Audio: Herman Cain sex scandal allegations are a smear job, says … Howard Stern
posted at 1:20 pm on November 8, 2011 by Tina Korbe
Howard Stern said this before Sharon Bialek fairly credibly detailed her alleged encounter with Herman Cain, so the shock jock might not be of the same opinion now. But this YouTube clip from a recent episode of Stern’s Sirius/XM radio show is fun to listen to for another reason: It starts with a soundbite of Cain himself singing a parody of John Lennon’s “Imagine.” Cain’s version envisions a world without pizza.
Probably I’m waxing nostalgic too quickly: Cain’s campaign, “scorned and covered with scars,” is still striving furiously to battle Bialek’s accusations and will supposedly provide satisfactory answers to her testimony at a press conference tonight. And conservatives have surely rallied to Cain’s cause with their dollars. But, as I wrote yesterday, this story is not about to go away, Stern’s “smear job” opinion notwithstanding. In fact, as Ed reported this morning, a fifth woman has now raised questions about Cain’s behavior — and to a news outlet other than Politico:
Donna Donella, 40, of Arlington, said the USAID paid Cain to deliver a speech to businessmen and women in Egypt in 2002, during which an Egyptian businesswoman in her 30s asked Cain a question.
“And after the seminar was over,” Donella told The Washington Examiner, “Cain came over to me and a colleague and said, ‘Could you put me in touch with that lovely young lady who asked the question, so I can give her a more thorough answer over dinner?’”
Donella, who no longer works for USAID, said they were suspicious of Cain’s motives and declined to set up the date. Cain responded, “Then you and I can have dinner.” That’s when two female colleagues intervened and suggested they all go to dinner together, Donella said.
Cain exhibited no inappropriate sexual behavior during the dinner, though he did order two $400 bottles of wine and stuck the women with the bill, she said.
Unless Cain combats Bialek’s accusations point by point tonight, it’s hard to make a case that his continuance in the primary will substantially enhance the GOP’s ability to reach independents with a conservative message.









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
“Fairly credibly”, eh?
*sigh*
MadisonConservative on November 8, 2011 at 1:24 PM
“Fairly credibly”? Oy.
whatcat on November 8, 2011 at 1:24 PM
and i just heard the moderator for the cnbc debate indicate that they will be asking questions on this during the debate…
THIS WILL NOT END…UGHHHHHHHHHH
forget about the debate on the economy, let’s focus on this
cmsinaz on November 8, 2011 at 1:25 PM
Bbbbbut I thought we were supposed to hate Stern because he is crude and swear and talks to porn stars and stuff.
angryed on November 8, 2011 at 1:27 PM
“Fairly credibly”?
?????
crash72 on November 8, 2011 at 1:27 PM
I saw a CNBC commercial for the debate the other day, talking about how the debate would focus on the economy. Yeah right.
Ward Cleaver on November 8, 2011 at 1:28 PM
That’s truly a scandal, then…
sceptical on November 8, 2011 at 1:28 PM
I care a lot more about the church Obama sat in 12years ago than whether Cain hit on women 12 years ago.
And shall we discuss Bill Clinton’s reputation before he ran?
redshirt on November 8, 2011 at 1:28 PM
Tina, we all heard the parody……….. about 2 or 3 weeks ago
I bet you he still believes Cain.
thebrokenrattle on November 8, 2011 at 1:28 PM
I’m sorry, what, exactly, is this Donna Donella alleging? What’s the question being raised about Cain’s behavior this time?
Kensington on November 8, 2011 at 1:30 PM
max 2 questions…
cmsinaz on November 8, 2011 at 1:30 PM
Out of the blue, he pulls her head into his lap. No kissing, no petting, just surprise- here’s my junk (fully clothed even). Then she does nothing until last month, when she manuevers to find him at a Tea Party event and gives him a big hug. That’s “fairly credible”? Oy, is right.
LASue on November 8, 2011 at 1:30 PM
Tu quoque’s aren’t a good way to go.
lorien1973 on November 8, 2011 at 1:32 PM
Credibly?
Tina, you were doing so good. I bragged on you.
facepalm
faraway on November 8, 2011 at 1:33 PM
Hey look, another HA story on the Cain sex scandal, with more anti-Cain bias evident.
Who funds this site, anyway? Worth a look…
pseudonominus on November 8, 2011 at 1:36 PM
That Stern Bevis & Butthead parody of the OWS makes me laugh everytime I think of it.
Osis on November 8, 2011 at 1:37 PM
The fact that Cain and his team are making character attacks on the woman, instead of responding to her charges makes him the equivalent of Bill Clinton.
