Rubbish. Even a sociopath like Bill Clinton strives to maintain his reputation through all his lies. In a country as broad as the United States with a population as big as 300 million there is surely place and scope enough for Bialek to hide her bad reputation in anonymity. She chose to go the other way.
What can she gain? Somewhere between $10-50,000 for selling her fabrication to the National Enquirer. Not a bad gig in exchange for nothing more than the embarrassment of being eventually exposed as a liar. Her past behavior makes it clear that this would not trouble her in the least.
This is simply not persuasive. If her motive were greed to gain money on the sale of the story, any sentinent person would know that she cannot sell it after she gives it away. She would flak the story first. After she gives it away, as she has, she has nothing left to sell. Further, she would be aware that the embarrassment will be more than "nothing" it would be intense, unrelenting, and nationwide. Even Gloria Allred would be ethically bound to tell her of the intense scrutiny she was inviting. She had the history of Clinton's bimbo eruptions to go to school on.
She has a history of welshing on her debts, including declaring bankruptcy twice.
True but irrelevant.
Her current fiance had never heard of these charges -- which constitute sexual assault -- before last Friday. You really believe that's likely? I don't.
I believe that is quite likely. I imagine Bialek found the encounter humiliating and did not wish to recount it. More, she might have been sensitive to placing her boyfriend in an awkward position by defining the humiliation too clearly. She might not have wanted to jeopardize her relationship with him. We know that victims of sexual assault, which this in fact was if it occurred, are oppressed by feelings of shame and often remain silent. In any event, she described the incident to her boyfriend in general terms. All, quite credible.
I take your point respecting the practice of sealing settlements.
The demeanor of a witness on the stand in a court is judged by relatively few eyes but the demeanor of an interlocutor who submits himself knowingly to examination on national television must know that his demeanor will be judged by millions of eyes. His whole future rests on the outcome. In any event, Herman Cain who reportedly conducted his own popular radio program and who has made literally thousands of speeches is no neophyte and knows all the tricks.
Herman Cain certainly looked uncomfortable but he is no tyro.
Finally, I've enjoyed this exchange with you but I wish to have your thoughts on redemption. George Bush, for example, was redeemed from his alcoholism. I believe Nathan Bedford Forrest, as described on my about page, was redeemed from his racism and disbelief. I sometimes get the impression that social conservatives who should be the first among us to believe in redemption will not do so when the evidence supports repentance. Certainly, the left does not believe in it so they reject the sin as sin in the first place. Thus, they gain another advantage in their secular war against us.
