Cain to hold presser on new allegations at 5 ET

posted at 11:35 am on November 8, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

The strategy of ignoring the allegations of sexual impropriety has been tabled by the Cain campaign.  Instead, Herman Cain will hold a press conference at 5 ET today from Phoenix to address the new charge from Sharon Bielak that emerged yesterday as she became the first to go public with an accusation of, well, unprofessional conduct at the least.  In announcing the press conference, Cain’s spokesman went after both Bielak and her attorney, Gloria Allred:

In a news release announcing Cain’s Phoenix press conference, his campaign took aim at Bialek’s lawyer, Gloria Allred, suggesting her involvement is suspicious.

“It is noteworthy that Gloria Allred is a celebrity lawyer who specializes in generating publicity for herself and her clients,” J.D. Gordon, a spokesman for Cain, said. “Ms. Allred is a high-profile Democrat[ic] Party donor and activist who has given over ten thousand dollars to liberal Democrats like Barack Obama, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer.”

“The questions the media should be asking are who’s paying for Gloria Allred’s fee, how did Ms. Bialek get introduced to Ms. Allred, and was she paid to come forward with these false accusations or was she promised employment?” Gordon said.

Cain’s campaign says he has never sexually harassed anyone. “After attacking Herman Cain through anonymous accusers for a week, his opponents have now convinced a woman with a long history of severe financial difficulties, including personal bankruptcy, to falsely accuse the Republican frontrunner of events occurring over a decade ago for which there is no record, nor even a complaint filed,” Gordon said.

Ironically or not, Gordon himself made a very public claim of sexual harassment in 2009 against a Miami Herald reporter, while serving as a spokesman for the US Navy.  The claim went nowhere, and it provides a strange twist on the new strategy that Cain and his team are deploying in this statement by attacking Bielak over her bankruptcies.  The first preceded her time at the National Restaurant Association, which would then prompt a question for Cain why his organization hired her at all if that was a significant dent in her overall credibility.  More to the point, though, what do two bankruptcies have to do with the incident Bielak described?  Either it happened or it didn’t, and the bankruptcies are immaterial to determining which is the case.  Honest people can have financial failures, and at the moment, she doesn’t seem to have a financial problem that would require her to make a bundle off of a National Enquirer story, either.

ABC and other media outlets are reporting that she’s not taking any money for her story, although that could certainly change:

Sharon Bialek, the woman who went public Monday with an accusation that GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain had sexually harassed her in 1997, said today that despite questions raised by Cain’s campaign, she was not financially compensated for speaking out.

“I was not paid to come forward, nor was I promised any employment. Nothing at all,” Bialek said on ABC News’ “Good Morning America”. “I’m just doing this because it’s the right thing to do.”

If her story holds up, it won’t be worth all that much cash anyway.  It would only be salable while Cain remains a prominent figure in the presidential race, and Bielak’s story might put that to an end, especially if more stories come out from women willing to go on the record.  As for who’s paying Allred, that’s an interesting question — but it’s possible that Allred is doing this pro bono for the publicity she’s reaping from it. What if that turns out to be the case?  Making an accusation without having any evidence to back it up created a very embarrassing moment for Cain and his campaign last week, and they may be setting themselves up for another this week.

On the other hand, Bielak seemed at ease enough with Cain to get a hug at the TeaCon Midwest event a month ago, according to one of the hosts of the event:

They hugged each other backstage in a full embrace like old friends.

She grabbed his arm and whispered in his left ear.

She kept talking as he bent to listen, and he kept saying “Uh, huh. Uh, huh.”

Huh? …

The Sneed source … is WIND radio co-host Amy Jacobson, who tells Sneed she witnessed the Cain/Bialek encounter a month ago while backstage at the AM 560 WIND sponsored TeaCon meeting in Schaumburg Sept. 30-Oct. 1 at the Renaissance Hotel and Convention Center.

That actually corroborates Bielak’s own account.  She says that she wanted to confront Cain over the incident, and that she did.  Jacobson says she couldn’t tell whether Bielak was being “flirtatious” or giving Cain the “kiss of death,” but noted that Bielak was “inches away from his ear” during the encounter.  (Full disclosure: WIND is a Salem Radio affiliate, and is owned by Hot Air’s parent company Salem Communications.)

Speaking of putting names on the record, at least one more former colleague of Cain described an uncomfortable situation to the conservative Washington Examiner, in which Cain asked her to arrange a meeting with an attractive woman who asked Cain a question during his presentation:

A former employee of the United States Agency for International Development says Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain asked her to help arrange a dinner date for him with a female audience member following a speech he delivered nine years ago.

