Posted on 11/02/2011 7:09:17 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Herman Cain said he was not comfortable addressing whether he wanted the woman who had accused him of sexual harassment and now wants to speak up, but is barred by a confidentiality agreement, to be allowed to speak to the media.
“I can’t answer that now because there are legal implications,” Cain told Fox News regarding the Washington Post article that the woman would like to speak. “If the restaurant association waives that [confidentiality agreement] … I just found out about this today. There are legal implications associated with that that I’m not totally familiar with yet, so I can’t give you a definitive answer on that until we consult with our legal attorneys and also talk to some others. We can’t answer that right now. It’s too soon.”
Cain said he was “absolutely” certain he had not violated his side of the confidentiality agreement because he had not named the women involved.
He admitted that he could have been “better prepared” for the media questioning that followed the allegations in light of his awareness that the story was going to come out.
In response to whether he thought his being a black conservative was related to the charges coming out, Cain said, “I believe the answer is yes, but we do not have any evidence to support it.”
Asked about his response to PBS last night when he had said he had “no recollection” if he had invited a woman up to his hotel room ever, Cain said that he had never done such a thing. “I am sure that I hadn’t done that,” he said. “Absolutely sure.”
I think Rick Perry is a prime person of interest in this.
Isn't a confidentiality agreement binding to both parties? If so, haven't his "accusers" already broken the agreement?
Perhaps Cain can get in a bit of a legal bind by answering the charge, but I would think those women would be in the same boat. Am I wrong?
Why is this Cain’s decision. If the woman wants to break the agreement, and deal with the consequences, then she should go ahead. If not, she should STFU. But in either case, why is it Herman Cain’s place to decide for her?
I just read several posts over at DU expressing the opinion that the MSM is going way overboard covering this [Cain/allegations] story. One even said Cain is getting the ‘Dean scream treatment’. If even DUers are fed up w all the media hype, the backfire is complete.
I’m curious to know the race of the accusers. Wouldn’t surprise me if they were fearful of a black man. And if they are white what are their views on race?
I guess the MSM is really pissed that Perry broke the story instead of the MSM waiting till the last minute to dump the manure to help Obammy.
It's really nice to see a Republican conservative down there wallowing in the feces of life with the liberal/progress/communists. You expect that stuff from them because they are scum.
What she does is her problem, not his.
Think about this. Perry gets in and jumps ahead of mittens. The "n" word rock story hits the campaign and Perry drops like a rock.
Cain gets in and jumps ahead of mittens. Sexual harassment article comes out about Cain. So far, no drop for Cain, but I can smell mittens written all over this.
I have no idea. Was it the women who broke it ? Was it someone else? He tried not to say anything but the media kept at him and made him look like he was trying to hide something.
I had not heard that. When and where did he break the story?
Maybe he should have said “Well, if she wants to break the law, that’s her decision, not mine”.
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.