:o)
Posted on 11/03/2011 8:28:07 PM PDT by smoothsailing
Justin Sink
November 3, 2011
Herman Cain said Forbes Magazine - and not his campaign - was responsible for the concluding that Rick Perry's campaign leaked the story of sexual harassment allegations during Cain's tenure as the president of the National Restaurant Association.
"A reporter did this research and came up with these facts, we didn't," Cain said Thursday on Sean Hannity's radio show. "That was the reporter that wrote the report for Forbes."
But despite adamant denials from the Perry camp, Cain said he still doesn't "see any other way this could have come out."
The Forbes article, headlined "Cain Says Perry Camp Behind Sex Harassment Leak," quoted the candidate as saying that he told former staffer Curt Anderson, now a consultant for the Perry campaign, about the allegations. But Cain is not quoted specifically accusing Anderson of being the leak.
The Cain campaign quickly seized on the article Wednesday night, seemingly validating Forbes' reporting that Cain was laying blame at Perry's feet.
"Rick Perry needs to apologize to Herman Cain, his family, and America for this despicable story," Cain's chief of staff Mark Block said Wednesday on Fox News.
Anderson has denied the accusations, saying in a statement: "I have great respect for Herman and his character and I would never speak ill of him, on the record or off the record."
He also told Fox News that any reporters he had ever spoken to about the Cain allegations were free to openly attribute those comments to him. In doing so, he opened up the door for Politico, who originally reported the allegations, to confirm him as the source. Politico has not done so, effectively eliminating Anderson as the source of the story.
Block said earlier Thursday that he would "accept" the claim by Anderson that he was not behind the story.
"Until we get all the facts, I'm just going to say that we accept what Mr. Anderson has said, and we want to move on with the campaign," Block said on Fox News.
But Cain seemed unconvinced, telling Hannity "there aren't enough breadcrumbs that leads us to any other place."
"I believe a lot of people are connecting the dots for themselves," Cain said. "I don't see any other way this could have come out."
Cain also said he's "almost certain" he told Anderson about the allegations.
"I am almost certain that I did. … This is why we want to get off this merry-go-round," Cain said.
Everything you said is plausible. Also just as plausible: Perry picked the guy specifically because he worked for Cain, who at the moment happened to be the one candidate pulling away from all the others in the polls.
I think Hannity walked over the cliff with Cain. Cain has filled in for Hannity on Hannity’s show before. They are close.
The interview with Cain today was not good for Hannity, IMO.
OK, that means I’m not going nuts. I thought you had moved on, but wasn’t sure.
Cain has been doing the dirty work for the Mittens. I guess he figures that if he brings down Perry, Mitt won’t reveal any goodies from the bag of tricks with Herbie's name on it. Heck, if Cain can accuse Perry with impunity and without evidence, no one dare to tell me not to accuse Mitt of having a bag of goodies filled with unflattering stories about the Cainster.
LOL - as it happens, that very platypus is on my TV right now.
See post #154 to read about Cain’s back-tracking on his accusation of Mr. Anderson.
What I see worrisome is the Cain campaign’s finger-pointing to the Perry campaign. If it is discovered that someone else leaked the harassment story, it puts egg on the face of the Cain campaign. And, whoever did leak the information is sitting back and watching the Cain people blaming the Perry people when it all is untrue. When the truth is found out, whoever did do the leaking will have hell to pay because they sat back and let the Cain campaign and the Perry campaign destroy each other.
btw, I have to get up at 2:30, so I’m off. We can continue this tom. evening if you wish.
I wouldn't assume that Politico, who is no friend of Cain, is telling the truth.
It appears you make that assumption.
Yes, you are very insightful. Another fact of life is that political ops are a dime a dozen. Yet another fact of life is that for Perry to pick a guy that used to work for the very candidate that just so happened to be catapulting in the polls at that very moment, is very coincidental, to say the least.
I know ........ anymore he just leaves me speechless, even more though his worshipers refuse to see he “might” be a very nice man, but he is NOT ready to be President... I thought we learned a lesson with Obama, guess not.
You’re a better judge of that than I am. Like I said, have fun!