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.

That’s not the same thing as sexual harassment, very obviously, but it does suggest — if true — a tendency toward the inappropriate in Herman Cain.  At some point, the sheer volume of allegations, especially from people willing to go on the record and provide details of the incidents, will have conservatives asking if Cain is worth supporting as a candidate, even while they defend him from what they see as unfair treatment.  In my column for The Week today, I ask whether we may have reached that tipping point:

This accusation leaves no room for misinterpretation, and no possibility of misunderstanding. There is no media filter for conservatives to criticize. A married man should not put his hand up the skirt of another woman under any circumstances, nor pull the head of another woman toward his lap, especially not when that action is unwelcome. Doing so as a condition of granting assistance in finding a job may not constitute sexual harassment in a workplace environment, but it undeniably would equate to demanding sexual favors by exploiting a serious power differential.

Cain vehemently denies that any of this took place. His campaign issued a statement that said, “All allegations against Mr. Cain are completely false. … [A]ctivist celebrity lawyer Gloria Allred is bringing forth more false accusations against the character of Republican frontrunner Herman Cain.” …

Republican voters may well decide that they don’t need to settle this to a moral certainty. They like Cain. But is Cain so indispensable that voters will be willing to risk more shoes dropping in a general election? We may already be seeing evidence that they will cut Cain loose and look for another candidate. Peggy Nance of Concerned Women for America put out a statement late Monday calling for Cain to “address these new allegations head on,” clearly unsatisfied with the terse denial from him earlier in the day. Nance wrote that “Ms. Bialek appeared credible and I was very disturbed by her characterization” of the alleged incident. Thee Des Moines Register‘s Jennifer Jacobs reported that while Cain’s most passionate supporters are remaining loyal, some of them are also calling for Cain to be more forthcoming. Bob Vander Plaats, president of the social conservative activist group Family Leader in the state and a Republican candidate for governor in 2010, called this a “tipping point for the viability of his campaign.”

In court, Cain would not have to prove his innocence, but on the campaign trail, he has to prove his superiority over the other choices. Cain’s argument for winning the nomination has always been novel — that his lack of electoral experience would be eclipsed by his problem-solving abilities and his expertise at rescue strategies in the private sector. Voters who might have been tempted to take a risk on Cain could decide that the inability to foresee or effectively handle the crises of the past several days makes that argument moot, or just figure that they don’t need to take that much risk of more scandal with an untested novelty candidate.

There are other Republicans vying for this nomination, including a couple with at least as much conservative credibility as Cain.  In his press conference today, Cain will not only have to make the argument that he’s innocent with something more than Bielak’s bankruptcies and Allred’s invoices, but that conservatives have no reason to fear that more of these stories won’t surprise them later in the cycle — especially in a general election.  The risk/reward calculation may have already tipped too far toward the “risk” end for some, and a response that doesn’t appreciably improve on last week’s debacle will lose Republican voters for good.

Update: Via Katrina Trinko at The Corner, the Cain campaign sent out this lengthy statement attacking Bielak:

As Ms. Sharon Bialek has placed herself in the public spotlight through making patently false allegations against Herman Cain, it is only fair to compare her track record alongside Mr. Cain’s.

In stark contrast to Mr. Cain’s four decades spent climbing the corporate ladder rising to the level of CEO at multiple successful business enterprises, Ms. Bialek has taken a far different path.

The fact is that Ms. Bialek has had a long and troubled history, from the courts to personal finances – which may help explain why she has come forward 14 years after an alleged incident with Mr. Cain, powered by celebrity attorney and long term Democrat donor Gloria Allred.

In the courts, Ms. Bialek has had a lengthy record in the Cook County Court system over various civil lawsuits. The following cases on file in Cook County are:

·         2000-M1-707461 Defendant against Broadcare Management

·         2000-M1-714398 Defendant in lawsuit against Broadcare Management

·         2000-M1-701522 Defendant in lawsuit against Broadcare Management

·         2005-M1-111072 Defendant in lawsuit against Mr. Mark Beatovic.

·         2007-M1-189176 Defendant in lawsuit against Midland Funding.

·         2009-M1-158826 Defendant in lawsuit against Illinois Lending.

Ms. Bialek was also sued in 1999 over a paternity matter according to ABC 7 Chicago (WLS-TV).  Source: WLS-TV, November 7, 2011

In personal finances, PACER (Federal Court) records show that Ms. Bialek has filed forbankruptcy in the Northern District of Illinois bankruptcy court in 1991 and 2001. The respective case numbers according to the PACER system are 1:01-bk-22664 and 1:91-bk-23273.

