Posted on 11/03/2011 4:14:35 PM PDT by Bigtigermike
A Herman Cain aide said Thursday that the Cain campaign is considering its legal options over the original Politico story, which revealed that the former head of the National Restaurant Association was accused of sexually harassing at least two women during his tenure in the 1990s.
“This is likely not over with Politico from a legal perspective,” a campaign official told the Post, stopping short of explaining what exactly he meant by taking legal action against the publication.
The Cain campaign has had an attorney advising it since Saturday on crisis management, which hasn’t gone particularly well for Cain since the story broke Sunday night.
On Thursday night, Politico reported more details of the allegations against Cain, saying that the former NRA head made a “sexual overture to [one of the women] at one of the group’s events.”
Politico cited “multiple sources independently familiar with the matter” and said the woman in question was “livid” and reported the incident that night to an NRA board member. She left the trade group soon afterwards, the publication reported,
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
It’s not the media so much that will be dissuaded. In my view, this is a shot across the bow at any individuals out there considering running their mouths to the media, possibly for political reasons, and hiding behind anonymity and “group innuendo.”
Are they complete amateurs? Oh wait, they are.
What a joke. What are they going to sue about? That the paper revealed that there were harrassment claims (there were). That there were settlements (there were). That the women reported things that made them uncomfortable (they did).
What did Politico report that was false? Politico didn’t directly accuse Cain of anything, they reported what people told them.
It won’t help their case that Cain’s team has already verified that Politico contacted them to ask about their input to the story, and that Cain’s team purposely decided to NOT say anything back until it was posted.
So when they try to sue, and remember as a media outlet, Politico gets deference, and Cain would have to prove malice, Politico will point out that they TRIED to get the other side, and Cain never even told them the allegations were false.
This is why reporters often just quote politicians, instead of presenting things as facts — it is virtually impossible to sue a media outlet for reporting what people are saying. You’d have to prove the reporter KNEW the people were lying. And since Cain explicitly wouldn’t say to politico that the people were lying, it’s going to be really hard to prove politico should have known.
If Cains’ team had sent a detailed response denying every allegation, they could then say that the knew politico had the truth and ignored it. But since they didn’t, the best shot they have is to sue the women.
But I’m betting the settlement would prevent Cain from suing the women, unless he could prove that the women were the source of the article. Which doesn’t appear to be the case, since Politico has directly reported that one of the women wouldn’t talk to them, and still hasn’t.
Plus, Cain’s case would be undermined by Cain’s own false claim that Anderson was the source of the story.
Now, could Anderson sue Cain? Much easier — Anderson is not a public figure, so he would only have to prove that Cain stated as fact something for which Cain had no evidence — he wouldn’t have to prove reckless disregard for the truth.
But Anderson won’t sue — Anderson actually likes Cain, although I’m guessing less now that Cain has implied he’s a racist.
a bunch of anonymous accusations by left wing hacks,and freepers fall in line with this clap trap?
What are they going to sue about?
I doubt you’ll see any suits filed by the Cain Train. This is a good ploy for fundraising, etc as it can be talked about today. Legal action takes a little time to pull together and much longer to even get into the court system for hearings, etc. By then the Train will be back at the roundhouse.
A little o/t, but Ms. Henderson is the black WaPo reporter who, on Chrissy's show, tried to equate the voting habits of "white evangelicals" with those of "African-Americans."
To which I replied:
Dear Ms. Henderson:
Your attempt to analogize “white evangelicals” with an entire race (”blacks”) fails.
White evangelicals, to the extent that they are a voting bloc (which is somewhat of a myth if you review the data), are a segment of white voters who tend to vote differently from other white voters.
That split of ideas among the white race (which is multiplied across the political specturm) is in stark contrast to what occurs with the black race.
The entire black race — hear me here, the ENTIRE BLACK RACE — in this country tends to vote exactly the same, up and down the ticket, year after year, decade after decade.
Ms. Henderson, that is not normal. It is neither normal, nor healthy that an ENTIRE RACE has almost ZERO DIVERSITY of political opinion. Something is wrong there, Ms. Henderson. That result is *not possible* if individuals truly are thinking for themselves, educating themselves about the issues, and reaching their own conclusions.
