Posted on 10/31/2011 2:35:20 PM PDT by LonelyCon
Herman Cain, who spent Monday denying that he sexually harassed two women while he headed the National Restaurant Association, late in the day offered details of an incident with a female colleague that led to allegations of inappropropriate behavior. Also, for the first time, the 2012 presidential candidate acknowledged that he knew about a settlement that was offered to one of the women.
Byron York of the Washington Examiner had details of what Cain said in the interview wtih Greta Van Susteren, which will air tonight on Fox.
“My general counsel said this started out where she and her lawyer were demanding a huge financial settlement…I don’t remember a number…But then he said because there was no basis for this, we ended up settling for what would have been a termination settlement,” Cain said in the interview, as reported by the Washington Examiner. “Maybe three months’ salary. I don’t remember. It might have been two months. I do remember my general counsel saying we didn’t pay all of the money they demanded.”
Cain’s statement represent a reversal from what the Republican said only hours ago, when he denied that he knew about any settlement that was reached after the claims of sexual harassment were made.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
"My general counsel said this started out where she and her lawyer were demanding a huge financial settlement…I don’t remember a number…But then he said because there was no basis for this, we ended up settling for what would have been a termination settlement. Maybe three months’ salary. I don’t remember. It might have been two months. I do remember my general counsel saying we didn’t pay all of the money they demanded.”That doesn't sound like a conversation that happened 2 hours earlier. DO you really think that in preparation for this interview, Cain sat down and had a detailed discussion with his lawyer, and was told things, but didn't write them down or pay enough attention to remember them?
Do you believe that if he was told something in the past 10 hours, he would say "I remember my general counsel saying", rather than "I spoke with my general counsel today nad he told me..."?
Maybe he IS recounting a meeting from earlier today, but if so, that raises more troubling questions. If you are correct, Cain, running for President, is facing one of his first real challenges, a "scandal" he has to answer for. He learns of this scandal days earlier, does no prep, it breaks, he waits til the next morning, comes out with several definitive statements, and only THEN has a meeting with counsel to find out what really happened?
And while meeting with his counsel to prepare to handle this campaign crisis, he forgets what his counsel told him, and can only remember vague recollections of a conversation he essentially just had? When he is specifically preparing to discuss the issue on national TV?
It is just all so very odd. It would make a lot more sense if he was now recollecting a conversation with his general counsei from the time of the complaint. Except that would counter his claim this morning that he didn't know about any settlement, and was surprised there was one.
Apparently, direct quotes from Cain are hard for you to understand:
“If the Restaurant Association did a settlement, I wasn’t even aware of it, and I hope it wasn’t for much, because nothing happened. So if there was a settlement, it was handled by some of the other offices that worked for me at the association, so the answer is absolutely not.”That's not a "I know about a settlement, but not about the details" -- that's a "I didn't know about a settlement". And that's not a "his attys handled it", it's a "handled by some OTHER offices that worked for me".
Later, he said the complaint was handled by his own general counsel (that's his lawyer) and a "lady" who worked for him (who told politico she knew nothing about it, but is now not talking). Not "some other offices". But that's a minor discrepancy in your statement.
Now he says his general counsel told him about the settlement, but he doesn't remember the details. Some claim that this references a meeting he had today, but if the meeting was in the last 10 hours, why doesn't he remember what was said in the meeting? Wasn't he paying attention?
“I was aware that an agreement was reached,” Cain remarked in response to a question about whether he knew the NRA had reached a settlement. “The word settlement versus the word agreement, you know, I’m not sure what they called it.
So in fact, he KNEW there was an agreement. He just didn't think of it as a settlement. It's not that this morning he had no idea there was an agreement, but he was told today about it. It's just that it never occured to him, when dealing with a campaign crisis, that an "agreement" might be called a "settlement", and so he felt perfectly fine claiming this morning that he didn't know there was a settlement, because he knew there was an "agreement" but not a "settlement".
That line: "“The word settlement versus the word agreement, you know, I’m not sure what they called it", might well become the next "that depends on what the meaning of "is" is."
What is the blatantly false information? That there was an allegation of harrassment? there was. That there was a complaint? there was. That Cain knew what was in the complaint? he says he did. That there was a settlement? Cain says there was.
The only thing in question is the original allegations; but they were made in the 1990s, and couldn’t have been from a current political campaign.
“I was aware that an agreement was reached,” Cain remarked in response to a question about whether he knew the NRA had reached a settlement. “The word settlement versus the word agreement, you know, I’m not sure what they called it."Not that he had to check NDA, just that it didn't occur to him that "agreement" meant "settlement", so he decided to say he didn't know about a settlement. Although that doesn't explain his "I hope it wasn't for much", since he also said tonight that the agreement was for a small sum of money, so he knew that already.
