Posted on 11/04/2011 2:14:11 PM PDT by Da Bilge Troll
Joel Bennett held a press conference moments ago on behalf of his client who alleged sexual harassment charges against Herman Cain, and it amounted to a big fat zero of any relevant information to this. The woman doesn’t want to reveal her identity or her side of the story. What’s interesting is that the NRA, according to their statement below, would have released her from the confidentiality portion of the agreement to allow her to vocalize her side of the story. But they still opted not to. So, end of story.
Here is the NRA’s statement:
“We have seen the statement Joel Bennett released earlier today on behalf of his client, a former employee of the Association. The Association consented to the release of that statement, at the request of Mr. Bennett’s client.
“Based upon the information currently available, we can confirm that more than a decade ago, in July 1999, Mr. Bennett’s client filed a formal internal complaint, in accordance with the Association’s existing policies prohibiting discrimination and harassment. Mr. Herman Cain disputed the allegations in the complaint. The Association and Mr. Bennett’s client subsequently entered into an agreement to resolve the matter, without any admission of liability. Mr. Cain was not a party to that agreement. The agreement contains mutual confidentiality obligations. Notwithstanding the Association’s ongoing policy of maintaining the privacy of all personnel matters, we have advised Mr. Bennett that we are willing to waive the confidentiality of this matter and permit Mr. Bennett’s client to comment. As indicated in Mr. Bennett’s statement, his client prefers not to be further involved with this matter and we will respect her decision.
“The Association has robust policies designed to ensure that employees with concerns may bring them forward for prompt investigation and resolution, without risk of retaliation. The Association is fully committed to equal employment opportunity and to an environment that is free from any discrimination or harassment.”
The agreement was made between the NRA and the client with no admission of liability. And Cain, just as he said, wasn’t a party to the agreement.
Also, remember how the press wanted to make a big deal out of the fact that Herman Cain used the word “agreement”? Just to point out, that’s exactly the word used in this statement. What does it matter? Not much at this point.
So, all in all, this is over and there is nothing to indicate that Cain did anything wrong. Let the Cain Train keep rollin’ on!
Cain initially denied that any settlements had been made with the two women’s claims and said that the NRA had said there was nothing to the claims.
Then when it was otherwise confirmed that at least one settlement had been made (this second one after he had left the NRA), he said essentially that he had been thinking of the word “agreement”, which is why he didn’t say yes to the question about settlements.
That’s pretty much the same way he walked back his original comment that he wouldn’t have any Muslims in his cabinet. He later said he had been thinking of violent jihadists, not run-of-the-mill Muslims. He’d consider hiring a peaceful Muslim, just not a violent jihadist. (I’m paraphrasing here.)
In context of the FACT that he wasn't party to the settlements he was correct. He had made no settlements. As to the NRA, that statement would be true when taken in context with the FACT he argued against the claims. He truly felt there was nothing to the claims.
You and your fellow Perrybots have to understand this issue is now dead. It's over. If you want to continue arguing against Cain for on this particular issue you will do so with an ever increasing understanding of what your real issue with the man may be.
You'd presume he had some sensitivity for folks' rights but you'd be wrong. One individual in our office had some bad habits. The Board of Governors was interested in getting to the bottom of unrest among the female employees. Jenkins was a go-getter. He said he knew what to do and formed a REVIEW BODY.
Well over a thousand women went before this review body and reported in public what this particular male had done to them personally. I think they got up to 1600 women before it was over, and it was everything. He said "stuff", and he dropped pencils, and he sat too close and on and on ~ and he was a cheap date ~ never went anywhere nice.
This affair took on the appearance of a Kangaroo Court with Jenkins playing the part of Judge Roy Bean or maybe Judge Leander Perez, the iron fist of Plaquemines Parish Louisiana.
In the end the guy got off the hook precisely because this Jenkins guy used the Kangaroo Court techniqe ~ which, in fact, he'd protested against as part of SNCC in earlier years.
He eventually left the Board of Governors long before the end of his term and went on to other less noteworthy assignments. The Kangaroo Court turned out to be his downfall.
So, yes, those were dark times back then when women with pitchforks and and flaming torches roved the halls of the federal establishment in DC looking for males foolish enough to challenge convention.
I'm sure more than one guy commited suicide over this sort of treatment.
Br’r Bennett has been their President. Not likely they’ll get a roundtoit.
I’m a Cain contributor (therefore biased in his favor). And I doubt the veracity of the lawyer. because he’s hyping the story, without allowing any facts to come out. Why? Mr. Cain was never charged with a crime over these situations, there were no physical accusations (from what we have heard), unless you count a gesture as a physical accusation - that would be a stretch.
The most interesting facts that will come out will be: the identity of the accusers. If Politico knows, word will get out. We will also likely see one or two book deals possibly, because in addition to a hit-job, this could also be a relatively obscure person’s shot at 15 minutes of fame.
BTW I heard a rumor (which I’d be grateful if anyone can remind me where I might have read this~) that one accuser is a Political Operative (Democratic Party), and the other is a government employee of some kind (also presumably Democratic).
Cain and the NRA should be working toward the public release of all documentation of both cases. Clearly someone other than Herman Cain decided to violate the confidentiality. So Cain should want all the facts on the table.
If the facts of the cases supported the horror story being whipped up here, with media-types celebrating this story, those facts would be all over every news site on Earth, and covered 24x7 for 2 weeks on the alphabet Networks, and for months on cable news.
I’ll gladly eat my words, if necessary. But I still would support Herman Cain. Already on the Cain Train.
Hey bud, I understand that.
That wasn’t how he phrased it in his first interview with Fox after the Politico story broke.
Thanks, that’s the way I recall it too.
Go Cain!!
It’s not actually the D.C. Bar itself, the trade association,, but there’s an entity that (I think) is answerable to the DC Court of Appeals, called something like the Board on Professional Responsibility and/or Office of Bar Counsel. But, because he is a known commodity, their pursuit of any grievance against Bennett would 10:1 be circularly filed. Doesn’t make him any less a putz.
Well, that's ONE accuser, what about the SECOND?
Top of the hour, I noticed ABCNews is reporting the story as breathlessly and salaciously as possible, as if details of the multiple sexual harassment claims are known or even that her identity is known.
The last I read, and I don’t have the link right now, but Politico came out today and said they have not been able to contact the 2nd woman since their first phone conversation with her 2 weeks ago.
I am brand new here but want to throw something out for consideration. The NRA statement states that the complaint was filed in July 1999. I can’t find the timeline, but I believe that was after Mr. Cain left his job at the NRA. Why file the complaint after Cain has left other than to obtain a payout? Can anyone fill out a timeline for this woman and her complaint? We need to somehow work at keeping the two claims separate since I am still confused.
I hope Cain has someone doing a little "oppo" on the two women to be ready to head this off if and when you prove right. If they've got a history of accusations and collections, Cain should be ready with a list.
I hope he follows through with a law suit against Politico for two reasons. 1) It's a warning to others that they will pay if they try this crap again and Two: the accuser will be forced to come forward in the defamation trial and therefore defanged publicly well before the week of the election...
Please Mr. Cain, you've done great by not folding or cringing, by fighting back. PREPARE for the possible ambush ahead and head it off.
Poor Politico — 90 stories, and their slander still hasn’t grown legs.
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.