Here on Free Republic we have a whole bunch of people deeply committed to conservatives ideas. Yet we often fight like crazy and peel off in different directions from time to time. That is normal. And that is just a small group of people, not an entire race, generation after generation.
Until the black race in America countenances intellectual and political diversity, it will indeed languish on the Democrat plantation. It will continue to be used as political human shields to protect welfare chains that do nothing but give mostly white Democrat politicians personal power.
Very good advice.
And I think the rest of us should make sure we are not props in the Left’s theater of the absurd.
Make up your own mind about Cain, on the evidence, not the media spin, then carry on.
Wash, rinse, repeat.
Good grief, if you're going to make statements such as this, make sure you are speaking precisely.
What, exactly, do you mean by the "initial allegations"?
The initial allegations against him were that a complaint had been filed against him for sexual harassment. He immediately confirmed this allegation and was never inconsistent on the point that this incident, the COMPLAINTS, had occurred.
However, some people, who don't think well or who fall for media spin, took the initial allegation -- that complaints had been made -- as an allegation, all over again, that Cain had engaged in sexual harassment. That Cain immediately denied and was never inconsistent on.
So, what is it that you are talking about?
The allegation that complaints were made (which Cain immediately confirmed)?
Or the innuendo-allegation that Cain -- despite the fact that the complaints had been investigated, found unsubstantiated, no disciplinary action was taken against Cain (he was exonerated), and the accusers were terminated and given the USUAL severance pay and entered into the USUAL confidentiality agreements -- actually engaged in sexual harassment (which Cain immediately denied)?
This is too important for sloppy talk on our side.
I don’t see these type of rumblings as actually directed against the media. They are directed against individuals who may be thinking of running their mouths to the media, for a whole variety of purposes.
It’s not easy to show actual malice, but it’s a lot of easier to get an individual bogged down in that quicksand than a media outlet. Especially if they have ties to other campaigns and on it goes.
Again, probably not a winner. But it’s a point well-taken that, essentially, if you want to talk, just make sure you understand how your motives might be scrutinized.
Cain doesn't have any records of these events. The severance agreements were between the NRA and the women in question.
Putting the Herman Cain Sexual Harassment Accusations in Context
Agreed.
What worse is the willingness by some to go along with it here on FR.”
______________________________________________________
The “some” you're referring to are Perrybots. These POS have sided with the tactics of Politico. They're to stupid to realize that this smear tactic that's being employed by Politico against a conservative GOP presidential candidate will be child's play to whomever the GOP primary winner is.
If Perry begins to move up in the polls the way Cain has done, just watch what the Left-wing rags like Politico will do to him. Do you folks think Perry doesn't have something (credible or not) in his past?
Anybody here think the Perrybots will be as accepting to the attacks on their guy as they are on Cain from Left-Wing groups like Politico? Anybody here think the Perrybots will be just as silent about these types of smear jobs if they're used against their guy? I'll wager when this happens to Perry, the Perrybots will be screaming bloody murder about it being a “Left-Wing hit job” on their guy.
To the Perry supporters who've jumped on the Politico band wagon in their smear job on Mr. Cain; you are true dirtbags. You can't get any lower than siding with a left-wing rag like Politico.
Don't worry, they'll be going after Mr. Perry very soon. Your outrage and hypocrisy will only be met with chuckles from us.
It must gall you that the Cain campaign just took in a million dollars in a just a few days...amid this controversy. ;-)
“Cain doesn’t have any records of these events. The severance agreements were between the NRA and the women in question.”
____________________________________________________
Exactly! It would be nice if those trashing Cain would realize this little fact!
Come on, now the Cain campaign is just getting greedy, this comment alone will be good for a cool million in one day for the Cain train.
Perhaps they’re trying to scare the woman, in case she talked to Politico or to someone who talked to Politico?
A little intimidation aimed at one of his accusers?
Why does logic not support that analysis?
Again, the truth of WHAT story? Which story are you talking about?
You and others constantly conflate the "story" of the filing of the complaint with what you seem to think is an unanswered other "story," whether or not you disagree with -- on what evidentiary basis, pray tell? -- the findings of the HR department, which closed the complaint.
Are you really prepared to claim that admitting to the fact that a complaint was filed against you is an admission of guilt -- or evidence of guilt -- on the underlying accusations?
