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.

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.

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.

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.

cozmo on October 31, 2011 at 11:01 AM

Hmmm. conspiracy to commit political murder?

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.

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.

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…

JohnGalt23 on October 31, 2011 at 10:16 AM

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

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.

That tells me the left is terrified of Cain.

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

AGREED