Cain denies sexual-harassment claims

posted at 8:45 am on October 31, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

There are many headlines that strike fear in the hearts of presidential campaigns — and this one from Politico is probably right near the worst of them.  Last night, they ran a story that the National Restaurant Association had to settle two sexual-harassment claims against Herman Cain when he chaired the trade group in the 1990s:

During Herman Cain’s tenure as the head of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s, at least two female employees complained to colleagues and senior association officials about inappropriate behavior by Cain, ultimately leaving their jobs at the trade group, multiple sources confirm to POLITICO.

The women complained of sexually suggestive behavior by Cain that made them angry and uncomfortable, the sources said, and they signed agreements with the restaurant group that gave them financial payouts to leave the association. The agreements also included language that bars the women from talking about their departures.

Cain got challenged to respond to this earlier in the day, which led to an uncomfortable moment:

Cain said he has “had thousands of people working for me” at different businesses over the years and could not comment “until I see some facts or some concrete evidence.” His campaign staff was given the name of one woman who complained last week, and it was repeated to Cain on Sunday. He responded, “I am not going to comment on that.”

He was then asked, “Have you ever been accused, sir, in your life of harassment by a woman?”

He breathed audibly, glared at the reporter and stayed silent for several seconds. After the question was repeated three times, he responded by asking the reporter, “Have you ever been accused of sexual harassment?”

By late evening, the Cain campaign had a more polished response in denying that Cain had ever engaged in sexual harassment, without denying the existence of the settlements:

Fearing the message of Herman Cain who is shaking up the political landscape in Washington, Inside the Beltway media have begun to launch unsubstantiated personal attacks on Cain.

Dredging up thinly sourced allegations stemming from Mr. Cain’s tenure as the Chief Executive Officer at the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s, political trade press are now casting aspersions on his character and spreading rumors that never stood up to the facts.

Since Washington establishment critics haven’t had much luck in attacking Mr. Cain’s ideas to fix a bad economy and create jobs, they are trying to attack him in any way they can.engag

Sadly, we’ve seen this movie played out before – a prominent Conservative targeted by liberals simply because they disagree with his politics.

Mr. Cain — and all Americans, deserve better.

I’m not sure that Politico’s story about the settlements are “thinly sourced”; they appear to have made contact with the women involved, and Cain’s team pointedly did not deny that the settlements occurred.  Politico also claimed to have seen the actual settlement documents and have a half-dozen sources for the story.  Otherwise, this is a best-defense-is-a-good-offense response, blaming the media for reporting the story.

If the settlements exist, and if they pertain to sexual harassment, then it’s certainly fair game for the media.  This would differ from the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill allegations, as Hill never reported Thomas contemporaneous to the supposed harassment (and continued working for him after they supposedly occurred).  The two settlements would indicate that the women involved undertook action contemporaneous to the claims, which is more substantial than Hill’s behavior.  However, it’s not clear from the story whether the settlements themselves are settled legal complaints, or merely small golden parachutes that don’t make any reference to the reason for the departure of the two women.

Even if the settlements reference sexual-harassment complaints, it’s important to remember that settlements in and of themselves don’t necessarily mean guilt or innocence.  Anyone who has worked with high-ranking executives — especially those who have high public profiles — knows that they make pretty tasty targets for legal claims, whether warranted or not.  For most organizations, it’s easier and cheaper to settle harassment claims than to fight them.  The two women got five-figure settlements, which don’t seem particularly pricy, but that could also be deceptive — the women might not have had the resources to pursue the claims further than a smaller settlement, either.  Cain doesn’t appear to have been rushed out of his position at the NRA, and he has had a very long run of success as an executive with a number of companies, and so far there hasn’t been any other claims of impropriety.  That speaks in his favor, as long as that remains the case — and the Politico story indicates that may be the case:

Ron Magruder, Denise Marie Fugo and Joseph Fassler, the chair, vice chair and immediate past chairman of the National Restaurant Association board of directors at the time of Cain’s departure, said they hadn’t heard about any complaints regarding Cain making unwanted advances.

