Non-disclosure does NOT prevent you from saying “I have two settlements in my past regarding allegations of sexual harrassment”.
Does it?
Please just answer that question.
Cain himself briefed his then-campaign manager on the issue back in his Senate campaign. Was that a violation of non-disclosure?
Again, I’m going to repeat the question in the clearest language I can muster:
Does non-disclosure mean that you cannot mention that a case existed and a settlement was reached?
Please answer that question.
And you glossed over #2. WTF exactly WAS the Perry campaign accused of doing and why walk that accusation back exactly one day later?
That is the single most amateurish act of ANY presidential campaign I have EVER witnessed in my life and ever read about in US history.
If you can defend that, then you have stars in your eyes.
(And I am NOT a Perry supporter. I KNOW the Perry campaign is over and I will not vote for him in the primary, no matter what else is going on.)
Why would he go public with a completely non issue making it an issue?
How about this. Provide even ONE single shred of evidence to back up the accusations.
Accusations were made. Cain refuted them. Rather then demand, as you are, Cain PROVE the lies untrue, the burden of proof lies with the accusers.
Don’t fall for these gutter slime political tactics. It is NOT the job of the accused to prove his innocence.
When saying something like that will raise more questions, start the circus etc. Yeah...I'd just keep my mouth shut. He has no reason nor requirement 'announce allegations.' Keep in mind they were only allegations, he was never convicted of a crime.
Cain himself briefed his then-campaign manager on the issue back in his Senate campaign. Was that a violation of non-disclosure?
Depending on what he told the manager maybe, maybe not. The manager may have dismissed the matter because of the non-disclosure agreement.
Again, I’m going to repeat the question in the clearest language I can muster: Does non-disclosure mean that you cannot mention that a case existed and a settlement was reached? Please answer that question.
I guess my answer to that is another question, how would it benefit him to have disclosed "allegations?" When you apply for a job they ask about convictions, not allegations. Non-discloure agreements can take on many forms. I have one case in which discussing it is banned. So, it depends on the case and agreement.
And you glossed over #2. WTF exactly WAS the Perry campaign accused of doing and why walk that accusation back exactly one day later? That is the single most amateurish act of ANY presidential campaign I have EVER witnessed in my life and ever read about in US history. If you can defend that, then you have stars in your eyes. (And I am NOT a Perry supporter. I KNOW the Perry campaign is over and I will not vote for him in the primary, no matter what else is going on.)
First I didn't gloss over the Perry issue, I didn't answer it. I chose not to answer it as your paragraph went back off on the other rant about disclosing the allegations. Now, if the Perry issue is important to I guess his campaign manager screwed up. They should have just let the blogosphere unravel this mess...that the MSM/Press is trying to create. I can sort of understand how they got blind-sided as the matter was a non-issue in his senate campaign.
What ultimately is bugging me now and not related to our conversation at all is this: Are these companies doing the accused men a disservice by paying off the women?