So, no, "if there is any question about the truth of the story and about Cain’s own credibility and integrity," it is mostly the fault of those who don't understand the legal system -- except as Oprah-ized "celebrity crime" fans who sit around entertaining themselves by thinking they can watch trial snippets on TV and do just as well as any dang judge in figuring out the evidence (which, oh by the way, they have never been privy to) -- and those who don't take the time to think precisely.
So, we end up with people yammering on about how "we don't know what happened" all those 15 years ago, etc.
Wrong.
We DO know what happened.
Complaints were made. They were investigated. They were found unsubstantiated. No action was taken against Mr. Cain. The accusers were terminated from their employment, with the usual severance pay and a confidentiality agreement.
END OF DISCUSSION.
It’s like this:
Fifteen years ago you were cited for DUI.
The case was investigated and the judge found there was no evidence that you had been DUI. The citation was dismissed before the case even went to trial.
Moreover, the cop who made the citation against you was terminated, given a severance pay, and he entered into a confidentiality agreement.
Today, fifteen years later, you are running for office. Someone leaks to the press that you were once CITED for DUI. You confirm that you were CITED for DUI. You AND THE MEDIA (in the Cain case, Politico) also confirm that:
1. The citation was dimissed as unsubstantiated.
2. The accuser was terminated.
3. The accuser entered into a confidentiality agreement. Now the accuser, the cop, wants to be released from his confidentiality agreement so he can “tell his side of the story” — the same facts (unless he lies) that he told the judge, that the judge found insufficient, and upon which the case was dismissed and you were exonerated.
That means NOTHING in terms of the validity and precedent of the previous findings by the judge upon a contemporaneous investigation into the facts and the accuser’s account.
NOTHING real or reliable could come out of the cop being allowed to say, literally, whatever he wants at this time — no matter how many people he wants to drag into the matter, no matter how impossible it is to collaborate or refute ANYTHING he says.
Why do some conservatives fall for this crap? It’s embarrassing.
Again, this is exactly why there are statutes of limitations in legal cases. The law says that after a certain amount of time has passed, the testimony of witnesses is no longer reliable.
Shouldn’t we be smart enough — not to mention politically savvy enough — to understand how this same rationale applies here?
Again, if you want to ding Cain because someone made a complaint against him, that’s your call. But please don’t clamor for the debacle of the Jerry Springer-ization of our nomination process. The Left is doing enough to try to destroy conservatives without conservatives going “celebrity crime” crazy over a complaint that was investigated and dismissed more than a decade ago.
Making statements conflating what the allegation of complaints having been made with the underlying offense (which was case closed) is just sloppy, inaccurate and unhelpful.
Now I understand.
Thanks.
"As for the story itself, Cain campaign officials complain Politico’s piece was an ambush. When Politico’s [Jonathan] Martin contacted Cain campaign spokesman J.D. Gordon on late in the day on October 19, Gordon says Martin didn’t supply any details or documents that would allow the campaign to evaluate the claims. There were no names, locations, or exact descriptions of what Cain is alleged to have said or done. Gordon and the campaign say they couldn’t respond because they had no idea what they were responding to. Gordon even begged [Poltico’s editor-in-chief John] Harris to send him copies of any documents with the names blacked out. Harris refused.
Politico’s published piece is equally vague on what happened...
Indeed, no one—the two women, the National Restaurant Association board member that Politico cites as its source, Politico itself, one of the aggrieved women’s attorney Joel Bennett, the National Restaurant Association itself—has supplied any concrete details of alleged harassment.
Washington attorney Joel P. Bennett, who represents one of the two women who claim that Cain mistreated her, doesn’t have a copy of agreements the women signed with the National Restaurant Association. “I haven’t seen a copy of this in 12 years,” he told me, adding that he hopes to get a copy from the National Restaurant Association. His client asked him to stop giving interviews. In the past 24 hours, he said, he had appeared on NBC, CBS, NYT and NPR.
The National Restaurant Association spokesperson, Sue Hensley, said that the association is bound by confidentiality agreements and employee-privacy regulations and cannot release any documents or comment in any way.
The Cain campaign, and even Cain himself, begged the association to at least supply some details, campaign officials say. Citing the confidentiality agreements, the association refused.
So Cain and the public are left boxing against shadows."
I've never seen such a lack of organization. Pathetic!
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.