video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo playerPosted on 10/31/2011 2:47:44 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
File that under “Headlines I never thought I’d write.”
Is this really it?
Cain told van Susteren that he remembered one woman who was a writer in the Association’s communications department. “I can’t even remember her name, but I do remember the formal allegation she made in terms of sexual harassment,” Cain said. “I turned it over to my general counsel and one of the ladies that worked for me, the woman in charge of human resources. They did investigate…and it was found to be baseless.”
Van Susteren asked Cain how often he saw the woman. “I might see her in the office because her office was on the same floor as my office,” Cain said. Van Susteren asked whether the woman traveled with Cain, who spent a lot of time on the road speaking to restaurant associations around the country. “No, never,” Cain said…
Van Susteren asked what Cain did that led to the accusation. There were reportedly more than one accusations in the complaint, but Cain said he recalled just one incident. “She was in my office one day, and I made a gesture saying — and I was standing close to her — and I made a gesture saying you are the same height as my wife. And I brought my hand up to my chin saying, ‘My wife comes up to my chin.’” At that point, Cain gestured with his flattened palm near his chin. “And that was put in there [the complaint] as something that made her uncomfortable,” Cain said, “something that was in the sexual harassment charge.”
So that was part of it — an exceedingly lame part of it, if Cain’s memory is accurate — but maybe not all of it. The detail about “the woman in charge of human resources” is interesting too: Politico spoke to her last week and she denied ever having heard of a complaint by a woman employee against Cain. After Cain himself acknowledged today that the complaints had happened, Politico called her back — and she no longer wanted to talk. Very curious.
Ed and Tina have been all over this today but I still have two questions. One: Like Kevin Williamson, I don’t understand how Cain didn’t know at the time if a settlement had been reached or not. I understand why he didn’t have to consent to the settlement — it was the National Restaurant Association that presumably would have been sued, not Cain personally — but if my employer was inclined to pay five figures to someone who’d accused me baselessly of sexual harassment, I’d surely want to know it. Especially if I was thinking about running for office someday, when the settlement would surface and become a rolling clusterfark for the campaign. Two: Why hasn’t anyone revealed the amounts of the settlements yet? Politico said it saw “documentation” describing the allegations and asserted vaguely that the payouts were in “the five-figure range,” but that won’t cut it. The actual numbers matter. The smaller the payouts, the more likely it is that the claims were weak and that the NRA felt comfortable driving a hard bargain. Someone somewhere knows the numbers, whether inside Cain’s campaign, at the NRA, or in Politico’s newsroom. Let’s have ‘em. The man’s credibility is at stake and that’ll be a useful data point.
Here’s a new clip showcasing his best moment at the National Press Club this afternoon, goofing on the Karen Finneys of the world who claim the right’s interest in him is chiefly as an aegis against racism charges. Exit quotation: “This many white people can’t pretend that they like me.”
video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo playerUpdate: Byron York updated the piece I linked above with this key detail:
Cain also offered new information about the settlement of the case. Politico, which broke the sexual harassment allegation story, said that the woman received a money settlement “in the five-figure range.” When van Susteren asked about that, Cain said, “My general counsel said this started out where she and her lawyer were demanding a huge financial settlement…I don’t remember a number…But then he said because there was no basis for this, we ended up settling for what would have been a termination settlement.” When van Susteren asked how much money was involved, Cain said. “Maybe three months’ salary. I don’t remember. It might have been two months. I do remember my general counsel saying we didn’t pay all of the money they demanded.”
“I do remember my general counsel saying we didn’t pay all of the money they demanded” — and yet, this morning he claimed that he “wasn’t even aware” of a settlement. Maybe his campaign staff researched it and briefed him sometime between this morning and the interview with Greta? Or maybe, as a Twitter pal suggests, Cain was playing coy earlier because his lawyers had to double check on what he was legally able to disclose?
He also claims that he’s only aware of one formal complaint even though Politico claims there were two separate accusers. Stay tuned.
Update: An excellent point from Philip Klein. Politico was in touch with his staff for 10 days about this story. If Cain did get briefed this morning about the details of the settlements, why did it take the campaign 10 days to do that? They weren’t blindsided here.
Update: The Times asked a lawyer who specializes in sexual harassment claims whether it’d be unusual for the accused not to know about the settlement. The answer: It wouldn’t be unusual for him not to participate in the settlement, but knowing about it is a whole other matter.
“A prudent general counsel, will say, ‘Look–I want you out of the mix. You should not be involved in this.’” she said. The matter would not have to be taken up with the full board of an organization, and depending on its rules, could be handled by individual board members and officers.
But Mr. Cain’s further contention that he learned nothing more of the matter, she said, “completely defies credulity.” If the organization had, in fact, conducted a “thorough investigation,” as Mr. Cain said, he would have probably picked up a great deal of information from the questions that would have been put to him.
For most executives in this position, she said, it is only natural to inquire after the fact as to the outcome — even if it’s just to say, “Hey, what happened with that, and why are these ladies no longer here?”
Uh, I’m sorry I misunderstood you.
Cain tonight on PBS said he didn’t think he signed anything. He said he didn’t think he was bound by any agreement. He said he knew about the agreement, but didn’t think about it as a “settlement” and that’s why he said he didn’t know about a settlement.
So whatever point you think you were making, it has been overcome by another Cain “clarification”. As it turns out, I was right again. He did remember it, he did know about it, he didn’t sign off on it, he isn’t bound by it — at least, that’s what he is saying now.
So what the heck were you right about? As if it matters or anyone cares.
