[bcsco]

No, the significant part is that Herman Cain argued against the complaint It was the NRA that settled with the complainant; not him. He wasn’t a party to it. That’s BIG!

It justifies Herman Cain’s handling of this. Politico never told the Cain campaign any of the particulars. Thus Cain, not being a party to the settlement, had nothing to defend himself against. Those who believe he handled this wrong are just plain wrong themselves.

[BagCamAddict]

You're right. And everyone who jumped on him for “not remembering whether he was involved in a sexual harassment lawsuit or not” gets to eat crow. But they won't.

And the lawyers who told the press that Cain had seriously breached a confidentiality agreement also need to eat crow.

And the media who published that shinola without knowing the facts also need to eat crow.

And Cain's camp should sue Politico and everyone else who published that CAIN was PARTY TO an agreement or settlement or whatever else you want to call it. CAIN wasn't party to it, just the NRA and the woman.