“I have never heard that. It would be news to me,” said Fugo, who runs a Cleveland, Ohio, catering company, adding such behavior would be totally out of character for the Cain she knew. “He’s very gracious.” …

Cain was “extremely professional” and “fair” to female staffers at the restaurant association, recalled Lee Ellen Hayes, who said she “worked fairly closely with” Cain in the late 1990s, when she was an executive at the National Restaurant Association Education Fund, a Chicago-based offshoot of the group.

Cain’s treatment of women was “the same as his treatment of men. Herman treated everyone great,” said Mary Ann Cricchio, who was elected to the board of the restaurant group in 1998. She said Cain left such a good impression on the organization that when he spoke at a group event in January of this year, as he was considering a presidential bid, “he had unanimous support in the room.”

Cain has certainly made his private-sector executive experience part of his resumé for President, including his leadership at the NRA.  If — and that’s a big if — Cain engaged in inappropriate conduct as an executive to the extent that it cost his employer cast to settle the issues, then that would speak to his judgment.  While no one should leap to the conclusion that Cain’s committed that kind of conduct, the existence of those settlements would require at least some explanation from Cain.

Update: We might need a little more explanation from Politico, too. Here’s Jonathan Martin on MSNBC, refusing to get specific about what exactly Cain said and did, out of sensitivity to the women involved, courtesy of Newsbusters:

WILLIE GEIST: Hey Jonathan, what are the allegations specifically as you understand them? There’s obviously a wide range in sexual harassment. What did he do?

JONATHAN MARTIN: We-, we-, well we have to be careful about that obviously, because we’re sensitive to –

GEIST: Of course –

MARTIN: — the sourcing involved here. And also, what also happened to these women as well–we want to be sensitive to that, too. It includes both verbal and physical gestures. These women felt uncomfortable, they were unhappy about their treatment, and they complained to both colleagues and senior officials. In one case it involved, I think, inviting a woman up to a hotel room of Cain’s on the road. Um, but, we-, we-, we’re just not going to get into the details of exactly what happened with these women beside what’s in the story.

Frankly, that’s not going to cut it. If the women have decided to start telling people about their claims, then they should identify themselves and tell the whole story. If it’s others who are talking about these claims and the women aren’t the sources for Politico, then that brings up a good question as to whether Politico has the details right in the first place. Either way, if Politico wants to run a piece accusing a presidential candidate of sexual harassment in his past, then its readers deserve all of the details so that they can make up their minds about whether the accusers and the accusations are credible.

Update II: Jazz Shaw has more thoughts, especially on the differences between this and the Anita Hill story.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5

Herman Cain was accused of sexual harassment and there was some sort of payment (not necessarily a settlement) made to the accusers. That’s all I can really say for certain at this point.

gryphon202 on October 31, 2011 at 12:36 PM

Well that is totally wrong…it wasn’t sexual harassment, it was inappropriate behavior now (whatever that is, maybe a cuss word out loud in the work place?)

right2bright on October 31, 2011 at 12:39 PM

BierManVA on October 31, 2011 at 12:31 PM

Yet Politico will say that they stand by their sources and there were accusations of now only “inappropriate behavior” that involved Herman Cain—-which will leave them in the company of the new slut media.

Sad times indeed.

Rovin on October 31, 2011 at 12:39 PM

Hope that’s the end of it, and nothing else is there to come out. Whoever we support, we must know that if they go up in the polls this will happen to them.

kg598301 on October 31, 2011 at 12:39 PM

IMNSHO, “the allegations are false” constitutes full disclosure. Anyone demanding more details than that is probably the kind of person that finds Snooki and The Situation entertaining.

gryphon202 on October 31, 2011 at 12:38 PM

Heh, you like snookie, do you?

I seen to remember some guy ready to jump on any smear of another candidate…and stick with it long past its expiration date.

cozmo on October 31, 2011 at 12:41 PM

Well that is totally wrong…it wasn’t sexual harassment, it was inappropriate behavior now (whatever that is, maybe a cuss word out loud in the work place?)

right2bright on October 31, 2011 at 12:39 PM

Except for the fact taht Herman Cain himself just said he was accused of sexual harrassment.

He just said it was a false accusation.

