Newest Cain Accuser Has History of Financial Trouble

ABC NEWS ^ | 11-28-11 | Ross

[Vermont Lt]

If you are going to engage in extra marital relations you need to make sure that you “take care” of the problem if you wish to run for President.

Think Gary Hart. You cannot sit on the comfy couch and suggest that you have NEVER, EVER done something like this and then have another one come out saying not only DID he do it, but he did it for 13 years.

If he gave her money, there is a trail. If there was late night texting going on, there is a trail.

IF there is a trail and it is legit, he is toast.

People really do not care if you cheat (well, most of the public does not.) But, you need to either control the situation, and NOT lie. Otherwise the truth will come out.

Its not about the sex, its about the lies. Does that ring a bell? I believed it back then, and I believe it now.

[Vermont Lt]

Its because Newt and Clinton both came out and admitted to their indiscretions.

Cain denies, denies, denies.....and then another one comes out.

I agree that he is innocent until proven guilty, but if the woman’s “proof” stands the test of time, he is done. Not because he lied to his wife, but because he lied to the press and the public.

That is not generally forgiven.

[chris37]

“I did not have sexual relations with that woman, not a single time, never.”

Rememeber that?

What if Herman is telling the truth?

[over3Owithabrain]

You say IF IF IF.

That could be said of any candidate.

So how about we wait for FACTS and PROOF before making conclusions or even engaging in scurrilous gossip?

It’s ok to believe someone innocent until the FACTS prove otherwise and then changing your opinion. That’s called benefit of the doubt and innocent until PROVEN guilty.

It’s not ok to engage in gossip and tabloid chatter absent FACTS and pile on a person, because if they are later to be found telling the truth you helped bury a man for a lie.

Too many here for political and other reasons are trading in gossip and smear.

BTW I am still waiting for PROOF of the other smear against Cain weeks ago. None yet but hey let’s jump on this lesser charge without facts also.

Pathetic

[Paperdoll]

Thank you. Sometimes it seems I am alone in my continued support of Mr. Cain. The Leftists on this site have multiplied in the past few months! But God is good! And He is Herman Cain’s Co-Pilot. Thank you again for your prayers and contributions. And, Go Herman Cain!

[Paperdoll]

Just wait until we find out what they will dig or make up on the Grinch! Apparently his followers are okay with all his positions on amnesty, gun control, global warming, etc..so it will be interesting.

[katiedidit1]

Just heard on Fox News that Cain will announce in a few days whether or not he will withdraw from the race. He is toast.

[Vermont Lt]

I believe this is orchestrated. The drip, drip, drip of this process is they key.

But, these people are not made up out of the blue.

And apparently, Herman must think there is something to this.

My educated guess is that his wife has something to do with his pause to re-appraise.

[maryz]

Once again, if true, this works against Cain's credibility: why would he have a 13-year relationship (including calls/texts in the middle of the night, and apparently financial benefits) with an unstable woman?

Obviously, I don't know the inside of the relationship any more than you do -- but no less either. IMO it may not speak against his "credibility" so much as for his Christian charity. IIRC, C.S. Lewis gave money to many people (and many of them women) over the course of his life as acts of charity; when he died, it was discovered that he had been giving away 2/3s of his income this way. Many times, the gifts were repeated and spoke of an on-going relationship. He exchanged correspondence with quite a few for years (he died before cell phones!). Does this mean he was having or wanted a sexual affair with all of them?

Also, in modern American usage, "friend" is kind of a catch-all term in most cases for someone we know and don't have an actively hostile relationship with; probably well under 1% of people referred to as "friends" describe the sort of relationship Cicero writes of in the De Amicitia!

As to the people who think it's significant that she had his cell phone number, don't most people in business nowadays have their cell phone number printed on their business cards, along with their office phone, fax, etc.? And most seem to pass out their cards to anyone who will take one!

I gather this woman too had an NRA connection, though I don't recall seeing exactly what it was. And I do wonder how that reporter heard of her in the first place. Did she call him out of the blue? What does he mean that he was "working on" the story for a week? Couldn't she predict that she too might be "reviled" or whatever like the other accusers in that her background is just as full of red flags? Is someone paying her?

[St. Louis Conservative]

Personally, I like Huntsman the best out of all of them. His econ plan is the best, he actually has a “free market” plan to end TBTF, and plans on winding down Fannie & Freddie....plus, I think Huntsman is the only one of the bunch that could win decisively and give a strong mandate to conservatives to govern. A big win would also take the US Senate by a large margin.

