Lawyer for Cain’s accuser: She wants to tell her side of the story (No more confidentiality?)

Hotair ^ | 11/02/2011 | Allahpundit

[SeekAndFind]

She wants to, but … she can’t because of the confidentiality provisions in the settlement agreement. That puts Cain in a tough spot. Even though it’s up to the NRA, not him, to waive those provisions, the media will want to know if he thinks they should. If he says no, it looks like he has something to hide and that he’s afraid of what she might say. If he says yes, the NRA might very well issue the waiver and then this story is suddenly rolling along again. Obviously, if she wants to speak publicly, she thinks she has something damaging to say about him.

Lawyer Joel P. Bennett called on the National Restaurant Association, where the woman and Cain worked in the late 1990s, to release the woman from her written promise not to talk about the allegations or disparage the trade group.

“It is just frustrating that Herman Cain is going around bad-mouthing the two complainants, and my client is blocked by a confidentiality agreement,” Bennett said. “The National Restaurant Association ought to release them and allow them to respond.”…

“If we didn’t have a written settlement agreement that says confidential and no disparagement, I think she’d be very comfortable coming forward,” the attorney told The Post on Tuesday. “Not because she would be so hellbent on doing something to Herman Cain — I don’t know that.

“For all practical purposes, Herman Cain has already done that” — waived confidentiality, Bennett said. “But legally that might not constitute a waiver.”

Interestingly, Bennett doesn’t remember being at the NRA to negotiate the terms of the agreement and thinks it might have been handled over the phone “quite expeditiously,” in WaPo’s words. The more pro forma the process was, the more likely it seems this was a nuisance settlement and not some blockbuster allegation that made NRA lawyers scramble. That’s the good news for Cain; the bad news is that Bennett might be right about him having already breached the confidentiality agreement by publicly discussing specific details of the charges. Any employment lawyers care to weigh in on that? After yesterday’s endlessly evolving storyline about whether and when Cain knew about the settlements (click this link and cringe), I’m not even sure that he signed the agreement. Can you breach a contract whose terms you don’t know and to which you’re not a party?

His PAC is now fundraising off of this story, by the way, alleging that it’s another “high-tech lynching” of a black conservative. According to Mark Block, the campaign itself had its biggest day yet online yesterday, raising more than $250,000. I sure hope he’s innocent; if he’s letting blue-collar supporters show solidarity by plowing hard-earned money into his coffers when he knows there’s more to this story than has come out, it’d be a disgrace. Exit question via Conor Friedersdorf: The conservative knock on Romney is that he’ll get rolled by Democrats as president because he stands for nothing. There are no ideological red lines he’ll refuse to cross because, allegedly, there are no ideological red lines for him in the first place. Isn’t Cain in a similar position, though? In his case it’s not a lack of principle that’s the problem, it’s a lack of policy expertise. He frequently hedges his answers by emphasizing that he’ll rely on “experts” and thorough briefings as president to make sound, informed decisions. (He actually deferred to his economic advisor on a question about 9-9-9 yesterday at the National Press Club). But as Friedersdorf says, the more you let experts fill in the policy blanks for you, the more power those experts have to subtly shape your policy decisions. It’s not the same problem as Romney’s — the worry there is that Mitt will be influenced by Democrats, not his own advisors — but it’s a problem if you’re someone who frets about the corrupting effect of the Republican establishment. A lot of those experts and advisors will come from the establishment. How confident are you that Cain will tell them no when they’re pushing him, replete with carefully selected “facts,” to make some deal that’s bad for the right?

Update: Cain was on “Special Report” tonight and was pressed by Bret Baier on whether the confidentiality provisions should be waived. His answer, via the Corner:

“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…

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.”

He also said he should have been “better prepared” to deal with the story when it broke.

[Eagle of Liberty]

In the words of W, “Bring it on!” I think that Cain should recommend waiving the confidentiality and allow them to say whatever it is they would like to say. It will kill this story FAST! My prediction is that it is a non-story much like the email dump of Palin’s emails.

[muawiyah]

The lawyer has not asked for the files to be released for examination by others. What he has asked is for NRA to release the woman from the agreement so she can RESPOND ~ that is, talk, not 'fess up about what it was she did to incur executive disfavor.

The lawyer doesn't want to go back to the original issue ~

My guess is he destroyed his files years ago. The woman no longer has her files either. The NRA has no files.

[Nervous Tick]

With her lawyer’s assistance, she has *already* violated her confidentiality agreement.

[WinMod70]

I’m $ure %he doe$!

[skeeter]

Cain could quickly turn this to his advantage with a little humor - deride the news media double standards and a few pointed remarks about the GOP establishment's motives in keeping this going.

People sense the unfairness here and are hungry to see SOMEONE fight back in this kind of smear situation. The worst thing he could do is take it on the chin & look weak.

[isthisnickcool]

This lawyer is an ass. All he wants here is to get his name all over the media. He is talking about something he really knows nothing about as best I can tell.

[Truth29]

How much has she been offered and by whom to take down Herman Cain?

[wardaddy]

the longer this is dragged out it doesn’t help Cain

[Maringa]

If I were Cain, I would release everything and deal with this a soon as possible. It’s not a question of if, but when the women in these charges will accept a payment greater than the confidentiality agreement, and to “sensationalize” the charges to boot in order to make it worthwile for the news cycle.

