[Eagle of Liberty]

I mean, if Cain's word is good on its face...why should some unknown American's word not be treated the same way?

INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY! And that is CAIN's innocence, not Sharon Bialek's or Victor Zuckerman.

[Chasaway]

Do they have the same right?

FReepers have torn them apart.

[lonevoice]

INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY! And that is CAIN's innocence, not Sharon Bialek's or Victor Zuckerman.

Another one that certainly applies here is "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." In this case we have no proof from the accuser. None. No proof that Bialek was in D.C. staying alone at a Hilton Hotel on the date she claims this happened. No proof that Herman Cain was in D.C. on the same day. That would be the most minimal beginning of establishing circumstantial evidence. But we don't have even that.