Posted on 10/31/2011 9:48:36 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Herman Cain acted swiftly to put an end to speculation over the story about sexual-harassment claims during his tenure at the National Restaurant Association. After a few hours of confused response, Cain admitted that he had been accused, but falsely, of inappropriate conduct. He claimed that an investigation of those accusations showed at the time that they were “baseless,” and he seemed surprised by the news that the trade group settled the claims. “I hope it wasn’t for much,” Cain told Fox News, “because nothing happened”:
“I have never sexually harassed anyone, but yes, I was falsely accused while I was at the National Restaurant Association,” he said.
He added that he does not know that a settlement was paid out against the two complainants, and said “If more allegations come, I assure you that people will simply make them up.”
“The only other allegations will be trumped up allegations,” he said.
This is a much better response than the one offered last night in response to the Politico story. It acknowledges that Cain had to deal with accusations, and puts him on the record with a strong denial specific to them. Unless Politico reveals more about the nature of the complaints and the women involved come forward, this will likely be enough to keep Cain in the game, as it’s doubtful that voters will give much credence to the vague nature of the allegations — unless they get a lot less vague, and unless more people come forward with complaints, assuming they can credibly do so.
Fox also asked about a story in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel about possible campaign finance irregularities. I’ll have more on that later, but that hits Cain’s staff rather than Cain himself.
Would it be an oddity, or would it be the norm, for Cain not to know the trade group he represented paid these claimants off?
One complainant can be denied. Two starts to raise any eyebrow. If more documented claims come out then Cain is finished.
Is the Left trying a repeat of the Clarence Thomas “high-tech lynching?”
That is what insurance companies do. Once the insurance company gets involved the policy holder is out of it. They know nothing other than it’s settled.
Seen it before.
This is definitely a better answer than the one yesterday. And given they knew for 10 days that this story was coming, it seems “amateurish” that they didn’t have this statement prepared yesterday.
I mean, it’s not like Cain would be confused about which women accused him of harrassment and got a settlement, right? It’s just two women. He says he knew about the allegations, and with 10 days he could have called his staff from the 90s and found out about the settlement.
It is very odd that as President of the association, he would have no clue that they reached a settlement. If you are touting your management of a lobbying group as a reason you are prepared to be President of the united states, you really should actually know what they were up to, especially if it is settling with people who falsely accused you of things.
Actually, that would be weird. According to the story, the settlement includes a gag order, that people can’t discuss the matter. How could they possibly sign a gag order without including the person actually accused? If I accused someone of something, and decided to settle with a gag order, I would make certain the person I accused couldn’t run around denying it later. But that’s more of a question about the women and their lawyer.
Hopefully, if Cain wins the Presidency, he’ll pay more attention to what his administration is doing. I’m sure he’ll learn that as part of his on-the-job training, after his handlers explain to him that he doesn’t get to sign constitutional amendments, but that he is expected to submit legislation if he wants congress to consider it.
Note: I am not discussing the nature or veracity of the allegations. I am ignoring the allegations. I’m discussing the process by which the allegations are being handled by the inexperienced, amateur Cain team, which his supporters are so thrilled about, because they are not professionals and have no experience, since “being professional” and “having experience” are now “bad things”.
See Post #3 above. There’s some difference between this complaint and Anita Hill’s.
Cain said he didn't know that it was settled. But maybe he had a special department for handling harrassment charges against the president of the organization, and he missed their memo.
Btw, they were black callers, and one just called him a republican monkey. LMAO
Yeah, it’s called an insurance company and their lawyers.
You’d have to understand the nature of the allegations, have some insight into their veracity, and judge the merits, before it would matter how many of these there were.
If Cain ran his association such that it simply paid off people who made false allegations, there could be dozens and it wouldn’t mean anything, other than if you were concerned that the leader of an organization would allow employees to take payoffs for false accusations, and wouldn’t know it was happening. But that’s a different charge than the allegations themselves.
You can take that point of view but I doubt the average voter would. Especially if we are talking about dozens.
It’s nice to see Cain on the offensive over this. He should have categorically denied it from the get-go. Now that he has he needs to keep doing so and force Politico to respond with what they have. If anything.
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.
We can only guess what really happened. There are a number of possible scenarios. Allegations of this type are sometimes raised by disgruntled employees who concoct such allegations knowing a company will give them a termination payout just to get rid of them. It is easy money. Insurance companies also do this in some disputed claims, which are more bother to defend against than just settle and be done with them. A settlement in these instances proves nothing.
Herman Cain can’t possibly defend himself against this.
I believe his best response is, “under the terms of the settlement, I am not allow to respond.” This is a non-win situation.
If his wife Gloria wants to, she probably can respond. And I’ll bet you she says something to the effect that “I stand by my husband.”
Personally I accept Cain’s denial about it.
But any more documented claims will be a *political problem* for Cain.
That is why I say he would be finished.
I just heard of FOX News - Cain’s denial being compared to Bill Clinton.
That is already a *political problem* right there.
Respectfully, I disagree. The left has made a habit of re-introducing old charges with fraudulent assistance from left-leaning "victims," to discredit conservative candidates.
Given the well-documented mistreatment of, or misadventures with women by democrat luminaries -- Clinton & Kennedeys, for example -- which democrats themselves willingly ignore, the evidence would have to be VERY strong to make me stop supporting Cain over this.
In short, the democrats' established pattern of fraud in this area is enough to rain doubt over any accusation.
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.