Hiya Ciska on November 8, 2011 at 1:39 PM
Just like this is fairly credible?
Let’s talk about who’s really credible here by posting more innuendo that has no basis.
Here that sound? That’s the sound of a once credible conservative blog known as HotAir dying a slow death.
Jeeze Kristin Powers, queen of the liberals, is not even buying this load of crap on Fox right now.
Knucklehead on November 8, 2011 at 1:39 PM
Cain, do you want to win? Then, go forth and address every question with CLARITY! Reagan spoke of “peace through strength” and you have added the corollary of “clarity”.
It is time to do so for your own campaign.
islandman78 on November 8, 2011 at 1:39 PM
Good to see Hotair.com doing its part to bless the coronation of Mitt Romney. Not.
milemarker2020 on November 8, 2011 at 1:41 PM
Uh, OK.
“This one night I ran into AP at a bar and we had a few drinks together. He was wearing his First Church of Atheism worshiping robes and wouldn’t shut up about trying to convert me to his religion. I was wearing pleated khakis sandals with tube socks and a light gray muscle shirt that read, “F.B.I – Federal Booby Inspector”.
“Anyways, I told AP I was bored to tears with his proselytizing and suggested we discuss something else. He then suddenly ripped off my muscle shirt and threw baby oil all over my upper body and proceeded to wave his junk in my face and scream, “LOVE THE SACK BABY! WORSHIP IT WITH YOUR TOUNGE!” I told him I have no boyfriend and never want one. He stopped his dance and drunkenly stumbled away from me and sought out someone else in the bar to practice his atheistic ritual upon. I got up and left seeking the nearest dumpster to upchuck into.”
Now, is my story credible? If not, why?
NotCoach on November 8, 2011 at 1:42 PM
This fifth accuser means nothing. She has accused him of a dinner invitation. So, what?
They want numbers to try to paint a picture of a pattern for Herman Cain. None of the non-anonymous accusers filed any complaints, and this one’s credibility is unravelling now. The fifth accusation means nothing.
Jay on November 8, 2011 at 1:42 PM
When I see Sharon Bialek all I hear in my brain coming from her is “I want a reality show… look at me, look at me… I would really like a reality show”.
In fact, who wants to wager she’ll be in a reality show within 3 months?
ButterflyDragon on November 8, 2011 at 1:42 PM
Wasn’t this on Hot Air a few days ago?
Sharke on November 8, 2011 at 1:43 PM
When I saw Sharon Bialek yesterday, I was almost sure that I’d seen her before. I may be wrong, but I believe that she appeared in a pictorial in Playboy, many years ago. Please contact Playboy to find out if this memory is accurate.
I seem to recall the name Bialek. I remember that, at first, when I noted the name of the model in the magazine, I read it wrong as “Blake.” Then when I went back to the first page, I noticed that it was Bialek, not Blake. I remember thinking that must be her real name, since it doesn’t sound made up, and because Playboy generally uses real names. I also couldn’t understand why I misread the name the first time. Maybe I was distracted.
The year, I believe, was 1981. You may have read in the Chicago Tribune today that former major league pitcher Steve Stone, formerly of the Chicago Cubs and Chicago White Sox, among other teams, says he dated Bialek. Stone’s last major-league year was 1981. Bialek is from Chicago. In the 1980s, Playboy was edited in Chicago. Would it be unusual for a baseball star to date a Playmate? Let’s find out.
Further evidence for me was reading yesterday that she went to Arizona State. That sounded correct, as if it retrieved from deep memory. Maybe it was a Girls of the Pac-8 article.
Well, that’s all I got. I may be working on memory here, but I never forget a face.
Emperor Norton on November 8, 2011 at 1:45 PM
The Rat Man Romney has scurried out of his hole just long enough to scream that Cain must explain being familiar with white women. He cannot understand how anyone could talk with a woman friend, and What is a new friend anyway, says the stuck at 25% one.
jimw on November 8, 2011 at 1:49 PM
Obviously not. I think we all can assume AP doesn’t have a sack.
/
DrAllecon on November 8, 2011 at 1:50 PM
Salem Communications, Chairman of the Board, Ed Astinger.
Rick Perry assembles top California donors for campaign
Knucklehead on November 8, 2011 at 1:50 PM
Oddly, On Megyn Kelly’s Fox news show a news reporter who attended the tea party event Sharon Buy-lick claims she asked Cain to recall the incident stated Buy-lick gave Cain a hug when she first saw him. Not the behavior of someone who was sexually assualted I would say. Those who give credence to this form of political assination are enabling those who make these false claim. If Ms. Buy-lick would just submit to a polygraph after being sworn in so she could be criminally charged when she fails. AP, where is your story on Larry Sinclair?
