Posted on 11/04/2011 9:21:37 AM PDT by MNJohnnie
The settlement agreement between the National Restaurant Association and a woman who accused Herman Cain of sexual harassment was reached in September 1999--and was not signed by Cain himself, according to Joel Bennett, a lawyer for the woman.
Bennett, who has a copy of the settlement agreement, said four people signed it: the woman, two lawyers representing the association and Bennett himself.
Bennett said the agreement was resolved relatively quickly, about two or three months after she complained.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
Politico is now trying to portray Cain in a positive light, for having been out front at NRA with sexual harassment training and policy implementation.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2802928/posts
They must really be scared $hitless of something! Maybe they got a look at that copy of the severance agreement that Bennett finally located yesterday?
Thanks for looking. (I have tubs filled with printed off stuff that I’ll probably never look at again. Those were the days. :)
I wonder if the Cain campaign has legal recourse re Politico.
Attorney Bennett signed it, yet he has been speaking about it constantly. Talk about irony.
And I don't have to expect anything from you. I'll just provide the direct quote from Cain. ANd then you can explain how a "word" would have been able to erase itself from a rock, or apologize to me for falsely accusing me of lying: Cain's quote on Perry::
"Since Governor Perry has been going there for years to hunt, I think that it shows a lack of sensitivity for a long time of not taking that word off of that rock and renaming the place," Cain told "This Week" anchor Christiane Amanpour. "It's just basically a case of insensitivity."It is a real problem when a candidate's supproters ignore what he says.
The "lack of sensitivity" regards "not taking that workd off" and not "renaming the place". It wasn't the WORD that didn't take itself off the rock, it was, according to Cain, "Governor Rick Perry".
I expect your apology. Will I get it?
You do realize that the settlement paper is real. It’s not fake. It’s not accurate.
Here is a link to the DIRECT QUOTE FROM CAIN.
YOu can spin all you want — you can’t ignore quotes from your own candidate.
That the next day Cain backed off his statements doesn’t change what he said.
That’s how I’m reading it. But since Cain has described the incident with this woman, the incident must have happened before he left to start his political career. It appears he was gone before the settlement was reached. He did say he knew there was some agreement reached.
I odn’t know. Attorneys are helpful when exploring your options. It could be that if the NRA hadn’t settled, they would have started a civil suit; who knows? I’m just looking at the facts here — there was clearly a lawyer for the woman, and the NRA had lawyers, and they had a signed settlement.
Or . . . . . . . . . just maybe he was given an overview on the final outcome because he was named in the complaint?
http://www.nonstick.com/sounds/Bugs_Bunny/ltbb_026.mp3
It is a real problem when a candidate's supproters ignore what he says.
......that has no bearing on this conversation, and serves only to set yourself up as some sort of moral superior, makes that much more difficult to do.
In the course of this conversation I have seen unpleasant qualities in you that I had not seen before.
I'm still looking at all the candidates, looking for the truth about who they are, looking for the one who will best represent the core values of conservatism and save this nation from disaster, and that includes looking very seriously at a high-quality man, Herman Cain.
I'm not sure what you're doing here and for what reason you've decided to belittle Cain supporters (and even those of us who are just leaning his direction), but whatever your motivation is, the result is only to make yourself look bad.
Please think about that. And accept my apology for accusing you of lying, when all you were doing was accepting the unclarified version of what Cain said, as opposed to the explanation he gave to Hannity.
It's your option to believe what you want. And mine to believe in the honor of an honorable man.
Settlement? What settlement? Do you have a copy of it to define it as a settlement? Her attorney calls it a settlement, but because no legal action was initiated everyone else refers to it as a termination agreement, and SHE PAID THE FEES OF ALL ATTORNEYS.
So tells us now Mr. Facts, what complaintant pays for the accused legal fees if the complaintant actually had a case to begin with?
Could be I guess. I'll leave the speculation to others. I know he knew about the agreement, because Cain said he knew about the agreement. He didn't say how he learned about the agreement, so it would be speculative of me to postulate how it happened.
