This entire sex scandal keeps getting more messy with each passing day.
Cain&CO hasn’t handled it well at all and that has made the situation worse.
Rush took you “didn’t handle it well” people to the woodshed today, made that argument look ridiculous.
The female source told PJ Media that she witnessed the woman and Herman Cain break away from the large group as part of a smaller group.
Wowzer! She saw Cain and a woman leave the large group and go off by themselves -- no, wait -- go off with a smaller group.
Neither source has direct knowledge of what occurred at Mr. Cain’s residence, but several days after the alleged incident, the female source witnessed the woman returning to her workplace “distraught.” “She was very upset.”
Several days later she is noticed "returning to the workplace" -- from where? -- "distraught." This tells us exactly what? Even this story doesn't make a connection between the allegation of the incident and where the employee was returning from and why she was distraught. Could it be she had just learned she was being terminated for some completely unrelated reason?
“Some people didn’t believe [the accuser]” at the time she made the allegation.
In another example of pathetic journalism, the author of this piece "forgets" to ask or forgets to tell us, the reader, what these "sources" understood the allegation to be or to whom it was made. Are they talking about an "allegation" she told them later? Are they claiming they know she made an "allegation" to HR and what exactly the woman alleged?
As I said, stupid, pathetic journalism.
Mr. Cain has steadfastly denied that he harassed any female employees at the National Restaurant Association when he was president. He originally said any allegations of his harassment of women are “totally baseless and totally false.”
Is this supposed to set up some kind of claim that Mr. Cain made inconsistent statements? WTH? These two statements say exactly the same thing, without nuance. Why the redundancy? Ridiculous.
CORRECTIONS: A previous version of this story mentioned that a source witnessed Cain and the woman entering a taxi together. This was incorrect.
So the only thing these "sources" know, allegedly, is that this woman told them she went in a taxi with Cain.
Just wondering: do they have direct knowledge of this woman's state of mind at the time she claimed all this happened?
(Actually, we don't know IF or WHAT the woman claimed. All we have in this story is the recollection of two people who claim the woman made a claim and who claim they know what she claimed.)
The previous version also mentioned that the woman awoke in Cain’s bed — the source only claimed that the woman awoke in Cain’s apartment.
One thing that hasn't been said about this correction is this: hey people thinking about piping up -- please be aware that YOU will be misquoted and misttributed and misrepresented and it won't always be as easy to walk back as it may have been here. Then the next thing you know, YOU will be defending yourself from a media smear. Watch what you sign up, is my advice.
I agree. Cain has handled it so badly, it’s kept the story alive and I’m beginning to wonder if this couldn’t be a strategy with him.
He’s getting a lot of publicity and a lot of sympathy money.
It’s been a good fund raising tool for him, so why would he want it to stop.
I’m very suspicious.