Problem is, Huntsman primary strategy has been odd - to say the least. He apparently thought (with the “help” of John Weaver) that attacking other conservatives using moderate/liberal rhetoric was the way to go. That has not served him well. It’s not likely, but possible that he could pull off an upset in New Hampshire, and with the divided field, could get some momentum from there.....we’ll see.

Second choice is Newt.

[tjd1454]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I certainly hope you are correct. I'm not sure about people randomly giving out their cell phone. I may have seen it on some business cards, but mainly personal phone numbers are given out more selectively, for obvious reasons.

My personal "sense" - and this is perhaps intuition along with life experience - is that of troubling inappropriate behavior.

I can readily accept that the accusations are trumped up, false, perhaps even a conspiracy. But what concerns me are attempts to excuse or make light of what is clearly unacceptable behavior (again, IF the accusations are valid). For example, I believe a married man has no business "going out for drinks" with another woman while on a business trip, singling a woman from the audience out and trying to arrange dinner alone with her, inviting her to his room, or for that matter calling another woman in the middle of the night.

I recall how Billy Graham would not travel with a woman or even be seen with a woman privately without someone else around. Someone said today that he would have someone check out his hotel rooms to ensure no one was lurking there to possibly cause him scandal. IMHO that's the gold standard.

[jellybean]

...threat of eviction for non-payment of rent just two weeks ago.

Hmmmm...Interesting timing. The reporter who broke the original story was on Rusty Humphries' show last night and said he'd been working on it for about a week. So, a week after getting the latest eviction notice she has her friend start shopping around the story to see who'll bite.

[jellybean]

2. They called each other, according to one account, over 60 times in a 4-month period. For those of you who can't do the math, that's once every other day - for months on end. That's a pretty odd "friendship" with a woman that your wife knows nothing about, isn't it? Oh - and at least one of those calls was at a strange hour to be calling a "friend" of the opposite sex - 4:30AM. The fact that his wife did not know he was talking on the phone in the middle of the night with a female "friend" raises more red flags.

Your summation is not accurate. For the record this is how it was origianlly reported here:

She showed us some of her cell phone bills that included 61 phone calls or text messages to or from a number starting with 678. She says it is Herman Cain's private cell phone. The calls were made during four different months-- calls or texts made as early as 4:26 in the early morning, and as late as 7:52 at night. The latest were in September of this year.

So, let's examine this:

1. The reporter says there were 61 phone calls and text messages. He doesn't say how many of each.
2. The reporter doesn't tell us how many were from Herman Cain.
3. The reporter doesn't tell us how many originated from Ginger White.
4. The calls/texts were not over a 4 month period, but during four different months. What's the time frame? A year? Two years? Five years? It's not specified.
5. Was it a phone call or a text at 4:26 am?
6. Was the phone call or text at 4:26 am to or from Herman Cain. The reporter doesn't say.
7. A short session of texting could easily consume 10-20 texts.

In my opinion the reporter was intentionally vague to make it appear more sensational.

[jellybean]

According to FOX 5, White showed reporters from the network cell phone bills that showed 61 calls or text messages - including in the early-morning and evening hours - from what she said was Cain's private cell phone number."

Again you misstate what was reported:

She showed us some of her cell phone bills that included 61 phone calls or text messages to or from a number starting with 678.

[tjd1454]

You can try to parse it all you want but either way it still doesn’t pass the smell test.

[tjd1454]

Don’t falsely accuse people of “misstating” the facts simply because you can dig up a slightly different version of the woman’s interview.

I quoted CBS, which cited Fox news. You are free to counter with a different news report that gives a very minor variation of what the woman said, but don’t pretend that you alone have the correct version and someone else has “misstated” the facts.

[jellybean]

Don’t falsely accuse people of “misstating” the facts simply because you can dig up a slightly different version of the woman’s interview.

My, my...touchy, touchy!

It wasn't a "slightly different version of the woman's interview", it was the original interview done by the reporter who broke the story and actually saw the phone logs.

I quoted CBS, which cited Fox news. You are free to counter with a different news report that gives a very minor variation of what the woman said, but don’t pretend that you alone have the correct version and someone else has “misstated” the facts.

You stated emphatically that all the calls/texts were FROM Cain. According to the reporter who did the interview there were 61 calls/texts to or from Cain's phone. I did not "pretend" to have "the correct version", I gave you a link to the original report which doesn't support your claim. It's not "a very minor variation of what the woman said", it's what the original reporter actually wrote. You may not like it, but there it is.

Just setting the record straight.