Posted on 11/14/2011 10:23:05 AM PST by struggle
HOLY S*** GUYS STRUGGLE STRIKES GOLD AGAIN!
http://il.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20110324_0000757.NIL.htm/qx
LOLOLOLOLLLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOL
So that’s why Zuckerman wants money!
Send this to Cain and all your media outlets!
I heard the Obama administration is paying Allred.
Answer - Smearnoff.
I’ve long suspected some Perry supporters are really for Romney. This smear of Herman Cain has not helped their man Perry in the slightest but it has helped Mitt Romney. That these Perry ‘supporters’ are defensive of the accusers in this smear is quite telling.
They shouldn't have taken her seriously this time. Cain should hang this around the media's neck. It was outrageous for Rove to claim that Allred gave credibility to the claims.
Are chapter 11 proceedings in the public record?
Hypothetical: you make a large sum of money disappear and keep it hidden. Then, you file for bankruptcy and get the creditors to settle for less than you owe, and less than you hid. Then, you repay the reduced amount slowly, drawing on the hidden money as needed. In the end, you come out ahead.
Again, this is hypothetical. But, if a bankruptcy settlement is public record,, it mght offer some useful information.
haw
Another one that certainly applies here is "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." In this case we have no proof from the accuser. None. No proof that Bialek was in D.C. staying alone at a Hilton Hotel on the date she claims this happened. No proof that Herman Cain was in D.C. on the same day. That would be the most minimal beginning of establishing circumstantial evidence. But we don't have even that.
Whatever happened, honest people don’t sell their biggest asset (in this case, a business), then turn around the next day and lose it all gambling.
To me, this is the biggest red flag on his credibility.
It would've been nice if they'd been sure before and the time before that.
I haven’t read this whole thread and maybe you’re even referring to other threads but can you point me to a single post where a “Perry supporter” is “defensive of the accusers”.
I just haven’t seen it, though I’ve seen you make that accusation many, many times.
One link would be good for a start.
I’d like to see one link to a “Perry supporter” who is “defensive of the accusers”.
Many, many times? Really? Two manys infers the number of times has been a lot. Please point to the "many, many times" I have made such an accusation.
So the Democrats were RIGHT when they attacked Paula Jones, Linda Tripp and Kathleen Willey?
After all, they were the accusers!
Ok. I take back the many, many times.
I can definitely point to ONE time you said it.
Now POINT to one instance of what you’re talking about.
Cain didn’t say he had never met the woman. He said he couldn’t recall having met her. I have met Mr Cain, at a political event, but I am willing to bet Mr Cain would not recall me either. Just because you meet a bunch of people at a big event doesn’t mean you remember every one of them.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2807282/posts?page=204#204
There. There’s my ONE POINT.
Now you point to one instance of what you’re talking about.
I dare you.
lol! So you are guilty of doing exactly what it is you are accusing me of doing? Yes, your comment/question was an accusation.
You should have bothered to read this thread.
Actually, I was griping about the attacks on the doctor, not on Marty60.
That was a defense.
How’s that his fault and why are we attacking him?
That was another.
Why is it that a private individual (NOT in politics) should be attacked by supporters of an individual (who has chosen to MAKE himself a public figure) in a way that those supporters deride in others?
That was another.
If we hate the way that Cain is treated, why is it okay to do the same thing to other people?
And that was another.
As I said, you should have read the thread/ And yes, these comments were all made by a La Raza Rick Perry supporter.
I don’t know if marty60 is a Perry supporter, but he/she has posted mulrtiple times in this thread, and several were clearly defense of Victor Zuckerman: Cain’s latest accuser.
I can’t easily cut/paste now, but take a look at #65, #69, #81, and #149.
There is no pattern. There are allegations of a pattern, but no pattern has in fact been established, and if being argued in court could not be established from the class of hearsay being presented.
Charlie, this is the reason Zuckerman's allegations do not automatically start out with the same credibility as Cain's testimony of his own innocence. Theoretically, the American legal system is designed to prevent injustice, and would rather let a guilty man go free than an innocent man be "hanged" for a “crime” he didn’t commit. Therefore the system is inherently biased to presume innocence, and to demand strict proof of such serious allegations. This is why it is so hard to get hearsay admitted in court. Testimony can be given of things about which you have direct and personal knowledge, but so and so told me thus and such, when you use it to supposedly prove that such and such really happened, doesn’t work for most purposes, and for good reason. It is an open door to “hanging” someone based on unverified and possibly unverifiable gossip. Our system rejects that, and it should, and all good conservatives should understand and be on board with that.
But what if he actually saw Cain and Bialek socializing? Two issues there. First, seeing Cain greet someone in public is not proof of relationship or even that Cain was lying when he said he never saw her before. As a warm and gregarious person, he has greeted untold thousands at such meetings for years now, and asking him to recall a specific meeting, especially of someone he truly didn't know, is asking more than most human memories can deliver. All Cain has to do to be innocent of lying, even if he was seen with her, is to genuinely not remember meeting her. This clearly doesn't rise to a level of proof, legal or otherwise.
Second, referring back to the presumption of innocence, in our legal system the credibility of an adverse witness is fair game. We have an adversarial system of law. Each side is supposed to take the position, within the bounds of truth, that represents their client in the best possible light, and their client's adversaries as potentially biased or motivated by something other than a pure desire for truth. By both sides being vigorously presented before a hopefully impartial arbiter, we hope to arrive at the truth.
The arbiter in this case is us, we the voting public. So from Cain’s perspective, presenting Dr. Z's public court record to the public is both valid and significant, because the issues in that record appear to have a bearing both on his honesty and on the possibility that he has a behavior, gambling, that is well known to produce irrational and unethical behavior when it reaches the addictive stage.
Those are fair questions, as they go to Dr. Z’s credibility. He has opened himself to such questions because he has pushed himself (or Gloria Allred has dragged him) into the very hot kitchen of public inquiry, and if he and Cain and the others choose to stay in it, they will all have to find a way to deal with the heat.
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.