Ping!
Check this out. NRA was willing to release the claimant and her attorney from the confidentiality agreement. They decided not to go forth. Herman Cain disputed the allegations. The claimant and the NRA entered into an agreement without any admission of liability. Herman Cain wasn’t a party to it.
IOW, all these people complaining about how Herman Cain handled himself, Herman Cain was not a party to what was agreed and had no knowledge of it with which to defend himself. Herman Cain disputed the allegations and it was the NRA, not Herman Cain, who entered into an agreement.
Herman Cain is vindidated on his handling of this fiasco. Herman Cain was telling the truth. This puts the ‘Done Stamp’ to this, and further allegations against him will surely be seen in the light of this absurd situation. Big mistake on whoever started this.
An “agreement” doesn’t necessarily imply a “settlement”. In this case a settlement was made.
1. Smoking Ad
2. Nebulous sexual harrasment charges
3. Rosebud
Sure beats the MSM’s defense of Krinton’s numerous sexual adventures. That barrage ranged from “she’s a slut” to “it’s all a conspiracy” to “he’s Mr. Wonderful, so it doesn’t matter that he probably did it”.
We just won.
game over.
Like Ann Coulter says, the 1990s where the equivilent of the Salem witch trials when it came to sexual harrasment. That is so so sooooo incredibly spot on because I personally witnessed how out of control it was many many times.
One episode that stands out like a brick in my mind is around 1992 a male co-worker asking a female co-worker out for a drink after work. She did not complain, but the paranoia was so great that he was immediately fired that same day when the boss overheard him. Just an absolute *head slapping* WTF moment.
Chris Mathews has already pronounced Cain guilty. So no excplaining need. By the way, be sure to go to amazon.com and leave a real good review on Mathews new book. Let’s be fair with him like he is with everyone on the right. Review coming up.
Well, that flatulant gas attack was short lived was it not? Thank God for the internet.
But what are we to do with the vile Perrywinkle and his Perrywinklers. There should be a price to pay by the man and his supporters for trying to smear a good man. Dontcha think?
The significant part to me is that the NRA has now publicly said that the woman can talk ALL SHE WANTS. And she is choosing not to.
I think the NRA should release it anyway. Whoever this chick is, she opened the Pandora’s Box by claiming she would talk... Herman Cain isn’t allowed to get cold feet over this, so why should she? We’re not talking about a rape or any violence here. At worst, we’re talking about “Man behaving badly” so I think she now owes it to let the agreement be released, at the minimum, even if she doesn’t want to appear to tell her side of the story. By releasing the report, it allows Cain to tell his side.
Whenever Team Romney had rumors they wanted to start about other candidates,
Jonathan Martin has been their go-to guy to get those rumors in writing in front of a national audience.
Who benefits most from Sanford meltdown? Californian (that's right) Mitt Romney
"Peeking Out From the McCain Wreckage: Mitt Romney"
"Someone's got to say it: IS MITT ROMNEY RESPONSIBLE FOR OBAMA'S VICTORY?"
"Vanity: Team Romney Sabotaged Palin and Continuing to Do So?"
"Romney Supporters Trashing Palin"
"Romney advisors sniping at Palin?"
“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.Charles Laughton, Witness for the Prosecution:
"Were you lying then, are you lying now, or are you not a chronic and habitual liar!"
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.
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.