Posted on 11/06/2011 9:48:17 PM PST by smokingfrog
The women who accused GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain of sexual harassment more than a decade ago have effectively been released from any agreements they signed pledging not to talk about the alleged episodes, according to employment lawyers.
On Friday, the group Cain headed at the time, the National Restaurant Association, agreed to release one of the women from her confidentiality pledge—at least to allow her attorney, Joel Bennett, to release a carefully drafted statetment saying she stood by the charge.
But because Cain has called the charges fabricated and at least in one instance suggested one of his accusers had performance problems at work, the women likely are free to speak out now regardless of whether the assocation formally consents, the attorneys said. And one prominent lawer who handles sexual harassment and discrimination cases said the women could even bring a libel suit against Cain.
“In my view, there’s nothing left of the confidentiality to maintain. [Cain] has tarnished, he has impugned the integrity of these women by saying these were trumped-up charges ,” said Debra Katz of Katz, Marshall & Banks, a D.C.-based employment law firm. “He misstated the nature of the payment…I can’t understand for the life of me while Joel Bennett is taking such a legalistic approach.”
Katz said any statement by the woman involved doesn’t affect the NRA’s reputation, especially as regards a decade-old incident involving a single alleged wrongdoer. “The allegations were made about a specific individual, not a more widespread atmosphere,” she said.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
So Bill Clinton getting BJs in the White House was a non issue to libs but this is a big story?
Liberals playing the race card and playing up black male as oversexed animal. This is why they see Racism everywhere — what Freud called projection.
If Cain wasn’t a party to the agreements, what difference does it make what he says? He doesn’t appear bound by them. With the NRA having waves the confidentiality clause and the woman still refusing to be specific or named, this can’t go anywhere. It’ll wait to see if he’s nominated.
The Restaurant Association not only released the woman from the non-disclosure provision, but themselves, too. They are now free to dump the entire sealed contents of the proceedings, including notes during disclosure, attorney correspondence, NRA internal discussions, etc.
The RATs just want to use the name of the real woman, and supply the rest via fabrication and innuendo. They expect Cain to then roll over. This is not his case, but he can now demand access to all of the documents now, too. The last thing this slimy RAT-front lawyer wants is a real document dump, which would show them bluffing with a pair of deuces.
The woman is still not coming forward because she knows she'll be burned by the state media whether or not it hurts Cain. She knows enough to realize Politico and its handlers not only can't offer her legal protection, but will be the ones that actually ruin her, legally.
Remember, Monica Lewinsky would probably have been just another unexplainable suicide, like "poor Vince Foster", except for the protection her blue dress provided. Keeping everything sealed is the only health insurance this other woman has.
Oh, the specifics could be as bad as what Newt did to his wife, or they could be so minor that people would go “woah, what has happened to this country that something as minor as what Cain did is something that people get paid off for” and it would help Cain. This will be discussed or not discussed depending on what happens with Cain going forward.
Obviously, if he was the nominee, we’d know exactly what happened.
Someone ask Monica Lewinsky if she wishes Clinton had only flirted with her like Cain allegedly did to “anonymous.”
In the nineties, women were accusing men of sexual harassment if they opened the door for them. It was a ridiculous time.
His daughter has thoroughly debunked the urban legend entertained by many FReepers. Which illustrates the idiocy of what we are doing.
Whether we're talking about Newt or Herman Cain, I simply ask, what are we doing? As Freeper, The_Media_never_lie pointed out on this thread:
"The country is going to hell in a handbasket, we’ve got a bi Marxist President, and we’re worried about about what he said/she said 15 years ago?"
People should grow up! We’ve all been hurt by someone’s ill-considered remarks. But we don’t allow it to rule our lives.
Its not in the same category as solicitation or rape. Not even close.
Any one who thinks so needs their head checked.
Isn’t there anyone here that realizes the seriousness of this? Regardless of who brought it up something happened on record. Herman has made a number of ‘mistatements’ about what he now admits are fact. This needs to be resolved now.
And what exactly is this smear of Newt suppose to mean? Yall Cain supporters would be wise to STOP SMEARING NEWT.
it most certainly could help Cain in that manner. Some people obviously know what happened, but I don’t think that includes anyone here.
There most certainly is terrible sexual harrassment.
But there most certainly is just total bs, that some people in today’s society whine and complain about. The facts of this case could be one where 85% are with Cain and 15% are with the Feminists.