Ms. Bialek has worked for nine employers over the last seventeen years. Source: WLS-TV, November 7, 2011

Curiously, if Ms. Bialek had intended to take legal action, the statute of limitations would have passed a decade ago.

Which brings up the question of why she would make such reprehensible statements now?

The questions should be – who is financing her legal team, have any media agreed to pay for her story, and has she been offered employment for taking these actions?

As the first commenter on Trinko’s post retorts, this is all rather non-responsive:

And not one single statement of fact regarding the alleged incident. Did they have a meeting? Did they have dinner? Did Cain change the reservation? Were they in a car together, alone? Not one single rebuttal. All we get is the usual Clintonesque attack on the personal life of the woman. Have we all seen this movie before? Do we know how it turns out? Will we ultimately be relieved that this vetting of Cain happens in the primary, when there is time to correct course, as opposed to the general? This will be what is presented at the “news conference” this afternoon.

I imagine that Cain will have specific rebuttal points at the presser — or at least he’d better have them.  If all they want to do is talk about Bielak’s history in court, we’re likely to have uncomfortable reminiscences about the treatment Paula Jones got at the hands of Bill Clinton’s defenders and the media.

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 2 3 4

So is Cain now not credible because he has legal troubles in his background?

sharrukin on November 8, 2011 at 3:11 PM

Question: as a “conservative”, do you believe that people have far too much of a tendency to sue companies over every little thing?

Second question: do you have any idea of who is usually named as defendants in these sort of lawsuits?

Third question: why, generally, do you think companies sue individuals?

I understand the problem, sharrukin; you and your fellows seem to have very little experience with the private sector.

northdallasthirty on November 8, 2011 at 3:29 PM

And if Cain was board member then he didn’t “manage the company”.

tommyboy on November 8, 2011 at 3:24 PM

And this woman owned Broadcare Management did she?

· 2000-M1-707461 Defendant against Broadcare Management
· 2000-M1-714398 Defendant in lawsuit against Broadcare Management
· 2000-M1-701522 Defendant in lawsuit against Broadcare Management

sharrukin on November 8, 2011 at 3:30 PM

northdallasthirty on November 8, 2011 at 3:29 PM

Here, let me make it easier for you.

I am a bigot and a racist who is clearly a Klan member and now I have to go get ready for my nightly cross burning.

Thats what you always say when anyone questions Cain, so now I have saved you some wear and tear on that Race Card.

sharrukin on November 8, 2011 at 3:33 PM

Why was there a paternity suit on this woman’s son? Did someone question her truth telling about who the father was? What reason would they have to do that?

txmomof6 on November 8, 2011 at 3:36 PM

And this woman owned Broadcare Management did she?

It appears she was the employee who’s acts prompted the lawsuit and Broadcare, the employer, was included on the basis of respondeat superior. The plaintiff appears to be alleging a tort or contract violation on the part of this woman and Broadcare was the deep pocket defendant. Thus, she was not a nominal defendant.

tommyboy on November 8, 2011 at 3:36 PM

tommyboy on November 8, 2011 at 3:24 PM

Um. Cain’s responsibility as a Board Member is significant. You may not realize it, but a Board actually runs the company; the CEO is just the executive officer that does what they tell him to do. A Board does not micro-manage, but it gives general direction while the CEO handles day-to-day activities (which, again, the Board is supposed to keep track of in its oversight capacity).

None of the lawsuits listed by Cain’s campaign, by the way, fit your characterization above. The suits were all filed against someone else, and she was an additional named party. In other words, Cain’s campaign really doesn’t know what it’s talking about, it’s just throwing a bunch of stuff out there that might look bad and hoping that some of it sticks or that people take it at face value without looking at the details. Nice.

HTL on November 8, 2011 at 3:37 PM

So is Cain now not credible because he has legal troubles in his background?

sharrukin on November 8, 2011 at 3:11 PM

Here’s the rest of the story. I’m providing links, unlike the hearsay you’re providing.

The Truth Behind Aquila and Herman Cain

Knucklehead on November 8, 2011 at 3:38 PM

“The suits were all filed against someone else, and she was an additional named party.”

