Replies

Here’s Michael Harlin of the American Thinker’s take:

1) Herman Cain is accused of sexually harrassing two women, though no direct nor specific accusations are made, nor are facts presented to support it.

2) The nature of this harrassment ( if it did occur ) is unknown.

3) There apparently was a settlement in the “1990’s” under terms of non-disclosure when he was the CEO of the National Restaurant Association; meaning, no one gets to talk about the settlement, including Mr. Cain, nor the alleged victims, nor the attorneys.

4) So then, how does one “defend” himself after making a confidential settlement? Answer: you can’t under these circumstances. And that’s why this is a “when did you stop beating your wife?” scenario. There’s no way to win and the implication is inherently prejudicial to Cain.

Attorneys settle cases all the time under confidential terms. The point is of settlement, instead of taking the risks of litigation which is as certain as a crap game no matter how innocent you are, a reasonable party will pay to make it “go away.”

Does this mean culpability? Of course not! It means that instead of paying attorneys buckets of money to defend spurious claims, you pay to settle. It is the cost of living in this litigious world. And settlements of this type are routine in this country and are happening every day.

I don’t think those facts are accurate, at least they don’t fit the public pronouncements.

First, Cain could certainly SAY there was a settlement that he can’t talk about, if that were the case. He might not be allowed to discuss the details, but he could SAY that he is bound by law not to discuss the details.

Second, Cain said he had no idea there was a settlement. If that is true, there’s no way he could be gagged by the settlement. How could you be covered by “non-disclosure” if you were never told, and didn’t sign the agreement?

So if your argument is correct, Cain signed the agreement, and then forgot about it, to the point where when he was reminded of it, he still claimed to never have known about it. Since I don’t think his staff would let him saying something that was so clearly refutable (if he signed it, they could produce the signature), I have to believe Cain is NOT covered by any non-disclosure.

under terms of non-disclosure when he was the CEO of the National Restaurant Association; meaning, no one gets to talk about the settlement, including Mr. Cain, nor the alleged victims, nor the attorneys.

IANAL, but it seems that the purpose of the gag order has been laid to waste. Someone talked. It would seem that to continue to force other party to abide by a gag after suffering the damage which the gag order was supposed to prevent, would not be legal.