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.
If Cain made an accusation based on circumstatial evidence that he really witnessed, then his accusation isn't baseless. In fact your accusation that Cain's accusation is baseless, is indeed baseless since you have no idea what Cain really remembers.
As I pointed out several times on this thread, Cain based his claim on the following alleged recollection....
If his recollection is true, then his accusation is not "baseless".