All I can say, is one of these women is so pissed off she has retained a lawyer and there is new legal action underway to release her from the confidentiality agreement.
What in the world does that prove?
Maybe she wants to try to get a reality tv show or a book deal, who knows.
By trumping this all up, some conservatives are doing nothing but playing into the Left’s hand in the Jerry Springer-ization of politics, at least when it applies to conservatives.
Oh, and let me tell you something about how these type of “celebrity crime” cases work: some fancy lawyer, such as this one (Joel P. Bennet, a Clinton crony who worked on bimbo eruptions way back when) sees these facts developing in the media and the lawyer calls the “victim” and says, “let me represent you” — i.e., let me go on TV and get my name all over the internet blabbering on about how wronged you were, etc. A nice publicity gig if you can get it.
It has NOTHING to do with the merits or equities of the case. It has everything to do with a famous lawyer wanting to insinuate himself into the middle of every public brouhaha that remotely involves his area of “expertise.”
Think Gloria Allred. Do you honestly think all the women she has represented call her? Do you think that Drew Petersen woman had ever even heard of Gloria Allred?
It’s highly naive to read anything into the fact that the woman and a lawyer have hooked up somehow and that she/he is trying to make a hubbub.
My question is: why are some conservatives allowing themselves to be used as PROPS IN THIS LEFTIST POLITICAL THEATER?
Here'a an analogy:
Fifteen years ago you were cited for DUI.
The case was investigated and the judge found there was no evidence that you had been DUI. The citation was dismissed before the case even went to trial.
Moreover, the cop who made the citation against you was terminated, given a severance pay, and he entered into a confidentiality agreement.
Today, fifteen years later, you are running for office. Someone leaks to the press that you were once CITED for DUI. You confirm that you were CITED for DUI. You AND THE MEDIA (in the Cain case, Politico) also confirm that:
1. The citation was dimissed as unsubstantiated.
2. The accuser was terminated.
3. The accuser entered into a confidentiality agreement.
Now the accuser, the cop, wants to be released from his confidentiality agreement so he can "tell his side of the story" -- the same facts (unless he lies) that he told the judge, that the judge found insufficient, and upon which the case was dismissed and you were exonerated.
That means NOTHING in terms of the validity and precedent of the previous findings by the judge upon a contemporaneous investigation into the facts and the accuser's account.
NOTHING real or reliable could come out of the cop being allowed to say, literally, whatever he wants at this time -- no matter how many people he wants to drag into the matter, no matter how impossible it is to collaborate or refute ANYTHING he says.
Why do some conservatives fall for this crap? It's embarrassing.
Again, this is exactly why there are statutes of limitations in legal cases. The law says that after a certain amount of time has passed, the testimony of witnesses is no longer reliable.
Shouldn't we be smart enough -- not to mention politically savvy enough -- to understand how this same rationale applies here?
Again, if you want to ding Cain because someone made a complaint against him, that's your call. But please don't clamor for the debacle of the Jerry Springer-ization of our nomination process. The Left is doing enough to try to destroy conservatives without conservatives going "celebrity crime" crazy over a complaint that was investigated and dismissed more than a decade ago.