Posted on 11/07/2011 12:44:56 PM PST by Rennes Templar
Having a difficult time visualizing how that happens simultaneously? If it happened sequentially that would seem to indicate that she sat there after the first attempt at innappropriate physical contact. Strange!
Not going to waste any time on this. If Gloria Allred is involved you can bet that it's a shakedown.
Two points.
Point one. The post to which I replied didn't say that Bialek couldn't know because her claim preceded the 1999 claim. The post to which I replied said Bialek couldn't know because there was a nondisclosure agreement. The person who made that statement didn't understand that nondisclosure agreements come at the end of a claim and negotiations. There is a period before the nondisclosure agreement is entered into during which the claimant could disclose her claim to others. My interjection merely stated that the existence of a nondisclosure agreement at the end of the claim and settlement process does not mean that it is impossible for anyone else to have know about the claim. Are you angry that I made that point? Because that point, the only point I made, is absolutely true. I stand by it. The post to which I responded was not premised in any way upon the timing of claims; my response was not premised in any way upon the timing of claims.
Point two. You raise a good point regarding one of the two other claims we already knew about. Do we know when the second claim was made? If it, too, was made after the 1997 meeting between Bialek and Cain, then you have found a fatal flaw in Bialek's charges (unless there were more than the two claims against Cain during his tenure at the NRA). If the second claim was made before the 1997 meeting between Bialek and Cain, then . . . Bialek could have known about the second claim.
But I only entered this conversation to point out that a nondisclosure agreement doesn't prevent others from knowing about a claim. Heck. Michael Jackson settled claims and there were nondisclosure agreements, but we knew about the claims. We even knew the names of the claimants. We just don't know the exact details of the claims or the details of the settlements.
And before my words are taken out of context - again - I'm not accusing Herman Cain of having a Neverland Ranch or of assaulting small boys.
I am just trying to be an objective observer noting what seem to be inconsistencies in this story.
I remember hearing rumors about Clinton and interns and thought it was pretty low, even for a guy I couldn’t stand, to be attacked that way.
Then somebody actually produced his DNA on a dress. I then went from disgust, to disgust and bewilderment at how stupid a President of the United States could be.
This is some pretty weak magic. We allow the press to take out Cain just because the GOP and the Democrats want it that way, then we deserve Romney.
My answer is above, palmer.
It's as if somebody says "there's no such thing as cats; they've never been photographed." And I respond with a photograph of a cat. And a third Freeper says "yeah, well, why did some people saw another gunman on the grassy knoll, huh? Huh? Huh? How come you didn't explain that? Huh? Huh?
And I think you did a great job of it, with respect to the 1999 harassment claim. I'm just trying to be an objective observer, too. My best to you.
Thanks - you as well!
OK -— then riddle me this: How did she know about the other alleged “sexual harrasment” TWO (2) years before it happened?
“...arranged to meet Cain in D.C. over coffee in 1997” (Sharon Bialek)
“...but said did not file an internal complaint because one of her coworkers had already done so.”(Sharon Bialek)
A woman who accused Herman Cain of sexual harassment in 1999 said Friday through her attorney that she stands by her claims but will not be speaking further on the matter, citing a desire to avoid reliving the case. (attorney Joel Bennett)
The National Restaurant Association confirmed Friday that it paid to settle a 1999 sexual harassment claim against Herman Cain (NRA)
*******************************
Excellent question! And note she used the word “coworkerS”, as in plural.
Will they now dig yet another FALSE allegation out of their arses??!! Yeah, that’s the ticket!
The double standard applies because conservatives have a single standard. Look at how conservatives regard Newt Gingrich because of stories about his first divorce (guilty!) which, turns out, are untrue.
Democrats don’t care if their candidates are scum. In fact, its a resume enhancer for them. But conservatives don’t work that way.
I’m sticking by Cain. I think she has all the credibility of the stripper in the Duke Lacrosse Team case. But that was devastating, too.
in the association world, it’s not who you know, it’s who you blow.
OOPS - MY BAD ON THE PLURAL “COWORKERS” COMMENT - she did say “one of my coworkers”.
Reading, and typing, way too fast.
Makes you wonder if the National Restaurant Association had a string of sexual harrasment charges over two+ years against Cain, then they need to come forward and say it was all part of a massive cover-up on their part. Since I doubt that is the case, this whole episode smells of poorly written fiction.
This whole thing sounds like it was borrowed from Kathleen Willey (which, I might add, did not matter with Clinton, so why does it matter now?).
She used the plural noun, 'coworkers'. And the sentence you're responding to was:
"because one of her coworkers had already done so" (emphasis added)
She was referring to ONE claim filed by ONE coworker out of a group of MORE THAN ONE coworker, which requires the plural of the word, 'coworker'. So I don't understand your point.
MSM = D
Clinton = D
Cain = R
Actually, I’ll take my OOPS back!
I just listened again. Her words:
“...I didn’t file a complaint AS SOME OF THE OTHER WOMEN DID because I wasn’t employed by the foundation when this occurred”.
SOOOOOO, exactly what “other women” filed complaints in or before 1997????
Also, if his actions were worthy of a complaint but for employment, why not press criminal or civil charges?
Yeah, I was reading too fast and corrected myself with another post.
I then just followed it up with another comment; however, with the “other women” comment, she may well have been referring to her present knowledge.
Yeah, I need to slow down - just trying to cram this circus into my workday!
Go BSA!
“If it, too, was made after the 1997 meeting between Bialek and Cain, then you have found a fatal flaw in Bialek’s charges.”
Let’s hope Allred is dumb enough indeed to have not seen this.
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.