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.
Tons of folks at the National Restaurant Association knew about it.
That’s common knowledge, so I won’t worry that I don’t have time right now to link that up.
“Very few knew”, according to you.
Where did THAT come from?
The problem with that statement is that it assumes a conclusion that cannot be made. How do you know whether the accusation is based on a lie, vs being based on an unprovable truth? You only know that by evaluating the claim -- so you can't use the claim to evaluate the claim, so there is no meaning of the word "baseless" if you apply it here.
Cain SAYS he told Anderson, and therefore Anderson knew. On what "basis" does Cain make that claim? Solely on the basis that Cain SAYS he remembers telling Anderson. And on what "basis" does Cain make THAT claim? Solely on the basis that Cain SAYS he knows that he remembers telling Anderson. Do you see the internal reference, the circularity of the argument? The only basis for the claim is the claim; but the claim cannot be a basis for itself.
So, is Cain lying, or is he just stating an "unprovable truth"? Only Cain knows. You don't know. I don't know. There is no logical method to determine the answer. It is impossible to logically distinguish between "lie" and "unprovable truth". Therefore, the argument of "baseless" is meaningless. The claim is baseless, because it is based only on itself.
If you had a lie detector that was known to be accurate, and hooked up Anderson and Cain, then we'd have a basis for determining whether Cain was being truthful or not. If the lie detector showed Cain believed he was being truthful, then there would be a basis for the claim -- it would not be baseless.
It still wouldn't be proven -- you'd only know that Cain BELIEVED he was telling the truth, not that the conversation actually took place. But the claim would not be baseless, because you'd have a piece of evidence, the lie detector test, to back it up.
But even if you knew Cain to be generally truthful, that doesn't provide a basis for the claim, because ANYBODY can tell a lie at any time, even if they never lie.
Maybe the problem is that there is circumstantial evidence that doesn't DISPROVE the claim. If I said I told politico, but could not provide any evidence that I would have known the story, or that I had any opportunity to talk to politico, my claim would have less of a likelyhood of truth than Cain's claim. Clearly Cain did know the story, and he did have access to Anderson to tell him.
Does that give the story a "basis"? I would say not, because it just sets up the circumstances under which the story COULD be true, but does nothing to show that the story IS true. It is easier to discount a story than to find truth.
TO illustrate the practicality of this view of claims, let's look one more time at the Cain/Anderson dispute. Cain says he told Anderson. The circumstances would allow it. Anderson says Cain never told him. How do we evaluate?
Do we look at everything Cain and Anderson have ever done, and decide which one is more likely to tell the truth? That's good for guessing a probability of outcome, but worthless in determining the truth. A liar can tell the truth, a truthful person can lie. Likelyhood is great if you are determining what outcome might be better to bet on, but is worthless for knowing what the truth is.
To get closer to the truth, we look for evidence. Obviously, Cain's statement and Anderson's statements are not evidence, because if they were, that evidence would help determine the truth. (Note that if Anderson had confirmed Cain's statement, THAT would be evidence, because it would not be an independent claim, but rather a dependent verification of Cain's claim).
What did Cain do to provide evidence for his claim? NOTHING. He simply asserted it. And when he was asked again, he actually weakened his claim, he now says he is "almost certain" he told him, where before he said he told him. Tomorrow me might say he is pretty sure. I would note also in this "almost certain" statement, rather than pointing to his own recollection, he offered a logical argument that it would make SENSE for him to have told, and it would make SENSE for Anderson to have asked. Neither of those arguments were evidence either.
What COULD have Cain done? Maybe nothing, because Cain cut off all chance of corroboration by claiming nobody heard him. Which is very convenient if you want to lie about something.
What did Anderson offer? He had a slightly easier time. He pointed out that nobody has ever heard the story from Anderson. He ordered every reporter he ever talked to to reveal ANYTHING he said about Cain.
If Anderson knew the story, there is a reasonable chance he would have told it sometime -- but nobody has come forward to say Anderson told them; that is inferential evidence that Anderson is telling the truth. If ONE person came forward and said Anderson told them, that would be direct evidence that Cain is telling the truth.
Last note though: Finding such a person would not CHANGE the fact that Cain made a baseless claim, because when Cain MADE the claim, he provided NO independent basis for us to evaluate the claim. That someone might come forward and give us evidence would show the claim is no longer baseless, it wouldn't change the fact that the claim was baseless when it was made.
If we are just getting hung up on the word "baseless", and maybe I am, the point I am making is that Cain offered his claim with no independent evidence of any kind, only his own word, which he could have trivially been a lie. It is easy for him to SAY he told Anderson when he didn't. That he said it proves nothing. Cain had no evidence for his charge, so his charge was "baseless", or "unsupported". In fact, his charge has less of a basis than the women's claims, because in their case Cain has verified that some things happened, and the dispute is over the interpretation. I believe Cain's interpretation, of course.
Are you dense or lying? The original Politico article says a former NRA board member told them about the sexual harassment claims. They confirmed the allegations with multiple other sources but the original source was a former NRA board member.
“fishwife” my father use to use that expression when I was a kid and got loud....it was quite yelling like a fishwife...first time I have heard that expression in years..thanks for the memory...GG
I have a better idea. Why don’t you consider what it is you are asking me, factor in how ridiculously strange of a request it is and tell me why I should even bother to respond.
LOL! I guess That pretty much gives my age away, huh! :)
POLITICO learned of the allegations against him, and over the course of several weeks, has put together accounts of what happened by talking to a lengthy roster of former board members, current and past staff and others familiar with the workings of the trade group at the time Cain was there.http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/67194.htmlThe first woman was identified to POLITICO by a former association board member, and her identity was confirmed by two additional sources.
Until you can link the former NRA board member directly to Perry's campaign, you have no evidence that Perry's campaign leaked the allegations to Politico. That you continue to point to Chris Wilson as being the source is intentionally disingenuous. I've come to expect nothing less from you where Rick Perry is concerned.
There’s no need for further response, the answer is self-evident.
Enjoy your day! :)
You questioned the time I have spent here; you commented to another poster that some are 'sensitive'; you refused, when asked, to offer anything to support your strange and unsubstantiated observation regarding the time I spend here and you tried to throw the burden to support your assertion on me. And now you want to forget it? I can do that -- but I really think your focus on the time other posters spend on FR is strange as it does nothing to help your candidate, a man who repels supporters every time he speaks. But hey, if you think that works for you, have at it.
Cheers.
"We are referring back to Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment. Next question," Block said, referring to the former president's admonition not to attack other Republicans.I'll be watching to see if they adhere to that rule going forward.
Just a little too late....we all saw what happened to Bachmann with her attacks...
LOL!
How would I know the former board member’s name? He/she spoke with POLITICO not me.
I’m not asking you to believe me. I posted information from POLITICO’s original article. If you don’t believe them, that’s your right. It has nothing to do with me.
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.