No, based on your stupid argument that you are old and can't remember anything, and maybe that's Cain's problem.
I don't think Cain is so old he doesn't remember things -- that was YOUR argument. I was just pointing out that arguing that a candidate is so old he can't remember things anymore isn't a good argument to elect them President.
If you don't like it, you got my point, and should stop making that stupid argument. It doesn't do Cain any good.
I’m from the old school and still say ‘Thank You’ when some gentleman opens the door for me...Not living in the big city, the men aren’t afraid to be gentlemen..women appeciate them...:O) those other types of females think they have something to prove...poor dears are missing so much...I like men they come in handy for fixing cars..LOL
LOL
There is a big difference between an AGREEMENT and a SETTLEMENT.
They are synonyms. A settlement is a legal agreement. Anyway, I guess it would be possible for one could know that an agreeement was reached that included termination and a sum of money, and not know for certain that a "settlement" was reached.
But if you were told on Sunday that there was a settlement, and you knew there was an agreement that included termination and money, you would know that the "agreement" was a settlement, and wouldn't come out the next day saying you had no idea there was a settlement, and that you "hoped" there wasn't much money involved.
Especially if you were going to come back a few hours later and admit that you knew there was an agreement, and knew approximately what amount of money was involved.
Ooooo, you even used a different color font, you must be right. LOL - it cracks me up that you went and grabbed a thesaurus thinking that would win the argument.
Linguistics 101 - context is everything. You cannot define a word in a vacuum, it can only be defined within context. That’s how we know the difference in homonyms in spoken conversation.
And two, while all settlements are legal agreements, not all agreements are settlements. My husband and I reached an agreement this morning that he would take our son to the dentist. That was not a settlement.
Tucker - thought you would get a kick out of this...
That isn’t a “different color font”. It is a link; you have your browser set up to highlight links with a different color font, apparently. I wanted you to see where the source of the synonyms were.
Your discussion of “Linguistics 101” simply reminds me once again of the phrase “it depends what your definition of “is” is.
I said agreements were not all settlements — my point which you ignored is that if you knew you had an agreement which involved termination and a payout, and had some idea how big the payout was, and then you heard someone call it a settlement, it would make no sense for yo to claim you had no idea there was a settlement, and that you “hoped” they hadn’t paid out too much.
When Clinton said “it depends on what your definition of “is” is, he had a linguistic point. He had technicality on his side. But everybody KNEW what it meant, and knew he was twisting the language to keep from having to admit something.
Saying you had no idea there was a settlement, in the manner Cain did, was also “technically” correct, but given that he knew there was an agreement with money involved, was misleading.
It was a different color font in the ping list. My bad.
I have a Masters in Linguistics, and taught ESL to college students for many years. I do know a thing or two about semantics and context. But thank you for playing! LOL
And Bill Clinton was a lawyer and passed the bar exam, so he knew all about how to parse words to his advantage.
“Oh yes, I know all about the agreement, and it wasn’t for much money, and I knew my counsel was involved, I just didn’t think of it as a “settlement”, and that’s why I said I had no idea there was a settlement.”
It may be technically accurate, but it’s the kind of word-parsing that we made fun of with Clinton.
I don’t have a Masters in anything, but I have been speaking english my entire life. But maybe you are one of those who believe experience is a really bad thing. Of course, Cain supporters also insist that being professionally trained is also a bad thing, so maybe your admission of formal training isn’t a positive sign.
According to most Cain folks, we’d be a lot better off if English wasn’t taught by professionals with degrees in the field. Amateurs are what we need to solve the crisis in our language skills.
OK, now I’m just making fun. Hey, I do get paid to write — does that count? Oh wait, that makes me a “professional writer”, which is a bad thing. D*mn.
LOL. Okay, whatever!
Your attempt to portray Herman Cain as parsing words along the same lines as Bill Clinton is truly pathetic.
But by all means, keep it up. You obviously think it helps your candidate to carry water for the liberal media :-)
Have a nice day.
I don’t have a candidate yet. All the candidates I have considered so far have either decided not to run, or have been trashed mercilessly and without regard to the truth by supporters of other candidates.
Cain is just the next in a long list of candidates I have to evaluate. Unfortunately, even though he was fortunate enough not to come into prominence while the Sarah Palin folks were still expecting her to run and therefore working overtime to clear the field for her, he is being taken down mostly by his own amateurish performance, something that I’m told is an important qualification for the Presidency these days.
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.