgement. Interestingly, what we DO know is not grounds for even a minor story yet.
So far everything has been rumor, smear and innuendo.
We must not allow it! Does this mean that every black Conservative who threatens to secure high office (Clarence Thomas, Herman Cain) will have to face this nonsense?
These allegations are supposed to be explosive but they’re still anonymous and as many people have said they didn’t witness anything as allege they did.
Even the story itself “she woke up in his bed” doesn’t mean they had sex.
I’ve been for Cain all along and I’m not changing my mind based on this. If there is actual evidence or he confesses, I’ll rethink my support but in the end we’re hiring a President, not a Priest.
IMHO, based on what I see thus far, the sexual harassment charge doesn’t hold water even if these stores are true. Genuine sexual harassment would be pressure get sex in exchange for promotion, etc. If Cain just propositioned a woman who happened to work for him, or had consentual sex with a woman who happened to be drunk. it would not be genuine sexual harassment under a reasonable standard (notwithstanding our witch-hunting laws on this subject).
If Cain is caught lying in a claim that he never propositioned a woman, or had an affair, I’d agree with you.....but then I would blame him even more if he lied us about more serious matters, such as lying us into war.
To me, in any case, the serious flaw would be lying, not having an affair per se.
I agree. Cain has handled it so badly, it’s kept the story alive and I’m beginning to wonder if this couldn’t be a strategy with him.
He’s getting a lot of publicity and a lot of sympathy money.
It’s been a good fund raising tool for him, so why would he want it to stop.
I’m very suspicious.
It’s not supporting the liberal agenda.
This all happened long before anyone dreamed that Cain would ever run for any office, much less a high one.
I’m just saying that automatically blaming the woman is as bad as automatically blaming Cain.
I’m not doing either.
What I’m doing is blaming Cain for the way he’s handled it and especially for trying to shift blame on others, notably Perry.
And I’m blaming the Cain supporters who won’t hear a word about him and don’t want to.
If he were my candidate, I would want to know the truth of this matter if it can ever be known.
However, anyone who has a daughter (or a few daughters) certainly can relate to the desire to protect our children, even when they are grown, especially barely grown and in their 20s.
I have a daugher and agree with you as a father. However, the law is (or should be) a different matter. If you are going to adopt a sweeping standard of sexual harassment, millions of married men who propositioned co-workers or suburdinates would now be in jail. Genuine sexual harassment, if the term has any valid meaning, would be based on either coercion and/or exchanging favors for sex by employers or co-workers.
Has anyone charged that of Cain? If, on the other hand, you regard a 21 woman as a fragile child who can’t make adult decisions, then are should stand up and call for taking away her right to vote and serve in dangerous jobs, such as the military. Are you?
I hate typos. I think i am dyslexic at times when posting here.
Anyway. good points. The main point is that I am not advocating locking Herman and those like him in jail. I am just saying we shouldn’t allow the vetting process from a conservative base let him get away with it, provided that he did do something. We have daughters, and we should hold our leaders up to a high standard that would protect their interests. Make sense?
I am fairly convinced Herman is guilty of something. We’ll see. 3-4 sexual harassment charges don’t happen in a vacuum. Herman’s silly responses help convince me he is not guilty either.
As for the Rush to judgement, who is rushing? Those of us who want more info and are prepared to pull support for Cain if the facts show the worst, or those who are rushing to judgement about the accusations, that the women are lying? I am willing to wait it out to see what the truth is.
I don't understand this whole "the way he's handled it" stuff. Cain said he was accused, investgated and cleared. He did not know about any settlement.
Media reports support that as the "settlement" was more of a severance and the agreement does not have Cain's signature on it.
Everything else around this is hypothesis and heresay and Cain is correct in not responding to it.
I'm glad he does not have a "bimbo eruption team" like other candidates.
With regard to Perry, I will wait to see who is right on this.
“had consentual sex with a woman who happened to be drunk. it would not be genuine sexual harassment under a reasonable standard”
Certain people immediately think “rape” when the woman is anywhere from tipsy to loaded. Even when the man is, too. Blackout drunk is one thing, but alchohol alone does not invalidate consent. People who think otherwise either didn’t go to college or have forgotten. Because if drunk = rape we must shut down universities nationwide NOW! Stop the sexual holocaust!
By thye way, I’m not unaware that alchohol facilitates sexual abuse and rape. It is a real problem. However, per usual, overreaction is itself a problem, and only leads to more problems.
“Genuine sexual harassment, if the term has any valid meaning, would be based on either coercion and/or exchanging favors for sex by employers or co-workers”
Coercion, absolutely, but that would be handled by the criminal law. Exchange of favors I don’t get. What is the state’s interest in regulating favors? You’re free to turn offers down, every bit as much as males are free to turn down all the myriad informal, not strictly business-related routes to advancement open to us.
It may not be good business or morals, but company policy, Corporate Ethics, Community Standards, Family Values, and so on can take care of that. Why does the law have to intrude on every little thing? We’re talking about voluntary transactions, no different as regards a woman’s rights and a man’s duties (according to legal tradition, if not morals) than helping your buddy move. I realize the same argument can be made for prostitution and drug use, but so be it.