Replies

NO he DIDN’T

Earlier he said his attys handled it and he didn’t know the details.

Obviously he got the details between then and now.

What is so hard to understand about this?

Earlier he said his attys handled it and he didn’t know the details.
...
What is so hard to understand about this?

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?

BTW, here is Cain's latest explanation of the settlement, and when he knew about it. And like with the abortion/adoption thing, Cain's supporters, trying to cover up for his inability to explain himself, have missed the mark:

“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."