JohnGalt23 on October 31, 2011 at 12:41 PM

Well that is totally wrong…it wasn’t sexual harassment, it was inappropriate behavior now (whatever that is, maybe a cuss word out loud in the work place?)

right2bright on October 31, 2011 at 12:39 PM

Whoops. My bad.

That right there ^ is more of an apology than you’ll ever get from Politico.

gryphon202 on October 31, 2011 at 12:41 PM

Except for the fact taht Herman Cain himself just said he was accused of sexual harrassment.

He just said it was a false accusation.

JohnGalt23 on October 31, 2011 at 12:41 PM

Apparently Cain’s words weren’t enough for Politico to feel comfortable running with that headline for whatever reason. Can we give Politico the same scrutiny we’re giving Cain?

gryphon202 on October 31, 2011 at 12:42 PM

I didn’t go through all 4 pages, but MY take on it has a question:
I wonder who’s campaign set the up, and I find it interesting Will’s column on Mittens has been negated by this.

MAIN THING:
Herman Cain hasn’t gotten or BEEN at the level he has been all these years without people taking shots at him…

He can handle it, I am certain.

But it will never go away.

golfmann on October 31, 2011 at 12:42 PM

Well that is totally wrong…it wasn’t sexual harassment, it was inappropriate behavior now (whatever that is, maybe a cuss word out loud in the work place?)

right2bright on October 31, 2011 at 12:39 PM

“Inappropriate behavior.”

Mr. Cain is a very warm and gregarious man. Some women who have issues might take a pat on the shoulder or back or quick hug as sexual advances.

Here are 2 pictures of Herman being Herman with Michele Bachmann. A decent, warm, jovial man. This is a crazy world we live in.

http://bossip.com/487685/does-the-gop-support-herman-cain-because-they-see-him-as-a-black-man-who30346/herman-cain-michele-bachmann-composite/

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=images+michele+bachmann+herman+cain&hl=en&biw=1280&bih=685&tbm=isch&tbnid=eq0sYhYZrMrtHM:&imgrefurl=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38450984/ns/politics%3Fq%3DMichele%2520Bachmann&docid=i0d2Pgn9PjXLsM&imgurl=http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Components/Slideshows/_production/ss-111011-herman-cain/ss-111011-herman-cain-13.jpg&w=1217&h=1500&ei=ob-uTs-rKsPq0gGAmbHPBQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=599&vpy=148&dur=335&hovh=249&hovw=202&tx=123&ty=150&sig=115292581625021920552&page=2&tbnh=143&tbnw=147&start=15&ndsp=15&ved=1t:429,r:7,s:15

Elisa on October 31, 2011 at 12:43 PM

This is starting to look racist…

tetriskid on October 31, 2011 at 12:46 PM

Apparently Cain’s words weren’t enough for Politico to feel comfortable running with that headline for whatever reason. Can we give Politico the same scrutiny we’re giving Cain?

gryphon202 on October 31, 2011 at 12:42 PM

Well, it certainly wouldn’t have made the Headline cut at the NY Post in either version.

And yeah, feel free to press Politico on what they have. Although the nature of these things is that if there is something more to the story someone, Politico or some other outlet, will find it, if they don’t already have it.

Then the only question is, when do they play that card? Before or after then nomination?

JohnGalt23 on October 31, 2011 at 12:49 PM

Can we give Politico the same scrutiny we’re giving Cain?

gryphon202 on October 31, 2011 at 12:42 PM

The problem is Politico’s core audience (libs) wouldn’t care. If the ends (acceptance of liberal thought) justify the means (anything) they are fine with it. We could prove every single person working for Politico was a cannibal and pedophile and they probably wouldn’t lose a single reader.

Kataklysmic on October 31, 2011 at 12:49 PM

I though women are equal and strong, why do they need to be protected from innuendo and non sexual hand gestures. So they got paid not to be in an association, sweet deal. In the seventies I could have owned the company I worked for.

Cindy Munford on October 31, 2011 at 12:51 PM

Then the only question is, when do they play that card? Before or after then nomination?

JohnGalt23 on October 31, 2011 at 12:49 PM

It doesn’t matter. They have an entire deck, almost entirely consisting of lies, I’m sure. If they don’t play one card, they’ll grab the extra ace up their sleeve and chuck it out onto the board hoping that no one notices.