You act like his knowing about the agreement would be a bad thing -- I certainly don't think so.
OK.
But what the heck do you mean 'unclarified version'? You mean, the one where he accuses Perry because Cain didn't have all the facts? That was my POINT -- that Cain THOUGHT he knew the facts, and accused Perry based on a misunderstanding of the facts.
Maybe someone explained the facts to him before his "clarification". But you don't just get to pretend you didn't say something simply because you learn it was a stupid thing to say.
And I'm sorry if Cain supporters don't like it, but they do a lot of ignoring what he says, or explaining what he says, or making excuses for what he says, or forgetting what he says.
Look how easily you are willing to ignore a clear attack on Perry, simply because the next day Cain "insisted" he didn't attack Perry. Cain often simply SAYS something, and his supporters treat it as evidence, or fact.
The quote from Cain wasn't subject to interpretation. His statement was clear, and it was a false attack on Perry. I'm glad Cain backed off -- he should have apologized more directly than he did, but at least he didn't double-down on his false charge. But that doesn't make the false charge go away.
That’s how I’m reading it. But since Cain has described the incident with this woman, the incident must have happened before he left to start his political career. It appears he was gone before the settlement was reached. He did say he knew there was some agreement reached.
Then you state you'll leave the speculation to others? Are you suffering from Sybil Syndrome? Sybil
I guess as a blind supporter of Rick Perry, you see things the way you see them. That's the problem with Perry supporters. They do a lot of ignoring of what has really been said.
But thanks for the clarification, Charles.
(btw, I know you'll deny the Perry support thing, but since you continue to wield the same weapon against a lot of objective people, I thought I'd let you be hoisted on your own petard).
As I said, you'll obviously continue to believe what you want to believe. I'm going to keep looking for what is true.
The original story did have a quote about the women paying attorney fees, but I assume that quote is not operable, because here is what that quote said:
Cain, this person said, described a case in which he fired an employee in 1990s and the woman alleged sexual misconduct or harassment. Cain told the campaign staffer he had won the case and that the woman had paid his legal fees. The aide had no further details.That doesn't sound like ANY of the things we learned about, so I assume it isn't accurate. It is a POLITICO reporter recounting a statement by a CAIN aide, and it has Cain FIRING a woman, claimed CAIN "won the case" and the woman paid Cain's legal fees. I don't think that happened at all, and I don't have an opinion about whether the aide thought it happened, or politico got the aide's story wrong.
I hate to even bring it up because someone will falsely accuse me of parroting something from Politico.
Nor am I saying she didn't pay legal fees -- just that I can't find any stories that say she did, and I'm asking you for a link to a story that would say so. It doesn't make much sense that they would give her $45,000 and then have her pay their attorney. Usually if you are paying attorney fees, it means you got nothing and are having to pay out yourself. But again, please show me a link.
As to the "settlement", Cain himself has used the term "settlement" multiple times, including calling it a "Financial Settlement" and a "Termination Settlement". If it helps you, it was NOT a settlement of a lawsuit.
But I don't get your reason for wanting to argue over that semantic point -- it just muddies the waters.
Multiple stories have called it a settlement. Cain called it a settlement. The attorney called it a settlement. The NRA has used the term "settlement". So long as we don't say there was a lawsuit, there's no point in arguing over what you call it. It was a LEGAL paper, signed by lawyers, that defined how the incident would be "settled". You can't really say that without using the word "settled". Sorry, I tried.
BTW, a settlement is a form of agreement. Not that it matters I'm sure. Anyway, please provide a link so I can see the facts about her paying all the attorneys.
Wow! You are really catching on to that projection stuff!
No, the accusations came the month AFTER Cain left.
Timeline compiled by FReeper “Ridesthemiles”:
Timeline:
Cain left his exec post at association June 30, 1999
Accuser filed her complaints sometime in July, 1999.
Company terminates accuser & writes her a severance check dated 9-9-1999.
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.