Posted on 11/01/2011 6:03:22 PM PDT by Steelfish
November 1, 2011 Cain Accuser Wants to Tell Story, Lawyer Says By MICHAEL D. SHEAR and JIM RUTENBERG The lawyer for one of the two women who accused Herman Cain of sexual harassment said Tuesday that she wanted to come forward but was bound by a confidentiality agreement with the National Restaurant Association.
The lawyer, Joel P. Bennett of Washington, said in an interview that his client was calling upon the association to release her from the confidentiality agreement so that she could speak publicly about what happened with Mr. Cain.
“He’s no longer an employee of the National Restaurant Association, so the National Restaurant Association could argue that well, he’s no longer an employee so it doesn’t bind” the women, Mr. Bennett said.
Appearing on Fox News on Tuesday evening, shortly after The Washington Post first reported Mr. Bennett’s comments, Mr. Cain declined to call on the restaurant association to release the woman from the agreement.
“I just found out about this today,” Mr. Cain said. “I can’t give you a definitive answer on that until we consult with our attorneys.”
Mr. Cain said that there could be “legal implications” if the women involved were released from the confidentiality agreements. He did not say what those implications might be. He also said he did not think that he had waived confidentiality by talking about the incidents.
“I never used the name,” he said. “I don’t believe that I have.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com ...
We should really p*ss the liberals off by shrugging and saying “I thought according to you folks that it was only sex?”
It's like this: My sisters and I can talk bad about my Mom, but you can't, and nobody else can. We Conservatives/Republicans can talk bad about our Candidates, but nobody else can. Our candidates are our family. Our candidates are each other's family.
So where are Mr. Cain's Candidate brothers and sister to defend him against this??
The Lawyer can't remember anything about the case, what the complaint was, or what the settlement amount was. Yet everyone (even many FReepers) think Cain should be able to remember every detail with perfect clarity.
When “her side” does come out, “her side” is nothing more than what got written down. If it's not documented, it ain't doo-doo. So anything she “says” now is not part of the original document.
These women settled. That says what it really meant to them back then.
Doncha know its not about the money is about being uncomfortable 12 years ago....she should go for it...nothing like being made a fool of in the public. Her 15 minutes of fame...It would have to be worse than anything Clinton did to make an impression...
Corrected title:
Cain accuser wants to collect the money she has been promised for derailing Cain’s campaign.
Apparently, she got $35,000.00 -
Is there any indication that there is a pitched battle over endorsing Cain? I really doubt it. Like most lobbyists they will probably wait for the dust to settle and then endorse. And that also implies that there was an anti-Cain faction there when he ran the place, and I've never seen anything to indicate that. I think it's more likely that one of Cain's political opponents is behind this, either Obama or one of the Republicans.
So he is not bound by any non-disclosure agreement and can say whatever he wants to about the situation.
Like I said, they may well NOT have a copy available now either, or the HR person or insurance guy who handled the case may have kept any copy in their own files.
I would think so, but I am not a lawyer... although I play one at home.
Keep pushin’ this ...and DC and the RinoCracy will wind up getting a REAL DOSE of taxpayer “dissatisfaction”....
BTW...please note the similar treatment Cain is receiving now to what Palin was subject to the last 2 years...and the common thread behind both becomes clear.
We the People are only to “be allowed” certain candidates....
I wish that would be true, but Cain is a public figure and he would have to overcome the high bar set by the New York Times decision. I wish there was some semblance to Britain, where any reckless comment was liable, but not to be.
Where is the GOP offering one million $ for any dirt on the scumbag Rats? Prolly cost too much money in the payouts.
I suspect the elite wing of the GOP is standing in the box seats applauding...
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.