Posted on 11/04/2011 7:40:06 PM PDT by Maelstorm
Joel Bennett, the lawyer for one of the former employees of the National Restaurant Association who accused Herman Cain of sexual harassment, spoke to Wolf Blitzer live on CNN moments ago.
Bennett said that in his legal opinion, what occurred between Cain and his client met the legal definition of sexual harassment. But despite repeated questions from Blitzer, he refused to specify what the alleged actions were, and he said his client would not be appearing to shed any further light on the matter.
When Blitzer pointed out Cain’s vehement, blanket denial, Bennett replied, “In all my years of lawyering, I’ve never seen anyone accused of sexual harassment say, ‘I did it.’”
In short, Mr. Bennett is arguing, ’I won’t say what he did, but trust me, he’s guilty of wrongdoing.’ This is ridiculous. To Politico, the public is supposed to take this into account in their assessment of Cain but we can’t even get any sense of what triggered the original complaint, and whether this was much ado about nothing or whether Cain actually did something wrong.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Indicated gives it a Cochranesque cadence, so this reader chooses the original.
True. Once. But the libs went to that well so often, the water ran out and Cain’s fundraising proves it.
Thanks to liberal stupidity, legitimate cases of SH, like racism before it, will now be ignored or treated less seriously.
They cried wolf once too often. Big win for all those women and minorities that voted lib huh? Idiots.
Maybe he's a crappy lawyer.
Must Read. The most ironclad case against Mitt Romney Its damning.
When I saw that error, I wondered how in the world I came up with “indicated” for “innocent.” But you are right: I was thinking ahead to “vindicated.”
Yes, it does have a Johnny-esque ring.
Also, it reminds me of “resist we much.”
Makes sense.
That’s a good one. How do you come up with such creepy faces?
I noticed good old Joe Biden in that ad’s clip from the Thomas hearings.
Of course it was bait. At this point, even released from confidentiality agreements, we can’t get details of the complaint. It’s theater of the absurd.
Maybe you were dictating to Siri on your iPhone the best of all the words.
Usually works pretty well but sometimes the words cannot translated differently biggest Pennsula background noise In the Way, Buncher voice.
See, it all makes sense now. :)
Whenever Team Romney had rumors they wanted to start about other candidates,
Jonathan Martin has been their go-to guy to get those rumors in writing in front of a national audience.
Who benefits most from Sanford meltdown? Californian (that's right) Mitt Romney
"Peeking Out From the McCain Wreckage: Mitt Romney"
"Someone's got to say it: IS MITT ROMNEY RESPONSIBLE FOR OBAMA'S VICTORY?"
"Vanity: Team Romney Sabotaged Palin and Continuing to Do So?"
"Romney Supporters Trashing Palin"
"Romney advisors sniping at Palin?"
Yep. Birds of a feather.
There ya go!
ALL OF THE FACES IN THE RIGHT PLACES!
“Bennett said that in his legal opinion”......well we all know what’s a lawyer’s free legal opinion is worth!
The problem is that 75% of Americans will remember the allegations and headlines and not the facts and the outcome.
The headlines is all the left care about.
To that point: The left won.
The NRA waived the confidentiality clause and the girl doesn’t want to come forward after all. The complaint was for “discrimination and harassment” (note the absence of “sexual”) and he didn’t signed it.
Then, when nothing was happening, and they started becoming the object of ridicule, they walked it back.
I believe you are spot on correct. This is a tried and true tactic which usually generates some results because of the sleazy nature of typical politicians. The problem is: Cain is not typical and doesn't have a closet full of skeletons he's worried about nailing shut. If anything, this locks up my confidence in Cain, for two reasons: Nothing crawled out of the woodwork to bite him in the A&%, and if the media hates him so much - he's got to be our guy.
Hey Bennett, you know why?
Because there is a specific definition of sexual harassment, and Cain's actions --whatever they were-- did not fit that definition.
For a charge of "sexual harassment," legally, there have to be several elements present in the situation. E.g., iirc, there has to be a "pervasive" and "hostile" environment in which the behavior takes place.
So a casual, inappropriate remark that comes out of the blue does not constitute "sexual harassment."
I don't know what Cain said to these women. But for argument's sake let's say he said something like "Hey baby, that dress makes you look sexy," or "You're so pretty, I sure wouldn't mind having a cocktail with you in my hotel suite."
Such remarks, while they might "offend" some people, would not by themselves be sexual harassment.
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.