Skip to comments.
PJM Sources Report Details of Alleged Cain Incident
PJMedia ^
| November 3, 2011
| Richard Pollock
Posted on 11/03/2011 10:04:50 AM PDT by bbernard
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320, 321-340, 341-360 ... 621-624 next last
To: org.whodat
“RUSH is laughing at this childish reporting.”
With good reason.
What kind of editor would allow the crucial allegation (”woke up in his bed”) to go to print without checking it?
321
posted on
11/03/2011 11:41:57 AM PDT
by
Qbert
("The best defense against usurpatory government is an assertive citizenry" - William F. Buckley, Jr.)
To: cuban leaf
My understanding is that she filed a complaint and got a settlement years ago. With colleagues at the time and her parents involved, it’s not surprising that there is corroboration of the situation.
That’s what the media’s been reporting and, with a presidential candidate concerned, that is IMO newsworthy.
If a 22 or 23 yo staffer got drunk at a company event and the 55yo married CEO took her to his apartment and “had his way with her”, a number of GOP voters would care about that.
That he apparently lied through his teeth about it all this week isn’t much comfort. That he apparently turned around and accused others of “smearing” him without evidence is despicable.
If this proves out, I’m done with the man and I don’t want him representing the GOP.
To: cuban leaf
Statement is presently being prepared by the woman and her attorney. IF Cain would have kept his mouth shut and not devised so many different stories on the incident, it’d be dead today. This is what has caused this woman to now step out of the shadow...Cain’s lies. What always happens is the coverup...that’s what will deep six you. Everyone is calling Cain and Company Amateur Hour.
323
posted on
11/03/2011 11:42:36 AM PDT
by
shield
(Rev 2:9 Woe unto those who say they are Judahites and are not, but are of the syna GOG ue of Satan.)
To: cuban leaf
What evidence do you need? Video? Notarized statements? This parsing of events in defense of Cain is sad. If a shred of all this gossip is true then he was fooling around. He needs to deal with that then. This is only disqualifying if we make it!
324
posted on
11/03/2011 11:43:02 AM PDT
by
lodi90
To: bbernard; Qbert
This is quickly becoming a Dan Rather moment.
325
posted on
11/03/2011 11:43:27 AM PDT
by
cuban leaf
(Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
To: Qbert
Or finding out if the guy’s wife was in the next room.
326
posted on
11/03/2011 11:43:34 AM PDT
by
mewzilla
(Forget a third party. We need a second one.)
To: mewzilla
Bachman, Santorum, and Perry haven’t any public skeletons of this type yet.
Romney is not a conservative, so he’s not mentioned.
Gingrich has at least two past affairs.
327
posted on
11/03/2011 11:43:40 AM PDT
by
xzins
(Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True Supporters of our Troops PRAY for their VICTORY!)
To: Retired Greyhound
Another thing to keep in mind is that the settlement provided for this tramp woman may have been between the NRA and her; the "gag" would apply only to those 2 parties.
328
posted on
11/03/2011 11:44:09 AM PDT
by
Cletus.D.Yokel
(Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alterations - The acronym explains the science.)
To: Qbert
I saw it, Thanks....
The media is a mess in this country. The correction must have been when Rush was tearing this story apart and the editor had an Oh Sh!!!T moment.
To: MHGinTN
Good to see you hdere defending a good man against an obvious smeat attempt.
If it were Newt in this spot, I'd be here defending him ;)
330
posted on
11/03/2011 11:45:03 AM PDT
by
Las Vegas Ron
(Rush Limbaugh = the Beethoven of talk radio)
To: Secret Agent Man
The whole point is to take Cain down by a scandal Of course..and Cain knew this was going to come. So the issue is having known this crisis would be faced he certainly has not handled it well. He's as much to blame for feeding the scandal as the press is for pushing it the front page and keeping it there.for all to gloat over. He needs to shut up!
331
posted on
11/03/2011 11:45:26 AM PDT
by
caww
To: CounterCounterCulture
Who do you believe, a CEO or a mid-level staffer? That depends on who the CEO was and who the staffer was.
There are honest and dishonest CEOs. There are honest and dishonest staffers.
