Here’s Michael Harlin of the American Thinker’s take:
1) Herman Cain is accused of sexually harrassing two women, though no direct nor specific accusations are made, nor are facts presented to support it.
2) The nature of this harrassment ( if it did occur ) is unknown.
3) There apparently was a settlement in the “1990’s” under terms of non-disclosure when he was the CEO of the National Restaurant Association; meaning, no one gets to talk about the settlement, including Mr. Cain, nor the alleged victims, nor the attorneys.
4) So then, how does one “defend” himself after making a confidential settlement? Answer: you can’t under these circumstances. And that’s why this is a “when did you stop beating your wife?” scenario. There’s no way to win and the implication is inherently prejudicial to Cain.
Attorneys settle cases all the time under confidential terms. The point is of settlement, instead of taking the risks of litigation which is as certain as a crap game no matter how innocent you are, a reasonable party will pay to make it “go away.”
Does this mean culpability? Of course not! It means that instead of paying attorneys buckets of money to defend spurious claims, you pay to settle. It is the cost of living in this litigious world. And settlements of this type are routine in this country and are happening every day.
Personally I accept Cain’s denial about it.
But any more documented claims will be a *political problem* for Cain.
That is why I say he would be finished.
I just heard of FOX News - Cain’s denial being compared to Bill Clinton.
That is already a *political problem* right there.
I answered this in another thread; short summary is that since Cain says he had no idea there was a settlement, there’s no way he could be bound by a gag order — he’d have to sign the settlement to be bound by it, and if he signed it, he couldn’t say he had no idea it existed.
A voice of reason........