I’m sure the women who accused Cain also “gave their reasons”, which I’m sure were also things they claimed they said and he said.
But you miss the whole idea of “baseless”. When a person makes a charge, if all they cite is other charges they are making, it isn’t evidence, it’s just more charges.
Cain didn’t “base” his claim on something. His CLAIM consists of two parts — first, that he told Anderson, and second, that Anderson told Politico.
Cain provides no evidence for either of those two things. His say-so isn’t “evidence”, it is the charge.
Worse, he explicitly gives a reason why NOBODY on his senate campaign could back up his story — he says nobody was their when he told Anderson. So there is no way for Anderson to respond to THAT charge. How would you prove that Cain DIDN’T talk to you? The charge CANNOT be refuted as stated, so it must be dismissed. Cain has to provide evidencel. If Cain sent an e-mail for example referencing it, and released that e-mail, that would be evidence. If someone was in the meeting, and came forward, that would be evidence.
As it is, there is none.
On the second charge, Anderson refutes that as well. And since Cain WAS NOT there, and has no paper trail, and no corroberation in the form of a witness, we KNOW that this second part is sheer speculation. How could Cain possibly KNOW that Anderson talked to Politico? He doesn’t. He just ASSUMES that since Anderson “knew” the story, and Anderson started working for Perry, that Anderson would naturally leak the story. It’s all assumptions.
Anderson, who IS in a position to know what he did, says he did NOT talk to politico. And this time, Cain is in trouble, because there ARE witnesses — Politico KNOWS who talked to them. And since Anderson released Politico from any privilege, Politico would say he was the source, IF HE WAS THE SOURCE. They haven’t, which shows he wasn’t the source.
Oh, and one more solid piece of evidence for Anderson. Politico RAN A STORY which has Anderson denying that he is the source. If Politico KNEW that Anderson WAS the source, and ran a story where they presented Anderson saying he wasn’t, without refuting it, Politico would essentially be commiting journalistic suicide. You can cover for a source by keeping silent, but you can’t cover for a source by reporting their lies as truth.
So, in summary. Cain accuses Anderson in two parts. First, that Cain told Anderson, a charge Anderson refutes and for which there is nobody but the two men who can provide ANY more information; it is unknowable. Seocnd, that Anderson told Politico, which Cain has NO WAY of knowing, and that Anderson refutes and Politico seems to refute both by reporting Anderson’s denial and NOT revealing him as the source when Anderson released them.
There have been a lot of times during this story where we are told the charges have been “refuted”, only to find that it was just Cain SAYING they were false. Block said he KNEW the charges were false, and when asked why, he said “Because Cain said so”. I happen to believe no harrassment occured, but I would note that Clinton also told everybody that there was nothing between him and Lewinsky, and it turned out there was. A person’s word is only their word, and is not particularly strong evidence.
(Note: There is no way for Cain to provide evidence that something did not happen, except for specific charges he can refute by witness or alibi. So I’m not faulting him for just having his word — I’m only noting that it is MEANINGLESS for Block to come out and say he knows Cain is innocent, when all he has to back that up is Cain saying nothing happened. Cain already told ALL of us that — Block’s repeating it doesn’t add anything.
I responded to post #154. Go see my response.
Back to what you said, you called Cain's accusation "baseless". I then responded with the circumstatial evidence that Cain gave.
Cain's accusation was NOT baseless.
THere really aren’t hundreds of qualified political operatives. There are a small number of elites who can really work at a presidential campaign level, and many of them are already committed to campaigns.
Are you seriously arguing that once you work on someone’s campaign, you can never work for any other campaign if the guy you worked for is running? That seems like an odd rule to me.
Well, you are always blaming Cain, bashing, Cain, dumping on Cain. Guess it takes a one-trick pony to know a one-trick pony.
That's what bothers me the most.
Whoever leaked this thing is a slimebag with obvious intentions. I suspect it was either someone on the left (or Romney, but then, I repeat myself.)
To blame Perry's campaign without any real evidence is just low.
Very disappointing.
And anybody with any finesse should have realized that this would eventually backfire on Cain.
:o)
Thank you, that was great. :-)
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.