It's telling that the people at the NRA that new both of them tended to believe Cain and not the staffer. Not that that guarantees anything, but there's a reason a person's reputation is so important when they give testimony in court.
332
posted on
11/03/2011 11:45:58 AM PDT
by
Brookhaven
(Just say #So? to the mainstream media smears)
To: caww
Sorry. I completely disagree.
There is no implied guilt with the settlement. And there is no implied guilt at the unfolding recollection of incidents that occurred decades ago and were handled by others. It's SOP to 'settle' in these kinds of cases.
As for how he's 'handling' it.....you should have heard Rush dress that argument down today. Now Bill Clinton and John Edwards....THEY handled their situations well (Rush's sarcasm).
Cain is not a seasoned politician. Cain is not slick. And Cain is being fired upon by an unethical media.
I'm not troubled by his 'handling' of this awful situation.
And I'm certainly not finding him guilty with absolutely not one SHRED of evidence.
333
posted on
11/03/2011 11:46:27 AM PDT
by
ohioWfan
(Proud Mom of a Bronze Star winner!)
To: luckybogey
You are Buckhead for a day. ;-)
334
posted on
11/03/2011 11:46:27 AM PDT
by
cuban leaf
(Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
To: bbernard
Apparently rush’s staff was printing it out for him to read, he took the story completely apart. Perry’s people strike out again.
335
posted on
11/03/2011 11:46:39 AM PDT
by
org.whodat
(Just another heartless American, hated by Perry and his fellow demorats.)
To: bbernard
I'm reserving judgment against Cain and the accusers until more of the facts come to light. Generally my thoughts thus far are:
- I am somewhat bothered by the fact that Cain's answers have changed repeatedly in various interviews. Although, when recalling an event from 12 or more years ago, it's not unusual to remember more details as you begin thinking about what happened. More details is acceptable. Contradictory details are not
- I accept the idea that Cain was not involved in the settlement negotiaions and therefore cannot speak to them. The NRA's HR Dept. would have handled such negotiations and intentionally excluded Cain from them.
- Cain says the claims were resolved in his favor. Block says Cain wants to move on and discuss campaign issues. That is a little troublesome because if Cain truly was falsely accused, there is no reason to keep the details quiet. He should ask the NRA to release copies of the complaints and the final settlement agreement. At least one accuser seems to want that too.
- It's standard legal procedure to require a confidentiality agreement in any settlement. So the fact that these women cannot provided details does not in and of itself discredit the accusations.
- Anonymous witnesses should not automatically be ignored. There is legtimate reason to fear going public. The witnesses have to consider the consequences to their family members and the potential of damaging relationships with their current employers. Media tend to camp out in front of homes and businesses hoping to get an interview. It's intrusive.
- Three women having issues with Cain indicates a pattern of behavior. One can be ignored as an aberration, but not two or three. There seems to be a "there" there. What that is remains unclear.
336
posted on
11/03/2011 11:46:41 AM PDT
by
BuckeyeTexan
(Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
To: mewzilla
Cain's been married for decades, hasn't he? And was married during the alleged episodes in question?
Cain, have your ever cheated on your wife?
Will someone please just ask him the dang question.
337
posted on
11/03/2011 11:46:50 AM PDT
by
mewzilla
(Forget a third party. We need a second one.)
To: cuban leaf
No kidding.... People are going to question anything Mr. Pollock writes going forward.
To: bbernard
And, last I looked, a few minutes ago, the original is up and the corrections at the bottom. Rather than correcting the original, which can be done just as quickly. Sleazy.
The corrections take out both “taxi” and “bed” from the story. That’s pretty key to the story; not all of the story but key to the “highlight” version.
339
posted on
11/03/2011 11:47:11 AM PDT
by
D-fendr
(Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
To: Beagle8U
I agree that it can be, but that is not my point.
My point is that it’s possible for a person to say in his/her own mind that any encounter was consensual. Therefore, that person could actually believe there was no harassment if they thought any encounter was consensual.
And there’s always the possibility that any “settlement” between the two agreed to call it consensual.
340
posted on
11/03/2011 11:47:45 AM PDT
by
xzins
(Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True Supporters of our Troops PRAY for their VICTORY!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320, 321-340, 341-360 ... 621-624 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson