[Paladin2]

I’m still trying to figure out what a verbal gesture might be.

[the invisib1e hand]

wait wait WAIT -- he said earlier he didn't think there was a settlement.

OYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!

[SoJoCo]

Cain is not handling this well. First there was the non-denial denial of yesterday. Then came this mornings firm denial. Now he's denying one and not the other?

Companies face situations like this all the time. In many cases even when the charges are baseless companies will settle without admitting any wrong-doing just to make the trouble go away. If that's what happened in this case, as is likely, then Cain should have said so right off the bat.

[Sea Parrot]

I dunno, this not looking good as he keeps changing his story.

Damn Cain, was suit filed and money paid? If it happened, it happened, admit it, get it out, get it over with and move the hell on.

As it is Cain is starting to define the meaning of is.

One thing will be watching on FN tonight. Will bloviater O’Reilly put Cain down and become the biggest hypocrite of all time.

[Sacajaweau]

Of course everyone realizes that the National Restaurant Association is just a monstrous lobbying group.

[Meet the New Boss]

Part of the problem here may have been uncertainty as to what was the extent of the confidentiality obligations contained within the settlement agreement and just who is bound by it.

In his initial responses, Cain may have been unsure whether he was bound by the confidentiality agreement. Was he allowed to state that there was a settlement? Was he allowed to discuss the nature of the allegations? Was he allowed to speak of the amount of the settlement? He may not have known at first. This may explain the nature of his statements when first asked.

Now that he is speaking about it, they must have concluded either that (1) the agreement was between the National Restaurant Association and the woman, and Cain was not a party to it and is not prohibited under a collateral obligation such as an employment agreement from speaking about it or (2) the woman has breached the agreement by disclosing details to Politico, thereby excusing the NRA and Cain from any obligation not to speak about it.

Figuring these things out is not something that is obvious without checking with the lawyers. It is not surprising that it would take several days to sort out who can say what about it.

[who knows what evil?]

Zzzzzzzzz...I don’t give a rat’s ass about any of this...much ado about nothing.

[Zack Attack]

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.’”

And the translation as heard by a liberal ear:
"You're a woman and therefore smaller than me. Know your place."

[buffaloguy]

Corporations have lots of lawsuits at any one time. This one was small potatoes. Forgettable.

[CharlesWayneCT]

This is getting crazy. Allapundit raises a lot of interesting questions, and invokes a few more of my own:

1. Why are people acting like the hand gesture is "all there is"? Cain explicitly says that the hand gesture "something that was in", and "that was put in", indicting that there were other things in the complaint (otherwise you would say "that's what the complaint was about").
2. Since there were obviously other things in the complaint, and Cain now seems to know what was in the complaint, why isn't he telling everything that was in the complaint?
3. Why did the woman in human resources deny having heard of a complaint, if Cain says she was actually the one who investigated it?
4. Cain says his general counsel and a lady who worked for him investigated, and found the complaint baseless. Why does he think the general public would accept the word of two of his paid employees on an investigation, if they were inclined not to believe him? It's hardly an "independent investigation".
5. As I have said before, I don't understand how Cain could have NOT known about the settlement.
6. Why does cain now say he "does remember" his counsel telling him about the money paid out, when he said before he had no idea there was a settlement? the words "I remember my general counsel" certainly doesn't sound like "I was told this morning", but rather "I'm remembering something from a while ago".
7. And, as he said, Politico brought this up 10 days ago. If they could get information between this morning and tonight, why couldn't they get information last week and pre-empt the story or be prepared for it?

None of these questions go do the validity of the allegations. The allegations are "real" -- Cain himself has now verified one of the complaints, AND the settlement -- so attacking Politico for "making this stuff up" is no longer a valid line of argument. And the problem for Cain in my mind isn't the allegations, but how he is handling this. (I don't care how badly his supporters are handling this -- running around calling Perry a queer and a drunk really isn't "handling" anything)

[kevkrom]

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.

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.