No, the suits were filed against her and the employer was named as a defendant on the basis of respondeat superior because that’s who has the deep pocket.

tommyboy on November 8, 2011 at 3:40 PM

It appears she was the employee who’s acts prompted the lawsuit and Broadcare, the employer, was included on the basis of respondeat superior. The plaintiff appears to be alleging a tort or contract violation on the part of this woman and Broadcare was the deep pocket defendant. Thus, she was not a nominal defendant.

tommyboy on November 8, 2011 at 3:36 PM

The fact that you continue to misspell the name of the company indicates that you haven’t looked into this at all, and that you are just making this stuff up. If you have any evidence at all for what you just said, please produce it.

HTL on November 8, 2011 at 3:41 PM

At some point, the sheer volume of allegations… will have conservatives asking if Cain is worth supporting as a candidate…

That’s certainly good news for liberals, now and forever. If there’s one thing they’ll never run out of, it’s allegations.

Jim Treacher on November 8, 2011 at 3:50 PM

Ok, we have one hand under the dress grabbing for genitals, the other hand behind her head, and the other hand driving the car. I see, he’s the nationwide insurance guy in the commercial, three hands.

rjoco1 on November 8, 2011 at 3:55 PM

That’s certainly good news for liberals, now and forever. If there’s one thing they’ll never run out of, it’s allegations.

Jim Treacher on November 8, 2011 at 3:50 PM

Have you read this thread and the comments from so called “conservatives”?

Knucklehead on November 8, 2011 at 3:57 PM

At some point, the sheer volume of allegations… will have conservatives asking if Cain is worth supporting as a candidate…
That’s certainly good news for liberals, now and forever. If there’s one thing they’ll never run out of, it’s allegations.

Jim Treacher on November 8, 2011 at 3:50 PM

LOL some people thing that volume = weight.
Unreal!

ColdWarrior57 on November 8, 2011 at 4:01 PM

As Ace pointed out yesterday, if you reflexively refuse to accept anything the media reports, just because you believe they’re so overwhelmingly biased against conservatives that of course NOTHING they report is TRUE about a conservative, then guess what. YOU’RE living and dieing by the media too. They’re still in your head.

Vyce on November 8, 2011 at 1:17 PM

I never said I disbelieve everything the MSM reports. I’m saying to some of the posters on here that there is a double-standard being applied to Cain. His “pattern” proves he did it, but her pattern proves nothing other than her allegations are serious because she put her face on camera. Although I would vote for him in the general election, I’m not even a staunch Cain person. However, it galls me to see these women, from the same organization being believed out of the gate, but no other place Cain worked have any women come forth. It’s bizarre to say the least.

SouthernGent on November 8, 2011 at 4:09 PM

Cain’s brilliant defense to the specific charges:
“I don’t remember that woman”

Really?

Professor_Chaos on November 8, 2011 at 4:14 PM

http://moonbattery.com/?p=4171
This is as credible as the rest!
only this one is HOT.

ColdWarrior57 on November 8, 2011 at 4:14 PM

Cain’s brilliant defense to the specific charges:
“I don’t remember that woman”

Really?

Professor_Chaos on November 8, 2011 at 4:14 PM

Can’t blame Cain. There might have been several women… :)

TheRightMan on November 8, 2011 at 4:23 PM

Cain’s brilliant defense to the specific charges:
“I don’t remember that woman”

Really?

Professor_Chaos on November 8, 2011 at 4:14 PM

So you know what other people think or know ?
I seriously doubt that if anyone had that ability they would be here on HA posting. I am sure that there would be tons of business opportunities, like working for business in negotiations or the cia or dod. just to name a few.
LAME !!!

ColdWarrior57 on November 8, 2011 at 4:24 PM

I wish there were some real and good reporters/investigative reporters on this.

bridgetown on November 8, 2011 at 4:25 PM

I imagine that Cain will have specific rebuttal points at the presser — or at least he’d better have them. If all they want to do is talk about Bielak’s history in court, we’re likely to have uncomfortable reminiscences about the treatment Paula Jones got at the hands of Bill Clinton’s defenders and the media.

You’re right Ed, he’d better have specific responses to this woman’s allegations.

If he goes out there and attempts nothing more than a power-point presentation of “This Woman’s a Whore Why Would You Believe Her?” … then he’s sunk.

I want to know – did he UPGRADE her room? And … why didn’t he come out immediately to dispute that charge if it’s untrue?

HondaV65 on November 8, 2011 at 4:27 PM

Bottom Line:

Cain supporters don’t believe the ladies.

Establishment GOP and liberals do believe them.

Lothar on November 8, 2011 at 4:34 PM

I’m saying to some of the posters on here that there is a double-standard being applied to Cain. His “pattern” proves he did it, but her pattern proves nothing other than her allegations are serious because she put her face on camera.