In case I haven’t made myself perfectly clear, not only am I not assuming good faith on the part of the media, I am assuming BAD faith. I’m sure I won’t be disappointed or surprised, and in politics, there’s very little that I’m certain about.

gryphon202 on October 31, 2011 at 12:52 PM

No, Politico got hold of some rumor, they ran with it, and are now backing off …

right2bright on October 31, 2011 at 12:30 PM

.
Uh, no, the author of the article was pretty explicit that he was protecting the identities of the women “out of concern for their privacy.” You don’t need a link to his video statement to Chuck Todd do you, since it’s right here on HotAir…
.

ExpressoBold on October 31, 2011 at 12:57 PM

Uh, no, the author of the article was pretty explicit that he was protecting the identities of the women “out of concern for their privacy.” You don’t need a link to his video statement to Chuck Todd do you, since it’s right here on HotAir…
.

ExpressoBold on October 31, 2011 at 12:57 PM

Is that why they changed the headline? There must be some reason they called it “sexual harassment” and no longer feel comfortable doing so, and I don’t understand what the “victims’” identities have to do with it.

gryphon202 on October 31, 2011 at 1:00 PM

Oh, and BTW… just so we’re clear; Herman Cain did just come out and call two (as yet) unnamed women liars.

Do I have that right?

JohnGalt23 on October 31, 2011 at 1:04 PM

FINALLY found Cain’s address to the Nat’l Press Club, on CSPAN-1.
Recording.
Funny, he’s being intro’d and it’s taken several minutes to cover his creds… LOL.

pambi on October 31, 2011 at 1:05 PM

Oh, and BTW… just so we’re clear; Herman Cain did just come out and call two (as yet) unnamed women liars.

Do I have that right?

JohnGalt23 on October 31, 2011 at 1:04 PM

Not exactly. The facts of the case are unknown, but not necessarily in dispute. What is apparently in dispute is if they constitute harassment or not.

gryphon202 on October 31, 2011 at 1:06 PM

JohnGalt23 on October 31, 2011 at 1:04 PM

And if we ever find out that they are, what’s the problem ??
Do you have a problem with speaking the truth ?

pambi on October 31, 2011 at 1:10 PM

I don’t understand what the “victims’” identities have to do with it.

gryphon202 on October 31, 2011 at 1:00 PM

.
Did you read my blackmail extortion theory back on a previous page?

ExpressoBold on October 31, 2011 at 1:11 PM

JohnGalt23 on October 31, 2011 at 1:04 PM

And if we ever find out that they are, what’s the problem ??
Do you have a problem with speaking the truth ?

pambi on October 31, 2011 at 1:10 PM

Indeed. Clarence Thomas called Anita Hill a liar. And I don’t remember a lot of conservatives having a problem with that.

gryphon202 on October 31, 2011 at 1:11 PM

Not exactly. The facts of the case are unknown, but not necessarily in dispute. What is apparently in dispute is if they constitute harassment or not.

gryphon202 on October 31, 2011 at 1:06 PM

But he was asked, directly IIRC, were you accused of sexual harrassment, and was that allegation false, and he said yes.

I watched it live, and haven’t found the full recording yet, but I thought that was what he said.

Apparently he thought the accusations were of harrassment, albeit false accusations.

I might be wrong… I’ll see if I can find the recording.

JohnGalt23 on October 31, 2011 at 1:12 PM

Did you read my blackmail extortion theory back on a previous page?

ExpressoBold on October 31, 2011 at 1:11 PM

Sexual harassment law = legally sanctioned extortion. That’s my take on it. YMMV.

gryphon202 on October 31, 2011 at 1:12 PM

JohnGalt23 on October 31, 2011 at 1:12 PM

Your point ?

pambi on October 31, 2011 at 1:14 PM

And if we ever find out that they are, what’s the problem ??
Do you have a problem with speaking the truth ?

pambi on October 31, 2011 at 1:10 PM

Not at all. In fact, if I were Herman Cain, I would have publicly outed these women as liars, if in fact they were. Granted, I could see myself advising Herm to do otherwise… politically, of course.

