There is no pattern. There are allegations of a pattern, but no pattern has in fact been established, and if being argued in court could not be established from the class of hearsay being presented.
Charlie, this is the reason Zuckerman's allegations do not automatically start out with the same credibility as Cain's testimony of his own innocence. Theoretically, the American legal system is designed to prevent injustice, and would rather let a guilty man go free than an innocent man be "hanged" for a “crime” he didn’t commit. Therefore the system is inherently biased to presume innocence, and to demand strict proof of such serious allegations. This is why it is so hard to get hearsay admitted in court. Testimony can be given of things about which you have direct and personal knowledge, but so and so told me thus and such, when you use it to supposedly prove that such and such really happened, doesn’t work for most purposes, and for good reason. It is an open door to “hanging” someone based on unverified and possibly unverifiable gossip. Our system rejects that, and it should, and all good conservatives should understand and be on board with that.
But what if he actually saw Cain and Bialek socializing? Two issues there. First, seeing Cain greet someone in public is not proof of relationship or even that Cain was lying when he said he never saw her before. As a warm and gregarious person, he has greeted untold thousands at such meetings for years now, and asking him to recall a specific meeting, especially of someone he truly didn't know, is asking more than most human memories can deliver. All Cain has to do to be innocent of lying, even if he was seen with her, is to genuinely not remember meeting her. This clearly doesn't rise to a level of proof, legal or otherwise.
Second, referring back to the presumption of innocence, in our legal system the credibility of an adverse witness is fair game. We have an adversarial system of law. Each side is supposed to take the position, within the bounds of truth, that represents their client in the best possible light, and their client's adversaries as potentially biased or motivated by something other than a pure desire for truth. By both sides being vigorously presented before a hopefully impartial arbiter, we hope to arrive at the truth.
The arbiter in this case is us, we the voting public. So from Cain’s perspective, presenting Dr. Z's public court record to the public is both valid and significant, because the issues in that record appear to have a bearing both on his honesty and on the possibility that he has a behavior, gambling, that is well known to produce irrational and unethical behavior when it reaches the addictive stage.
Those are fair questions, as they go to Dr. Z’s credibility. He has opened himself to such questions because he has pushed himself (or Gloria Allred has dragged him) into the very hot kitchen of public inquiry, and if he and Cain and the others choose to stay in it, they will all have to find a way to deal with the heat.
Don’t disagree with the “fairness” question. Think I said so myself.
My problem is the attempt to destroy the person personally before he’d even finished his statement.
Any objective person would wonder why attack the person when he’s not even finished (actually with some, before he even began) speaking.
No one in their right mind believes that is fair treatment. An objective person would believe there is bias/agenda afoot.
Thanks for your comments, though.
{FYI, I’m not claiming his comments, or any accusers, bear the same weight as Cain’s. But to disparage the person because one has already made their mind up isn’t fair, isn’t reasonable...and isn’t conservative.