I said: That would require him to be part of the agreement, so he would be bound by it. No way he was part of the agreement and didn’t remember it.
Cain has now said he was not part of the agreement, and was not bound by it. So I was right.
You said: So you think the NRA worked out a settlement but didn't get the accused party to sign off on letting it go?
I did, and I was right -- Cain says he doesn't remember signing off on it, and doesn't think he did. You were wrong to suggest it was stupid; it turns out it was the truth.
Maybe next time Cain has one of these issues, you'll wait for his several clarifications before you go out on a limb and get left hanging out to dry.
I guess, like Barack 0bama or Mitt Romney, if you take both sides of a position you can always claim to be right.
True; but the "Interviewee" in this particular situation described was Exec. VP of Operations; not the cleaning lady.
I am about one thing only...getting the white house back. This issue could sink Cain. He had better get out in front of it. So far he has bungled it.
If you think otherwise then defend your position without resorting to the old palinite fallback of...."I don't agree with you so you're a troll."
So, go ahead, tell us how this issue doesn't hurt Cain and then tell us exactly how he has not botched his response to this point.
Your history speaks better to your comments about Cain and Palin than I care to lay out here. Anyone can review it.
Are you are royal? What’s all this ‘we’ and ‘us?’
There is no dispute that this could take out Cain. Did anyone say it couldn’t? Did I? I think not. As we know, it’s not the actual facts of the matter that count, it’s the allegations. Same old Dem/media game.
You are a master at changing the subject and taking the most negative position on R candidates. Therefore, you do deserve the troll sobriquet, which I remind you, I have never before used in 10 years at FR.
My two paragraphs in #62 do not contradict each other, they compliment each other and reinforce the argument.
What do you think is “contradictory”? That Cain had said he didn’t know about the settlement in the morning, but admitted he knew about the settlement in the evening? That’s not my contradiction.
I don’t see were Cain got sued. I see no mention of a lawsuit at all. I have read about reports of allegations that were made. I have read that there was money paid upon discharge to settle those allegations.
So given that, you may be right. He may not be sued for harrassment very often if ever. A lawsuit involves alot of time and money and some measure of fact finding. Thats why he wasnt sued but his company was shaken down.
Get the picture? These types of allegations and payment to settle the allegations are part of the left wing/democratic/trial lawyer/big government shakedown. It is an everyday occurrence for some of us and its very forgettable.
Sorry, it was just a shorthand, you are right. He said this was the only time he had had a complaint against him for harrassment. My point was that it wasn’t a common occurence such that it would be forgettable.
I can easily think of oral gestures. (;-p)
He ignored Postal counsel and walked right out and lost the case.
I didn't loose, and any world where there's justice they'd give ol'Jer and I pistols and 20 paces.
He'd been dead in a thrice!
As a stockbroker for over 25 years, I was only involved in one lawsuit. The company settled out of court, denying any fault. Only by chance did I find out they paid the woman asserting improper trade practices, $5,000 just to get rid of the headache. This lawsuit had nothing to do with sexual harrassment.
In many businesses one is told to have no further contact with the accuser during the entire process but only with company HR, attorneys, regulators etc who investigate.
As I understand this situation, the women didn’t file suit, just a grievance with HR at the NRA. And if you recall that time frame, “The Year of the Woman,” ‘sexual harassment’ became anything any woman wanted it to be. Let’s say “sexual harassment” became rather fluid.
Also, as I understand it, NRA paid them a few months severance and they left. I’d want them out of my place, too, unless their grievances were serious, in which case, it would have been Cain who’d be gone.
There is the probability Cain did do or say something these women found offensive. Others likely would not have foun the same statement/gestures offensive. The allegations appears totally out of character. Last night Levin interviewed a woman who’d worked for him in GA, traveled all over GA with him, and still hasn’t committed to a ‘12 presidential candidate. She said he was always a fine gentleman.
You and I have both worked in the DC political environment, and know the type person who is ever so easily offended. This town is a magnet for them.
Clearly the writer has never dealt with HR before. There's no way they'll ever confirm anything that isn't part of a public record.
Years later she'd spoke to me in the cafeteria and I pretended i had no idea who she was, and kind of nodded. She'd been transferred back to Headquarters.
Word spread fast about her being in the building.
She really wasn't thought of as any kind of a hero ~ more like just a real nasty person to be avoided at all cost. Best I could tell she cut her own career off at the knees.
Wouldn’t it be interesting to see the career path(s) of Cain’s accusers. Per Politico, the agreement required the parties not to discuss the matter, but I’d love to see how any references to future employers were done by NRA. Likely damn[ed] with faint praise.
“Settlement of allegations” within a severance package is a huge difference from a lawsuit. He could have easily had no input into the former were its a company issue and mostly a routine matter. If he was personally named in a sexual harassment lawsuit then yes he would remember it.
The question of remembering is moot, because Cain has now said he remembers it, to the point of describing specific events that he says the woman misinterpreted (the “hand gesture”).
Cain has also explained that he knew there was an agreement with money, and that he was just saying he didn’t know it that agreement was in the form of a settlement. I think that’s a stupid distinction for him to try to have made, but it is technically accurate.
I should not have used the word “suit”, I was just writing a quick blurb and my shorthand was not accurate, as I said in the comment you are replying to.
But remember, Cain has now said he specifically remembers this one harrassment complaint, and that if there are ANY other ones reported, they will be made up, because he remembers that there were no other ones. He seems very sure of that, so I think he’s admitting that he would remember a sexual harrassment complaint.
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.