My concern is if he did just call these women liars, which they may well be, then either those women are liars… or Herman is.

JohnGalt23 on October 31, 2011 at 1:15 PM

But he was asked, directly IIRC, were you accused of sexual harrassment, and was that allegation false, and he said yes.

I watched it live, and haven’t found the full recording yet, but I thought that was what he said.

Apparently he thought the accusations were of harrassment, albeit false accusations.

I might be wrong… I’ll see if I can find the recording.

JohnGalt23 on October 31, 2011 at 1:12 PM

That’s what I mean about the facts of the case, JG. The investigation, which took place in-house, determined the facts of the case and that they did not constitute harassment. Unless you’re inclined for some reason to side with the accusers, the question of whether Herman Cain is a sexual harasser has already been answered ad nauseum.

gryphon202 on October 31, 2011 at 1:15 PM

Your point ?

pambi on October 31, 2011 at 1:14 PM

See above.

JohnGalt23 on October 31, 2011 at 1:16 PM

My concern is if he did just call these women liars, which they may well be, then either those women are liars… or Herman is.

JohnGalt23 on October 31, 2011 at 1:15 PM

That you have to wonder says just as much about you as it says about anyone else.

gryphon202 on October 31, 2011 at 1:16 PM

The investigation, which took place in-house, determined the facts of the case and that they did not constitute harassment. Unless you’re inclined for some reason to side with the accusers, the question of whether Herman Cain is a sexual harasser has already been answered ad nauseum.

gryphon202 on October 31, 2011 at 1:15 PM

Your evidence for this in-house investigation is…?

JohnGalt23 on October 31, 2011 at 1:18 PM

He seems to be sticking to his prepared remarks to Press Club… How to solve the problems we have in the USA.
The room was VERY tense at the start (in the seats, I mean)
He broke the tension well, tho.

pambi on October 31, 2011 at 1:18 PM

gryphon202 on October 31, 2011 at 1:16 PM
Yup.

pambi on October 31, 2011 at 1:20 PM

Your evidence for this in-house investigation is…?

JohnGalt23 on October 31, 2011 at 1:18 PM

Lack of evidence of this case in any court docket along with the fact that corporations generally shy away from litigation in matters of harassment that might make them look bad.

gryphon202 on October 31, 2011 at 1:21 PM

That you have to wonder says just as much about you as it says about anyone else.

gryphon202 on October 31, 2011 at 1:16 PM

Jeeze, go for the jugular why don’tcha’. I like Cain but want to know more.

That somebody else, who isn’t on board with Cain, wants to more is a good thing. Then you just go and poke them in the eye.

Good job.

cozmo on October 31, 2011 at 1:29 PM

He’s being asked to clear the air over the allegations.
Says he’s happy to.

Reiterating the charges were false, as Pres., he had to recluse himself, and allowed the legal team to handle it.
Discovery proved allegations were false and baseless.

Says there’s nothing left to dig up.
Has no idea about who’s behind it, but understand the bullseye on his back, regardless.

pambi on October 31, 2011 at 1:30 PM

So the internet rumor of the moment out there is Perry campaign leaked this stuff to politico. Wonder what the ramifications will be if true.

nswider on October 31, 2011 at 1:31 PM

Jeeze, go for the jugular why don’tcha’. I like Cain but want to know more.

That somebody else, who isn’t on board with Cain, wants to more is a good thing. Then you just go and poke them in the eye.

Good job.

cozmo on October 31, 2011 at 1:29 PM

When someone opens up their neck and invites me, of course I”m going to go for the jugular. I mean, Cain denied it. And some of the same people who said, “You need to address this now, Herman!” aren’t happy about the manner in which he did. WTF am I supposed to think? Really?!

gryphon202 on October 31, 2011 at 1:32 PM

This infuriates me. As much as I would like to believe this coming from the democrats, there is no doubt in my mind this is from those squarely filthy republican elites in D.C. that have decided Romney should be the nominee.

Screw them!

Cain for President!

Virginia Shanahan on October 31, 2011 at 1:33 PM

Screw them!

Cain for President!

