So why was the accuser paid off?
Because is was probably cheaper for the company than going to court.
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?
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.
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
This is one of those settlements that we are not going to fire you, but here is a severance package, now go away and shut up....
Notice, the Politico article never used the term sexual harassment... That is a media jump...
I will restate for the THIRD time today.
At that time it was very common practice for companies to simply do an internal investigation. If the accused was guilty they were dismissed aka...FIRED.
If the allegations were false it was common for women to try and push the issue. Companies commonly paid these women and they would leave the company with some nominal amount of pocket change.
Companies do this to do very day to deal with nuisance employees in cases ranging from discrimination to harassment. It is cheaper than full blown litigation over a he said,she said issue. Note it is the COMPANY that paid, not Cain. Settlements of this nature are often closed and neither party is free to discuss it. Odds are very high Cain has no idea if the women were paid or how much they received. That agreement would be between the women and the COMPANY.