Posted on 10/31/2011 9:00:24 AM PDT by martosko
Because is was probably cheaper for the company than going to court.
Politico did state that they told the Cain campaign abotu this ten days ago, asking for a response..which they never received. So, either the Cain campaign somehow screwed up, or it was a conscious decision to handle it this way..
Paying them off is not an admission of guilt, but an economic decision.
Environmentalists use the same attack tactic to get money from 'deep pockets', as has a 'colorful coalition'.
Produce the settlement docs that proves they were.
Sorry but an accusation with no proof is the oldest, and slimiest, of the DC Establishment tactics.
So where is your proof?
Of are you a good little lib now. You don’t need any proof, the seriousness of the accusation is now enough for you?
There is the incest angle
The illigitimate child angle
Internet porn angle
Got to find something related to stealing stuff, better if from old people or handicapped
Probably spit on a few pizzas a la Rev jackson (they all do that don't you know)
If in the service, probably a baby killer/hootch burner, just need to flesh out the angle
.If not served, then why not? Was/is he an America Hater? Either one works for a while......
Good for Cain.
I’m not on the Cain Train yet, because he makes me a bit nervous in the way he “walks back” what he’s previously said — and the Commie Press will kill him with that.
But he didn’t walk this back. Good on you, Mr. Cain. Good on you.
“Sometimes it is far cheaper to pay them a settlement and avoid legal fees than it would be to take them to court.”
Another reason to go to the “Loser Pays” system of Law.
Fair enough, but then there's Cain's assertion that, if there was a payoff, he was unaware of it. For the CEO of the organization to claim that he was unaware of the resolution of a complaint involving himself, involving money paid out, is far harder to believe than the original allegations.
You left out “hair on the coke can”.
FRiends, I suggest this is the man for this country. Better pray for him.
My guess is he fired a couple of people, they got mad during the process and started making up BS...they were offered a standard severance and severance agreement and told to go away. The amount was upped to save from having to defend against it in court and they hung that dollar amount over their heads.. "no contract, no severance" so they took the money.
I know it sounds fishy to most people, but this is pretty common. Many businesses will choose to pay these people off even when the allegations are false simply because of the expenses they will face in court... not to mention that even when it is obvious what happened, liberal judges tend to side with former employees by default so there is a substantial risk involved if they decide to fight it. It not right nor fair, but it's a sound business decision. I really hope that is the case here and that this thing never gets any real traction. I just have a sick feeling that the media will never let this go and Cain will be deemed suspect or even guilty by the voters based on nothing more than the media repeating it for the next however many months.
Or maybe politico lied? Nah... /spit (at politico)
Not just any old hair, but a curley pubic hair!
It is quite often easier and cheaper to pay off on a baseless accusation rather than run the risk of a jury decision going against them.
Often times just the negative press of it GOING to trial can cost the company/association more than paying off the accuser is worth.
“This is a flat denial from Cain. The media will now have to put up or shut up.”
LOL! Surely you aren’t THAT naive, are you?
Remember the October Surprise? Remember Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill?
Remember the left’s battle cry: “The nature of the evidence is irrelevant; it’s the seriousness of the charge that matters!”
You simply need to make a harsh, totally unfounded charge, and that’s reason enough to investigate.
“THE CURRENT TRUTH!” is all that matters in today’s media world, not the ACTUAL TRUTH. Have you forgotten what the media did to Sarah Palin?
Didn’t want to say that myself...
If you read the original article, it isn’t even clear that the payment wasn’t just a typical severance package.
The whole story is full of holes. This journolist, who incidentally is the same who falsely smeared Palin, cites 2 unamed women, who never even claimed actual harrassment and pits their story against the the chair, vice chair and immediate past chairman of the National Restaurant Association board of directors at the time of Cain’s departure.
The writer himself is even dodging questions on this piece of trash:
http://m.newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2011/10/31/politicos-martin-dodges-question-cain-details
Attempting to link this to Romney is every bit as irresponsible as the underlying story about Cain.
Its the seriousness of the charge isn’t that what “they” tell us?
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.