Virginia Shanahan on October 31, 2011 at 1:33 PM

Too much more of this, and Cain will solidify his frontrunner status.

gryphon202 on October 31, 2011 at 1:35 PM

WTF am I supposed to think? Really?!

gryphon202 on October 31, 2011 at 1:32 PM

Oh, I dunno’…maybe let the folks who actually know the answers handle it? Instead of attacking curiosity with innuendo and smears.

cozmo on October 31, 2011 at 1:35 PM

Oh, I dunno’…maybe let the folks who actually know the answers handle it? Instead of attacking curiosity with innuendo and smears.

cozmo on October 31, 2011 at 1:35 PM

To point out that JG isn’t a Cain fan, and never was, is innuendo and smears?! Grow a pair, Coz.

gryphon202 on October 31, 2011 at 1:36 PM

Grow a pair, Coz.

gryphon202 on October 31, 2011 at 1:36 PM

Maybe not him, but there are several who read this that could be.

There is no need to grow a pair. Find me a nutball and I’ll eviscerate them. The only one’s here who are close to that territory though, are those who are saying “move along…nothing to see here”.

cozmo on October 31, 2011 at 1:49 PM

Oh, I dunno’…maybe let the folks who actually know the answers handle it? Instead of attacking curiosity with innuendo and smears.

cozmo on October 31, 2011 at 1:35 PM

And the 9/11 Truthers are “just asking questions.” ;-)

JohnTant on October 31, 2011 at 1:49 PM

WOW !
I highly recommend that EVERYONE catch a replay of his appearance before the Nat’l Press Club.
Sure beats just getting sound bites.
He’s still talking, and I’ll post rerun time, etc. if/when offered.

pambi on October 31, 2011 at 1:56 PM

They’ve asked him to sing, and he’s deeply moved.
Taking advantage of the time, since it’s a chance to express his faith.
This is awesome !

pambi on October 31, 2011 at 2:01 PM

That tells me the left is terrified of Cain.

Jason Coleman on October 31, 2011 at 9:45 AM

AGREED

RedLizard64 on October 31, 2011 at 2:10 PM

“to protect their identities”?

Indications are that these are old charges handled at the time. Thus they were settled, and presumably out of court with NDAs attached.

If you break your NDA you do not deserve to have your identity protected as you are going against your word: you are a liar and will not hold yourself to a standard you agreed to. There are no ‘identities’ to protect since you disavow your part in the legal protection for all parties. You want the can of worms opened, then its opener must be known.

If this was dug up by oppo research and the women contacted to confirm it, then the threat of outing them is this thing known as ‘blackmail’. Everyone involved in the finding, contacting, and disseminating of such items is covered by that concept and it would constitute a thing known as: a conspiracy.

If confronted by such charges and you do have an NDA then you dare not break your part of the bargain without first known the other parties had done so FIRST. Saying ‘anonymous sources’ and giving an allegation is no indication that they have actually broken their NDA.

This doesn’t matter if the allegations are true or not: the legal coverage sought and gained by all parties is to be upheld. If you actually believe we are a Nation of laws and not of men, then that is what your standard is.

Politico has no leg to stand on with ‘protecting identities’ if they are covered by an agreement that is being broken by the participants. Indeed they must name them so as to give veracity to the statements and so that ALL parties, including the COURT knows that an agreement is being broken. There are ramifications for NOT doing that and Politico invites them upon itself by this disclosure.

And this goes for if the allegations are true or not true and settled via private means. Before you even GET to that point you must examine the parties in question, because their activities are questionable.

ajacksonian on October 31, 2011 at 2:17 PM

Herman’s appearance before the Nat’l Press Club was quite impressive.
He has not been shaken. Highly recommend it.
There will be a rerun @ 8pm ET, and will be available @ C-SPAN.ORG/VIDEOLIBRARY.

pambi on October 31, 2011 at 2:19 PM

JohnGalt23 on October 31, 2011 at 10:16 AM

Woof you sure seemt to have a Salem Trials mentality here.

RedLizard64 on October 31, 2011 at 2:22 PM

Uh, no, the author of the article was pretty explicit that he was protecting the identities of the women “out of concern for their privacy.” You don’t need a link to his video statement to Chuck Todd do you, since it’s right here on HotAir…
.