Zelsdorf Ragshaft on November 8, 2011 at 1:55 PM
Or a nice pair of airbrushed tatas…;-) Funny parody. Is that supposed to be Herman Cain singing? LOL.
RepubChica on November 8, 2011 at 1:56 PM
Fairly credibly.
John the Libertarian on November 8, 2011 at 1:56 PM
I imagine that before this is over there will be about a dozen (or however many are necessary) women who come forward to declare that Mr. Cain was inappropriate or harassed them. This is clearly an attempt to kneecap Herman Cain’s campaign to keep him on the defensive and not address his message that is resonating with many Americans. Unfortunately this tactic has been successful. It WILL NOT GO AWAY no matter what Mr. Cain does. Hopefully the American public is smart enough to see through the BS here. Given that Clinton and other have been given a pass for worse behavior, I can see him getting past this but it will get worse before it gets better.
Scorched_Earth on November 8, 2011 at 1:57 PM
Are you, or have you ever been associated with a certain website run by a certain C. Johnson?
Have you been a commentor there? Are you still?
Guest host?
Employee?
Had lunch with the proprietor thereof? Been stiffed for $400 bottles of wine at said lunch?
Until you answer these substantive questions, no.
/
Lily on November 8, 2011 at 1:59 PM
Tina continues to lose her ‘credibility’ at record pace. Please go away. You will not receive any further comments from me regarding your posts, as I will never read another. That’s twice in a couple of weeks that you’ve made embarrassingly absurd comments. While I agree with most of your politics, you’ve shown yourself to be intellectually dishonest when writing about anything related to the 2012 campaign and I have no interest in reading articles by intellectually dishonest hacks.
Gregor on November 8, 2011 at 1:59 PM
So to recap, so far Cain’s been accused of:
1) asking a woman to add milk and sugar to his tea,
2) asking a woman to dinner and instead going out to dinner with several woman who report he acted normally,
3) Two events that were so beyond horrible and unspeakable that they were settled without needing his approval and for an amount of money that was significantly less than what I pay yearly for medical malpractice insurance
4) a “fairly credible” accusation of making an aggressive pass at a woman but stopped when she told him to.
The #4 one is obviously the most serious charge, the 1-3 is beyond nonsence but of course now has the effect of “establishing a pattern.”
If there is really anything to #4 then he’s done and he should be. But the more we find out about the accuser, and the less proof of the accusation comes forth, the more I’m inclined to believe that it didn’t happen the way she said it did.
“Fairly credible” indded.
BTW, it seems to me there were more people here (indcluding some of the bloggers) defending the Socialist diplomat who was accused of rape (after he fled within hours to get out of dodge leaving behind cell phones and other belongings after first denying he had sex with her, then saying it was consentual) than are willing to defend Cain. Why is that?
DrAllecon on November 8, 2011 at 2:01 PM
If this charge were against Perry, Tina would never have said it was “fairly credible”.
MadisonConservative on November 8, 2011 at 2:01 PM
Just answering them makes me credible?
NotCoach on November 8, 2011 at 2:04 PM
Did they send out an email this morning at the Hotair offices or something. So all these women are now credible…because they said he did something. So once somebody alleges something, they are credible, even though they have a history of lying and making other accusations?
Chudi on November 8, 2011 at 2:06 PM
See! He’s dodging and refusing to answer the questions. Why would he do that if he has nothing to hide? Why didn’t he tell us he was a shill for C. Johnson before now? The only people who can believe a word he types are the Coachbots.
If N-C can’t handle questions about comments better than this, I have no choice but to switch my allegiance to Bishop or Canapfor or even Jetboy.
/
Lily on November 8, 2011 at 2:11 PM
Amongst the more ardent Perry supporters the weird hypothesis is that if they can destroy Cain that would somehow make Perry’s IQ go up.
whatcat on November 8, 2011 at 2:12 PM
I am still trying to figure it out.
Chudi on November 8, 2011 at 2:15 PM
I did not have gastronomical relations with that man!
NotCoach on November 8, 2011 at 2:17 PM
Hey Tina, can you help me get this highly credible story out?
I’ve never reported it because I was embarrassed, but on November 6th, 1982, while in Texas with the military, I was caught attending the wedding of Rick Perry and Anita Thigpen without an invitation. I was pulled into a back room by several of his friends, where they held me down while Rick Perry attempted to force me to give him oral sex. Luckily, I was able to force my right arm free and I punched Perry in the groin, at which time there was a struggle and I was able to escape out of the room and run from the property.
I don’t want any money. I simply want Perry to apologize and admit what he did was wrong.
