Posted on 10/30/2011 6:43:26 PM PDT by martosko
Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain’s campaign is accusing Politico of “unsubstantiated personal attacks” after the news outlet published a story Sunday night claiming two unnamed women made sexual harassment allegations against the candidate more than a decade ago.
“Fearing the message of Herman Cain who is shaking up the political landscape in Washington, Inside the Beltway media have begun to launch unsubstantiated personal attacks on Cain,” J.D. Gordon, Cain’s spokesman, said in a statement provided to The Daily Caller.
Gordon continued: “Dredging up thinly sourced allegations stemming from Mr. Cain’s tenure as the Chief Executive Officer at the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s, political trade press are now casting aspersions on his character and spreading rumors that never stood up to the facts.”
Cain told the campaign staffer he had beaten the case and that the woman had paid for his legal fees.
I don’t know — plenty of comments on politico discussing Clarence Thomas. I think if they don’t know, the more astute ones (and that’s not many) will research it.
And wait a second ...Clintoon accepts a BJ in the oval office from an aide DURING HIS PRESIDENCY, yet lib media looks the other way.
It is not the termination, but the alleged payoff that could end up being problematic. Was the payoff after the accusation, or was it part of the termination that led to the accusation?
From reading the Politico article, the names of the women who settled in the five-figures in exchange for promising not to talk about their allegations, are being protected for privacy concerns.
You do NOT make allegations of this sort, after agreeing to a substantial settlement agreement not to talk about it, and expect any right to privacy. Until they are named and come forward, this story should be given no credence whatsoever.
If they come forward, the public can judge their credibility. If they do not come forward, Cain himself should release their names, discuss their allegations and make his public denial.
They are already out ahead of this denying it on the facts of the case. They know the truth and at the most opportune time, they will do like he did today with Schieffer on the Margaret Sanger founder of Planned Parenthood and its original and current mission.
I’ll wonder just how many people saw that and immediately went to the internet to check it out.
I will also be surprised if a lawsuit is not being prepared by the association against these women for making public the agreed to terms of their dismissal, if in fact they did and not just some office clerk who knew enough about it to jump to conclusions, or worse with an agenda ($$$$$).
I wish Cain would say “If women come forward publicly, I’ll respond. Otherwise, stick it. And don’t ask about an ad with someone smoking either.”
"5 figures" suggests something like $10,001 ~ or earned vacation and retirement pay maybe ~ after a firing for cause.
Many employers imagine they can take away all your stuff when they fire you ~ that's very common among nonprofits.
The franchise operators with whom Herman was probably most familiar certainly can their help without severance since most of those jobs are minimum wage and the owners always feel they paid too much for the employees anyway.
They can report about financial arrangements yet the women can’t talk about it. How convenient.
Get use to it. This will be repeated in the MSm until election day, meanwhile Obama is “free of scandal”.
A “payoff” could easily describe a severance.
A woman says Clinton raped her and the accusation goes nowhere. I’m so sick of the hypocracy.
The question still remains whether the “payoff’ was before or after the accusation. That will make a huge difference in how this is perceived. The condition that does not allow discussion of the reason for termination is problematic as well. If the payoff was made after the accusation AND conditions are added that the matter not be discussed, it certainly has the appearance of buying someone’s silence.
And that's part of the problem. Plus, the left has pushed its own version of what happened in those hearings. It helps a lot to have heard the original testimony.
“A woman says Clinton raped her and the accusation goes nowhere. I’m so sick of the hypocrisy.”
Yep, and every time some jackwagon media whore asks a Cain supporter a question about this report, that is the answer we should throw back in their face. Stated as such:
Bill Clinton received Oral Sex from, and performed a SEXUAL ACT WITH A CIGAR on a 21 year old in the Oval Office, was accused of RAPE, and countless other sexual harassment charges, Barack Obama has a credible accuser that says HE did CRACK with, and received ORAL SEX from the current president. Not to mention BARRY SOETORO (Barack HUSSEIN Obama’s real name) is using a fake Social Security number.
When we see a responsible investigative report into those two subjects we’ll be prepared to answer questions about Herman Cain’s past peccadilloes. Not until. Have a nice day!
Source - http://theothermccain.com/2011/10/30/merely-part-of-a-smear-campaign-meant-to-discredit-a-true-patriot/
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.