ExpressoBold on October 31, 2011 at 12:57 PM

Uhhhhh, if it was fact, than why the backtracking? And of course you believe everything written, correct…like I stated, so easy to manipulate putty minds…

right2bright on October 31, 2011 at 2:22 PM

That you have to wonder says just as much about you as it says about anyone else.

gryphon202 on October 31, 2011 at 1:16 PM

Wonder that somebody who doesn’t seem to have a real firm grasp on his campaign might, in the heat of the moment, lie to me about somebody elses accusation?

Forgive me, but I need a pretty big block-and-tackle to suspend my disbelief high enough to not wonder about it.

JohnGalt23 on October 31, 2011 at 2:34 PM

JohnGalt23 on October 31, 2011 at 2:34 PM

Since you want to get to the bottom of thing, watch his appearance on CSPAN later tonight or online.
Perhaps it’ll help, if you’re willing to listen with an open mind, which is yet to be determined.

pambi on October 31, 2011 at 2:39 PM

cozmo on October 31, 2011 at 11:01 AM

Hmmm. conspiracy to commit political murder?

RedLizard64 on October 31, 2011 at 2:40 PM

On a side note, I’d love to hear the story of how politico found out about this. I’m sure it is a very sorted tale.

ClanDerson on October 31, 2011 at 12:06 PM

I thnk you meant SORDID.

RedLizard64 on October 31, 2011 at 2:47 PM

I would believe Cain’s explanation except for one thing; he claims he never knew if a settlement was made. I once fired an ee for cuase,very well documented. Since it was gov’t and union involvement, legal came to me and explained that my file would hold up in any appeal. But because he was willing to settle for much less than it would cost to continue,settlement would be made. And, we would be rid of the ee. Of course, I had no say in the decision, but I was informed of what would happen.

Oleta on October 31, 2011 at 2:55 PM

Since he recused himself from the investigation, it’s possible that if a settlement happened, it IS possible that he was unaware.

pambi on October 31, 2011 at 3:22 PM

Too bad we can’t fight like the Democrats and call them racists over this.

scotash on October 31, 2011 at 3:29 PM

I can call them racists.

I watched the Clarence Thomas hearings and I was outraged at the way they treated him. Especially Ted Kennedy shaking his finger at Thomas and saying, “Shame, shame, shame, shame shame.” Talk about unbelievable.

The Left is again resorting to a high tech lynching. They are the racists. They cannot allow an independent black man like Herman Cain succeed without kissing Leftist butt and following their rules.

They are determined to force him back on the Democrat plantation.

Disgusting.

hachiban on October 31, 2011 at 4:11 PM

Cain knows more than he is letting on and this is going to affect his poll numbers which is insignificant if the story is true at all in any form.

He needs to say “Look this is what happened…” The typical I cannot recall stuff is not going to fly with the average voter because now the seed is planted of is there something else that is going to come out after he is selected as the nominee.

I would think IF you were involved in TWO different harassment cases and money was exchanged to settle the case YOU would remember that even if they were baseless charges.

As a person that analyzes for a living, this does not meet the smell test.

g2825m on November 1, 2011 at 3:35 AM

Cain knows more than he is letting on and this is going to affect his poll numbers which is insignificant if the story is true at all in any form.

He needs to say “Look this is what happened…” The typical I cannot recall stuff is not going to fly with the average voter because now the seed is planted of is there something else that is going to come out after he is selected as the nominee.

I would think IF you were involved in TWO different harassment cases and money was exchanged to settle the case YOU would remember that even if they were baseless charges.

As a person that analyzes for a living, this does not meet the smell test.

g2825m on November 1, 2011 at 3:35 AM

So why does Cain have to cough up the details when he’s the one being accused? Why is the burden on him to explain what happened, even as he protests his utter and unqualified innocence?

The Politico story was not “thinly sourced.” It was unsourced. No details, no names, no nothing — except a blatant effort to smear a man whose former subordinates have been lining up to defend him on the record. If that doesn’t pass the smell test, you need to have your nose checked.

gryphon202 on November 1, 2011 at 3:23 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5