Revealed: Cain describes hand gesture that led to harassment claim; Update: Small settlement, says Cain

It’s HIGHLY likely that the NRA was forbidden from disclosing to Cain whether a cash settlement was reached or not through official channels.

Jason Coleman on October 31, 2011 at 5:16 PM

Jason, you usually make some good points but in this case… you are reaching.

Why are Cainiacs stumbling over themselves to defend him? Haven’t you all learnt from Weiner’s case? Mark Sanford? And numerous others?

Allow the case to develop. If there is anything to it, we will see. If there is nothing, that will also be made evident to all.

Rushing to defend a ‘politician’ on sex scandals and yes, Cain is one – he just couldn’t win a Senate seat – might just leave you with egg on your face.

TheRightMan on October 31, 2011 at 5:29 PM

I’m not “rushing to defend” anything. I’ve looked at the available evidence, compared it to my own experience, evaluated it logically and come to some conclusions.

I’ve been there and done that with regard to both baseless claims and claims that are substantiated. In Cain’s case, there’s no evidence to suggest his guilt other than the accusation, an accusation that was obviously examined and found seriously lacking.

Of all the industries out there, the restaurant industry is one that has among the highest rates of harassment claims due to the large gender disparity between supervisors and line employees. I’ve owned and managed restaurants and I’ve dealt with claims, and in both those capacities, I know from first hand experience the necessity, both practical and legal to create a wall of separation.

I’ve also dealt with conduct claims as a manufacturer, and as a consultant, and there too, whenever such claims arise, it’s best to isolate all involved from the rest of the staff and from each other and the decision making body which will investigate it.

There is no hard evidence in this case, there isn’t even an actual accuser on record, just the accusation, and there’s a simple undeniable fact to be recognized, that since sexual harassment laws have been on the books, the number of claims to be found baseless far exceeds the ones found to have merit.

Literally millions of managers and owners are accused by employees each year and tens of billions of dollars are paid out to lawyers, arbitrators and investigators to examine claims and tens to hundreds of billions more are paid in lost productivity and resources that could be put to better use simply to satisfy what most often is a case of anger being translated into a false accusation.

We have no smoking gun, no twitter picture, and no blanket denial that flies in the face of reason as we did with Anthony Wiener, we don’t have a love-child as in the case of Edwards, we don’t even have an actual accuser coming forward to make the claim, we’ve got a document that says and accusation was made, that’s it. We don’t have a lawsuit, we don’t have a criminal charge.

Without those lacking things, there’s nothing to tar and feather Cain on this. WE do have a political hit piece, one that would never be leveled if the party affiliation were reversed, we do have a large number of people willing to come forth and testify positively with regard to Cain’s conduct, integrity and character.

As such, in light of the evidence and lack thereof, I’m going to side with innocent until proven otherwise.

That’s not being a Cainiac (but thanks for the ad hominem), that’s being a reasonable examiner of the evidence presented.

IF something more does develop, I’m going to evaluate that as well. If it has merit, then I’ll evaluate accordingly, but I’m not going to tarnish or disparage the man and his character on the basis of what has been presented to this point.

I’m not defending Cain as a politician, I’m defending Cain as a man.

I’ll take the egg on my face if it comes to it, rather than put blood on my hands over what’s been presented thus far.

==================================

Honda,

Yes, Cain was the President of the volunteer Board, but that doesn’t mean that he would be privy to a settlement, that he is one of the named parties would most likely ensure that he in fact would not be. Such a matter would be handled by the lawyers, HR and EVP-CFO, and that’s about it. Settlements are buried in conduct settlements are buried in ledgers just like Worker’s Comp cases are, and only those who need to know the details are legally permitted to officially know.

Being the President of an organization does not mean that you get to take a pass on workplace privacy laws, the President of the NRA is not the party of primary fiduciary responsibility for the organization, that falls to the EVP and EVP-CFO, and outside of the lawyers and HR, the only other executive likely to be involved in the details of any settlement would be the EVP and EVP-CFO, not the President of the volunteer board.

With regard to the NRA specifically (of which, in full disclosure, I am a member):

The NRA is not like a typical company, there is a volunteer leadership structure, of a Chair, Vice-Chairs and President (Cain’s position) that comes from the management of member companies, there is a separate leadership structure of professional staff that handles the actual operations of the organization.

This underlying structure of EVP’s handle the actual business of the organization, EVP (Executive), EVP-CFO, EVP-COO etc. These are the people who would handle conduct claims against members of the volunteer board.

Jason Coleman on November 1, 2011 at 1:23 AM

Punchenko on November 1, 2011 at 4:31 AM

Being aware and knowing the details are two completely different things punchy.

The NRA and NRA counsel know the details it’s highly unlikely that Cain himself does.

Again, I’ll point out that you refuse to grasp the reality that is Cain’s position and the legal constraints and restrictions with regard to matters such as this.

End.

Jason Coleman on November 1, 2011 at 9:56 AM

It went along the lines of he refused to label himself with a “negative construct”.

NO. . . he refused to label others with THAT negative construct. Significant difference there.

If you can find me all the glowing praise for “neoconservativism” coming from the major media outlets, and if you can find some major media outlets that square their current description of neoconservative with the historical description of Scoop Jackson Democrats, then perhaps you can make an argument that “neoconservatism” in it’s current use is not a negative construct.

Jason Coleman on November 1, 2011 at 10:12 AM