Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
FYI..Live now..C-span 2..Mittt, Cain, and Rudy speaking to Americans for Prosperity foundation..Mitt up first..very tepid applause when he was introduced..
If it’s on FOX they’ll tease about it for a few hours then finally get eventually.
Wonder how much she is getting paid by Soro’s for this?
I thought the lawyer said earlier that she would NOT appear in public..she wanted her name kept secret
I bet Clinton has 5 TVs tuned to this.
I heard NBC will bury the story till after the election....Ooops, that was the story on Juanita Broderick accusing clinton of raping her.
Women are so easy to purchase these days.
Will she and her lawyer have to return the monies they received?
They are breaking the contract.
coming up in an hour?
Unless the accuser will tell us that Herman Cain told her to “kiss it” or “you better put some ice on that”, I’m not interested.
well you got me to turn on FNC just in time to hear that asshat Alan Colmes on with Megyn Kelly - Trick or treat!
As far as I can tell, no one accused Cain of rape. As far as I can tell, there is indication that the complaint was about workplace behavior.
There are very specific guidelines in all large and small companies about such things.
So, maybe he said something to a woman, she had an over the top sensitivity to whatever it was. He thought it was no big deal. It is really only an issue because it was workplace related. 1999. It is also the last year Cain was with the NRA, wasn’t it?
I don’t think the “complaints” are such a huge deal. It is a bit problematic that there are two of them while he was with the NRA. I think this whole “hang the bit*hes” attitude is way over the top. They didn’t set him up back then for a big ambush in 2011, and it doesn’t seem as though the complaints were very serious. So why treat the women like they were accusing Cain of something very dire - like rape? Lot of overreacting going on I think.
* submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment,
* submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individuals, or
* such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment. (29 C.F.R. § 1604.11 [1980])"
The question then is, are any of these allegations in violation of the legal description of sexual harassment and has the target been convicted of this in a criminal court. Notoriously no one should recognize the actions of a settlement as a basis for anything relating to reality.
This is exactly the case when judgments occur awarding stupid people for scalding their crotches with hot coffee. Otherwise McDonalds would have been sued for serving cold coffee.
Confident women confortable in their skin who are not petty don’t need to make sexual harassment charges. They handle it on the spot. I have sent 2 co-workers back out of my “personal space” with facial evidence of their foolish behavior. (Called a slap mark across the face.) In BOTH instances I was NEVER to be bothered again by the individual OR any other male during my employment at those 2 facilities.
Funny thing is the 2nd incident I was called into human resources. Guy asked if there was anything I needed to tell him. I said no...but I know what I’m here. Am I in trouble? He said no, I’m only going to point out what you did wrong. That is you didn’t report the incident to me, why? I told him I took care of it and figured that guy having to explain to all his co workers..and wife...why he had a hand mark across his face was good enough justice for me. The HR guy laughed and said...I don’t blame you. Just if it happens again let me know. Do you want me to do anything more? I said..NOPE. The idiot who made the pass at me did come in and tell me he was sorry and (this is great) he hoped I didn’t hit my kids that hard. I said, no, only rude men who need it. :)
I have a retired friend who is Jewish and worked for a German chemical company. He said that the baseline settlement for a disgruntled Jewish employee was $100K. Meaning, a Jewish employee filing a weak discrimination/wrongful dismissal suit could expect a minimum $100K settlement offer. To what extent he had factual knowledge or was just repeating urban legend I do not know.