Gregor on November 8, 2011 at 2:21 PM
Are you an illegal? Because if you are you are a lying sack of shiite. Perry would never be so heartless to an illegal!
NotCoach on November 8, 2011 at 2:24 PM
Prove it!
Lily on November 8, 2011 at 2:24 PM
Not gonna happen or maybe if we fill up the main page with Herman Cain is guilty, that too will change our minds.
This has been a really sad week watching what you thought was a fairly conservative blog, devolve into LSM talking points.
Knucklehead on November 8, 2011 at 2:24 PM
I’m honestly confused by all the Clinton references.
Is the point that Cain would remain electable in the general, or that conservatives somehow gave Clinton a pass and should therefore do the same for Cain, regardless of whatever actually happened?
TexasDan on November 8, 2011 at 2:31 PM
HotAir has never been legitimately conservative. Michelle is the real deal, but Allah is about as phony as lindsey graham. In 2008 we had to put up with the same thing, with the constant pushing of Romney and McCain.
Gregor on November 8, 2011 at 2:34 PM
I don’t like the comparisons either. Just because Dems have no moral centers does not mean we shouldn’t. If Cain turns out to be a serial philanderer he goes onto my no way, no how list.
NotCoach on November 8, 2011 at 2:36 PM
With Clinton, there were audio tapes, videos, and verified specific details, yet the media still buried the story. With Cain, there is absolutely nothing … yet. When they show me proof, as they did with Clinton, they’ll change my mind.
Gregor on November 8, 2011 at 2:38 PM
Tina, it’s disappointing that you lowered your standards enough to consider something that this wacky, evil schlock jock says is newsworthy.
itsnotaboutme on November 8, 2011 at 3:13 PM
Not only did the Democrat Media bury the Lewinsky story, after Drudge Outed it they basically did the White House’s bidding, especially in their smears of Ken Starr.
Dr. Goebbels would have approved of what they were doing then, and approving what they are doing to Cain now.
Aw Geez, I better shut up before someone here accuses me of “desperately defending Cain” again.
Del Dolemonte on November 8, 2011 at 3:47 PM
Gloria Allred lent her all the credibility she needed. Rove’s endorsement was just icing.
windbag on November 8, 2011 at 3:48 PM
That’s IT ? That’s all you’ve got ? You’re $hitting me, right ?
I have news for you, there is not a single word of that considered “inappropriate”. Not even close. Thank you for cementing just how pathetic this smear campaign is.
deadrody on November 8, 2011 at 4:12 PM
Allah neither has ever pushed a candidate, nor has he been the primary player in the Cain slamming on HA. He’s conservative…but it seems like the majority of the blogosphere has caught “Cain is guilty” syndrome. Ace caught it, as well.
MadisonConservative on November 8, 2011 at 4:16 PM
Because conservatives do not easily fall for the conspiracy talk.
I am not judging Cain, but you have to stop and think about it if more than one woman comes out with these sort of allegations.
V-rod on November 8, 2011 at 4:39 PM
I never realized there were this many brain dead conservatives. No wonder we lose. So, in this zombie’s mind, all you have to do to convince conservatives that someone did something, is pay 20 people lots of money to say it happened. Having any evidence to back up the claim is not required. Got it. Can you please go to the other side now? We’re better off without you. You’re like a running back who takes the handoff, turns around, and runs the wrong direction.
Gregor on November 8, 2011 at 4:51 PM
oof!
I might have gone with “personally” rather than “fairly credibly”.
As of right now, I find nothing “credible” about this financially troubled Job-Hopper who seeks advice on sexual matters with her teenaged son…I do feel pity (but more in a “she seems in need of 15-min of fame” kind of way).
Why don’t we wait and see where this lands?
Tim_CA on November 8, 2011 at 9:49 PM
I’m with Tim, “Fairly Credible” seems a big stretch, I haven’t even seen slightly credible.
My thought is she propositioned Cain for the job, get in the limo with him and “offer” her services for a job, he rejected and she switched it around.
I mean why have a “Sworn Affidavit” from her two friends, this isn’t going to court, so without any trial can’t the “Sworn” part be BS, theres no risk of perjuring yourself so you can lie all you want, guessing the Notary was Gloria’s secretary and they put together another dog and pony show to get her ugly mug on tv.
Rbastid on November 9, 2011 at 2:50 AM
I could have sworn I heard Cain say at a live press conference that he had never even heard this woman’s name. He didn’t recognize her. He had never been anywhere near her.
Someone is lying here. I’m goving Cain the benefit of the doubt.
runawayyyy on November 9, 2011 at 3:03 PM