The issue becomes “Sexual Harassment Laws - have they gone too far?”
And from what I can tell, all we know is that X (what Cain did) = $90K when Cain was no longer at the Rest Asso.
What’s interesting is whether what Cain did was worse than what Newt did?
So these women can say whatever they want and Cain has to shut up and take it? I don’t think so.
...It would be the only way a lawyer should ever get laid.
He cheated on both wives. He dumped wife number 2, Marianne, after she was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis.
He makes bad decisions, and he is not trustworthy. You can go ahead and support him, but stop trying to shame other people into doing so.
They are desperate for someone to cough up something, anything, to feed the story.
My gut feeling is that there is no "there" there. I'm thinking that if the stories ever do make it out, the reaction from 80% of the country is going to be "That's it? That's ALL you got???"
Then the laughing is going to start.
The bottom line is simple. If there was a story worth printing, or that could be doctored and stretched into printing, both those women would be bought out with seven figure book deals and promises of millions more on the interview circuit.
But in a particular kind of way, they are hoist on their own petard. They can't change their stories now because they put them down in writing in the original complaint. Alas, that means, they can't fabricate additional salacious details... poor babies.
Really; you are aware that Newt Gringrich’s daughter came forward and gave evidence that her parents agreed to divorce BEFORE her mother was diagnosed with breast cancer?
And you do know that Newt’s ex-wife is still alive, having beaten cancer?
Don’t spread the disinformation the Democrats have used to smear Newt.
You wrote: “Oh, the specifics could be as bad as what Newt did to his wife”
The information below is for the uninformed “Newt bashers” who get their stupid talking points from the 99.9% in the “news” and “entertainment” media who always vote for, and promote DemocRATS.
Jackie Gingrich Cushman wrote a column in May of this year called “Setting the Record Straight” where she dealt with the myth of Newt Gingrich serving his wife divorce papers while she was in the hospital with terminal cancer.
Here is the link: http://townhall.com/columnists/jackiegingrichcushman/2011/05/08/setting_the_record_straight/page/full/
Here are a few excerpts from her column:
- “For years, I have thought about trying to correct the untrue accounts of this hospital visit… But I have always hesitated, as it was a private family matter and my mother is a very private person.”
- “As for my parents’ divorce, I can remember when they told me.
It was the spring of 1980. My parents told my sister and me that they were getting a divorce as our family of four sat around the kitchen table of our ranch home.”
- “Later that summer, Mom went to Emory University Hospital in Atlanta for surgery to remove a tumor. While she was there, Dad took my sister and me to see her.
It is this visit that has turned into the infamous hospital visit about which many untruths have been told… here’s what happened:
My mother and father were already in the process of getting a divorce, which she requested.
Dad took my sister and me to the hospital to see our mother.
She had undergone surgery the day before to remove a tumor.
The tumor was benign.
- As have many families, we have healed; we have moved on.
My mother and father are alive and well, and my sister and I are blessed to have a close relationship with them both.”
*****
This is just one of the many fabrications the media and Newt’s enemies have circulated over the years. I can’t imagine how many others there are. If you read the article, it was obviously difficult for Jackie to talk about this, but she did, because at some point you have take on the liars. If the Gingrich family has moved on from this event so many years ago, as Jackie states, maybe it’s time for everybody else to move on, also.
More here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2796631/posts?page=33#33
Was just reading wikipedia, “complete surprise” was used.
Nonetheless, he had one wife, cheated on her, then divorced her, then married the woman he was cheating with. He then cheated on wife 2, divorced her, and married the woman he was cheating with.
It’s just a little bit more adultery and divorce than people typically like to see in a President.
Whether Gingrich discussed the divorce in the hospital with wife #1 I guess it depends on who you believe.
The woman lawyer is clearly talking out of her ass.
She doesn’t have copies of anything - the agreements, the charges, etc.
just a “leftist lawyer” - worthy of an AG like Holder who doesn’t even read laws (like AZ) before making legal comments. No decent lawyer gives opinions without data. (Half don’t even give opinions WITH data.)
They are ridiculous. Not even worthy of attention.
By the way - they have had plenty of time to speak up, and be bribed for it. Logically - it is very obvious why they haven’t. They’ve got nothing. Innuendo is their strongest hand. They have played it.
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.