Posted on 10/31/2011 2:47:44 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
I’m still trying to figure out what a verbal gesture might be.
OYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!
He didn’t say there was no settlement. He said he did not know the details of any settlement. Geesh.
Apparently, if there were a settlement made, the settlement was paid by the Restaurant Association, not Mr. Cain—or that’s what I heard somewhere, anyway.
Clip this morning: (from memory) "I don't think there was any settlement, but if there was I hope it wasn't for much..."
I don't care who paid it. There's no way he didn't know about it.
I think the ol'gal with the complaint made too much of it ~ not everybody is Italian or Gypsy or Arab, and I don't think Mr. Cain would be easily mistaken for one of those guys.
It may be hard to imagine for some of you who are not executives or business owners that it is quite possible to have a settlement that you don’t remember or had no hand in settling. It may be even harder to imagine lawsuits that have no basis in reality other than generating money.
If you are not in the arena then getting sued is a big deal and you may even believe that if there is smoke then thee must be at least a little fire. But depending on how big an arena you play in these types of settlements could be a monthly occurrence and not very memorable ones at that.
Companies face situations like this all the time. In many cases even when the charges are baseless companies will settle without admitting any wrong-doing just to make the trouble go away. If that's what happened in this case, as is likely, then Cain should have said so right off the bat.
I dunno, this not looking good as he keeps changing his story.
Damn Cain, was suit filed and money paid? If it happened, it happened, admit it, get it out, get it over with and move the hell on.
As it is Cain is starting to define the meaning of is.
One thing will be watching on FN tonight. Will bloviater O’Reilly put Cain down and become the biggest hypocrite of all time.
Making a through cutting motion is still not verbal.
Making a throat cutting motion is still not verbal.
Of course everyone realizes that the National Restaurant Association is just a monstrous lobbying group.
Good grief! If you don’t like him, that’s fine——there’s no big scandal here—a couple of women made some accusations, and the Restaurant Association gave them some money instead of them pressing charges, which would cost a heck of a lot more money, and would be very time consuming........
I”ve heard and read everything I can about this, and to me, there’s no there there...............
btw—I’m a woman.
A certain sexual movement of the tongue while speaking. You know, like Obama talks when describing his wife Michael.
The “verbal gesture” would most likely be saying that she was about the same height as his wife, the words that accompanied the “physical gesture” of placing his hand beneath his chin. Otherwise, the simple act of placing one’s hand beneath his chin wouldn’t be a harassment charge.
Now I’m only guessing that the “settlement” was more accurately a termination agreement. An employee who will file a formal sexual harassement complaint against an executive for placing his hand below his chin, saying she was about the same height as his wife, is a loose canon. This is an employee the organization wants far far away from them, never to darken their door again. If the organization just flat out fired her, they’d be open to another lawsuit. But, if they negotiated a termination settlement of a few month’s salary to get her to go away voluntarily, that would be the best outcome for the organization.
If the settlement has an injunction against the complainant talking about it wouldn’t it also have an injunction against the accused talking about it? How does he get around that without breaking the law?
Nice try but I would have a hard time trusting somebody who doesn’t remember having been sued for sexual harassment to run this country...especially if the accusations were false.
Part of the problem here may have been uncertainty as to what was the extent of the confidentiality obligations contained within the settlement agreement and just who is bound by it.
In his initial responses, Cain may have been unsure whether he was bound by the confidentiality agreement. Was he allowed to state that there was a settlement? Was he allowed to discuss the nature of the allegations? Was he allowed to speak of the amount of the settlement? He may not have known at first. This may explain the nature of his statements when first asked.
Now that he is speaking about it, they must have concluded either that (1) the agreement was between the National Restaurant Association and the woman, and Cain was not a party to it and is not prohibited under a collateral obligation such as an employment agreement from speaking about it or (2) the woman has breached the agreement by disclosing details to Politico, thereby excusing the NRA and Cain from any obligation not to speak about it.
Figuring these things out is not something that is obvious without checking with the lawyers. It is not surprising that it would take several days to sort out who can say what about it.
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.