Posted on 11/04/2011 2:24:56 PM PDT by martosko
Edited on 11/04/2011 2:34:52 PM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
But Herman Cain claims(without proof)that it was Curt Anderson.
On the next day, Mark Block backpedaled on the assertion, and said they accept that Anderson was not involved.
The next day on Hannity, Mr Cain accused Anderson again.
With No Specifics to the Accusations, Herman Cain Wins This Fight
Jim Geraghty November 4, 2011 NRO
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/282341/no-specifics-accusations-herman-cain-wins-fight
Joel Bennett, the lawyer for one of the former employees of the National Restaurant Association who accused Herman Cain of sexual harassment, spoke to Wolf Blitzer live on CNN moments ago.
Bennett said that in his legal opinion, what occurred between Cain and his client met the legal definition of sexual harassment. But despite repeated questions from Blitzer, he refused to specify what the alleged actions were, and he said his client would not be appearing to shed any further light on the matter.
When Blitzer pointed out Cain’s vehement, blanket denial, Bennett replied, “In all my years of lawyering, I’ve never seen anyone accused of sexual harassment say, ‘I did it.’”
In short, Mr. Bennett is arguing, ’I won’t say what he did, but trust me, he’s guilty of wrongdoing.’ This is ridiculous. To Politico, the public is supposed to take this into account in their assessment of Cain but we can’t even get any sense of what triggered the original complaint, and whether this was much ado about nothing or whether Cain actually did something wrong.
Without the basic details, the public cannot take this into account in their assessment of Cain, or ought not to. Despite all the drama of the week, we know about as much as we did Monday. Two employees made complaints, but we don’t really know much about what the complaints were. Was there some bad behavior on Cain’s part? Were the NRA payments just designed to avoid the cost of litigating the claims? Who knows?
“It’s over, from our perspective,” Bennett said of the controversy.
Yes, this story ought to be over. While this story does not reassure much about Herman Cain and his campaign – i.e., blaming Perry, walking back the accusation, then having Cain seem to walk back the walk back – he’s been wronged by having a politically damaging accusation widely aired but never being able to cross-examine his accuser or refute the charges.
Also posted here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2802694/posts
“This whole thing is such bull crap that it stinks worse then the Occupy “movements” around the country.”
That’s the one good thing about this non-story, how it has knocked the occupylosers off the front page. I can just imagine all these losers sitting around freezing their asses off wondering why they aren’t getting the attention anymore - ‘hey media, over here, what about us, why aren’t you writing about us anymore? I thought you loved us?’
So are you saying wilson and anderson do not know each other and do not have a working relation. You poor amnesty pushing perrywinkles. Both of these people need to turn over their computers and phones to prove they had nothing to do with these serious charges.
The absolute, perfect example of why Rush labelled the MSM as the “Drive By” Media. They sprayed their bullets and now look for them to move on that fast.
I see a couple of key words in the Cain accusers statement: “STAND BY”, meaning more later.
I do have a guess
The woman who slept over his house was white
She was accused by her co-workers of sleeping with the boss and with a black man
she sued to clear her name because she was embarrassed, it was how she covered herself
Cain might have joked about her sleepign over, a fact, but not knowing she was hearing accusations
just a hunch
no one slept over with Cain, this was all just lies.
Well, that's ONE accuser, what about the second?
Top of the hour, I noticed ABCNews is reporting the story as breathlessly and salaciously as possible, as if details of the multiple sexual harassment claims are known or even that her identity is known.
It was not agreed that it was sexual harrassment. Again, he can say all he wants in a press conference but when it came time to put up, he shut up.
This reminds me of Casey Anthony’s lawyer saying, in his opening statement, that her father molested her. But he never mentioned it again.
So, anyone who is innocent is automatically guilty if they deny it?
But that is the complaint that she filed, so of course she and her attorney agree that it was. And that is the reason for the settlement.
He is a hateful man, never liked him or anything he ever had to say...
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.