Everyone, please read this whole article - he really puts a dents in the claims of these “sources” about the scope of any allegations. And he hammers home that this was SEVERANCE.
NRA Chair (at the time of Cain’s tenure) speaks out.
Other’s who have come forward the last few days (by name even!)
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
They are all Perrytards what do you expect.
Here is what he said about the actual case:
While he said he had no reason to doubt the accuracy of reports that the restaurant trade group made five-figure payments to employees then embroiled in what is now a campaign scandal, Fassler said he was never informed about those payments while on the board.So in regards to this particular incident, he says he doesn't know anything. He also said:
He told TheDC that he “never heard anything about Herman that would suggest he had those sort of allegations lodged against him. He was a professional. Thoroughly professional.”So he also says he had no knowledge about the specific cases being discussed.
So, on what does he base his assertion that it is a hatchet job? Not on anything he knows about the case, which as he said, is absolutely nothing:
“My gut tells me it’s a hatchet job. He gets a lead, he gets some traction, and the next thing you know, here come these allegations. It’s sad.”I agree with him, my gut tells me politico ran a hatchet job. On the other hand, the "allegations" didn't come after he got traction, the allegations came in the 1990s, when he wasn't a candidate for anything. I guess what he means is the allegations are made PUBLIC when he gets a lead.
But the headline suggested that the person speaking had personal knowledge of the case and was making an informed judgement based on the facts. In reality, he has no specific knowledge, but his opinion has some weight because he knew Cain during that time, and can vouch for his character.
Not that Cain really needed that, as few people are questioning his character except people who already oppose him. At least over the incident -- a lot more of us are questioning his character for falsely accusing Perry of leaking the story.
I'm also guessing that since the board didn't see the settlements, they are not bound by the terms of the contract, or he couldn't say it was a hatchet job (well, maybe he could, because he could always say he was refering to the story coming OUT, not the claims themselves).