If there are no written records, than this thing can go bad in a hurry in a he said/she said, he did/she did scenario.

[LibsRJerks]

She and the other accuser have had 12 YEARS to come out against Cain about this.

Why now?

[Diogenesis]

Background? Absolutely.

Joel Bennett enjoys a good scheme with John Podesta

THE REAL DEAL:

“Former President of National Restaurant Association has Ties to the Mitt Romney Campaign
Steven C. Anderson … took over the helm as Chief Executive Officer at the National Restaurant Association
Herman Cain's departure in 1999”

Whenever Team Romney had rumors they wanted to start about other candidates,
Jonathan Martin has been their go-to guy to get those rumors in writing in front of a national audience.

“And The Most Irresponsible Journalist Award Goes to The Politico’s Jonathan Martin!
So tell me, how do you write a “news” story about an organization paying for a speaker when you don’t even know if the organization is paying for the speaker?
Ask “journalist” Jonathan Martin. He knows all about it.
You see, Jonny wrote a piss poor story the other day about how the Iowa Family Policy Center will be paying a large speaker fee if Sarah Palin comes to Iowa to keynote the IFPC’s fall funderaiser.
The only problem is that Jonny has no sources confirming that any exorbitant fee is being charged or paid.
Jonny also got some inside info from David Kochel, who was a top aide to former (and future) presidential candidate, Mitt Romney.
Hey Dave, didn’t I just read a story about how Mitt Romney tried to buy off the Iowa Christian Alliance?
I heard you helped facilitate that little scheme. And somehow you are shocked at the thought of a well-known political figure (who very likely isn’t running for president) getting paid a speaker’s fee for (gasp) a public speaking appearance? ..
and then we’ve got Tim Albrecht quoted. He was the Iowa spokesman for Romney’s 2008 caucus campaign.”
And it always seemed like, whenever the Romney people had rumors they wanted to start about other candidates,
Jonny was their go-to guy to get those rumors in writing in front of a national audience.

---

"Who's the Palin Leaker from the McCain Campaign?
National Review Online The publication of a Vanity Fair profile of Sarah Palin
appears to have opened old wounds in the McCain campaign.
... the source of the “Diva” leak was Nicolle Wallace’s husband."

---

Who benefits most from Sanford meltdown? Californian (that's right) Mitt Romney

---

"Peeking Out From the McCain Wreckage: Mitt Romney"

"Someone's got to say it: IS MITT ROMNEY RESPONSIBLE FOR OBAMA'S VICTORY?"

"Vanity: Team Romney Sabotaged Palin and Continuing to Do So?"

"Romney Supporters Trashing Palin"

"Romney advisors sniping at Palin?"

---

[SeekAndFind]

RE: the longer this is dragged out it doesn’t help Cain

You bet the left WANTS to drag this out as far as they can.

As I said, Politics is a BLOOD SPORT.

Bill Clinton and Barney Fwank are very good at it ( with the help of the MSM of course).

If Cain can get through this pressure and pass with flying colors, it is a good indicator that he can handle the GREATER pressure of the Presidency.

If he can’t, he was never meant to be our leader.

[NoGrayZone]

Gee, I wonder what we would find in HER back ground if she is released from her agreement.

[Lady Lucky]

Who has the authority to release her from the agreement — Cain, or the Assn?
Would be folly to do so.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: Why now?

Same question can be asked of all the sexual accusations against John McCain, Nikki Haley, Clarence Thomas and yes, Sarah Palin.

The question should really be, WHY NOT NOW?

[muawiyah]

Fur Shur NRA is not going to release her from her agreement to not badmouth them UNLESS someone comes up with a complete record of the complaint and disposition of the complaint.

There's no lawsuit here, and that, BTW, is why you need to file lawsuits, or complaints with government bodies with some jurisdiction.

If you don't file a lawsuit and simply take a payoff to go away and shut up, that's what you've got ~ money.

There's no future payoff if there's no record.

Her lawyer should have told her that ~ before he settled it by phone. Bwahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!! ROTFLMAO!

It's like a minor insurance settlement where you bumped a car ~ so you just paid the guy, or he paid you. Those records don't last long at all.

[Dr. Thorne]

If the woman wants to speak, let her tell her story while being deposed by Cain's lawyers under oath. My guess is that if this is offered, she will shut up very quickly.

If she is willing to tell her story to his lawyers, it becomes open season on her. Every facet of her life will become an open book.

My prediction is that, one way or another, she will get to tell her story and be revealed as a total fruitcake, liar, lowlife, etc. as well as a big time Leftie.

Lots of people in the hospitality industry are Leftist and bitter, as usual, since they are all geniuses, of course, and have never been recognized, given a chance, blah, blah, blah. Cain should employ the tried-and-true Clinton strategy of "nuts and sluts".

After all, if any of this is true, this woman sold her honor and her truthfulness for $35,000.

[Angry_White_Man_Syndrome]

His best move would to agree to a release of all records concerning the matter, but only if she agrees that she or her lawyers will in no way make any gains from interviews, book deals, etc. This new agreement should have a clause that make her reveal all her financial records for the next ten years and a stiff penalty is any compensation is found to have been made.

[Tex-Con-Man]

The woman wants to be free to say anything to trash Cain. It will devolve into a He said/She said. That usually doesn't favor the “He”. (Witness the recent Anita Hill raising victim awareness she-man manhaters club anniversary lovefest on CSPAN.)