SouthernGent on November 8, 2011 at 4:09 PM

That’s not true.

Herman Cain is the one that kept calling the two “complainants” at the NRA “anonymous”. They weren’t anonymous. They filed complaints – formal complaints of harassment – they got paid a settlement – SOMEONE knew their names, they had to … otherwise how did the check get made out?

So all that “anonymous” talk last week by Cain was pure balderdash – diversion – Bullshirt. Herman Cain knows their names – they aren’t anonymous. The SEALS who killed OBL – they aren’t “anonymous” – the President knows their names. Herman Cain knows these women’s names. The two at the NRA – did not hide in the shadows behind a veil of secrecy -they came forward with their names.

Okay – so another week comes – along with another woman (maybe two) … and now he can’t say she’s “anonymous” … so what’s his defense?

Does he come out and deny that he upgraded her room, or had dinner with her, or rode in a car alone with her? No.

He pulls out the “She’s a whore” defense. She’s gone through bankruptcy and can’t be trusted. Really? Then why did the NRA hire her if she was so untrustworthy after she declared bankruptcy? Abe Lincoln declared bankruptcy in 1833 – does that mean we can’t call him “Honest Abe” anymore? Please.

Cain’s not taking lumps from the accusations – he’s taking lumps because of his response to them. Sure – these women could be making all this up and I can see valid reasons not to believe their stories. However, I see equally concerning questions involving Cain’s reaction to this mess. “These are anonymous” … When they aren’t. “These are baseless” – when settlements were paid. “Did I mention that Rick Perry planted this story?” … when everything else has failed and he can’t think of anything else to say – “Hey, look over there … a rabbit!” LOL

HondaV65 on November 8, 2011 at 4:40 PM

Bottom Line:

Cain supporters don’t believe the ladies.

Establishment GOP and liberals do believe them.

Lothar on November 8, 2011 at 4:34 PM

Lets take the last one. No proof she is a lady.
A Lady would not have gotten in the car ( at night alone ) after dinner and drinks for a “TOUR” of a closed office.
And we dont know if the other women are ladies or not.
But nice attempt at trying to elevate her and attack cain and the entire GOP.

ColdWarrior57 on November 8, 2011 at 4:42 PM

Herman Cain is a flirt. Flirting with a feminist is equivalent to harassment; therefore HC is a harasser. You have to use liberal logic.

The other logic is there is a lot of walking around money to be had drumming up false harassment claims.

Dasher on November 8, 2011 at 4:49 PM

tommyboy on November 8, 2011 at 3:36 PM

Actually, we’re both wrong. I just did another search on all of those cases, switching the “against” name from defendant to plaintiff, and the cases all came up as companies or people suing Bialek for money. The amounts are $2K, $2K, $6K, $1K, $4K and $3.5K.

To be fair, the phrase “Defendant in lawsuit against Broadcare Management” is very confusing. Not only is the company name spelled wrong, but it makes it look like Broadcare (sic) Management was being sued. The correct way to write that would have been “Defendant in suit brought by Broadacre Management”.

HTL on November 8, 2011 at 4:50 PM

Earlier someone tried to state the accuser filed bankruptcy due to her mothers medical bills but I note that not one of those many collection suits filed against was by a health care provider. It seems she doesn’t like to pay her rent, credit cards and personal loans.

tommyboy on November 8, 2011 at 3:07 PM

Since when would someone be on the hook for their adult parent’s medical bills?

katy the mean old lady on November 8, 2011 at 4:52 PM

Cain’s not taking lumps from the accusations – he’s taking lumps because of his response to them.

HondaV65 on November 8, 2011 at 4:40 PM

I love it when bigots like HondaV65 inadvertently out themselves.

This is their game. Slander, slander, slander, smear, and then when asked to provide their own evidence, start screaming and demanding that you provide evidence to disprove their slanders. They don’t care if the slanders are true or not; all they care about is coming up with an excuse to destroy you.

That’s all you’re doing, Honda, is screaming. You aren’t holding the person who makes the slanders accountable. You’re holding the person they slander accountable.

And this is why Cain isn’t collapsing. Everyone sees the game here. Everyone recognizes that you support and endorse lies. Everyone realizes that you don’t give a damn about “the truth” — all you care about is slandering and screaming and demanding Cain prove that you’re lying about him.

northdallasthirty on November 8, 2011 at 5:04 PM

That’s all you’re doing, Honda, is screaming. You aren’t holding the person who makes the slanders accountable. You’re holding the person they slander accountable.

If you were only talking about a person’s right to be presumed innocent you would have a point. But the reality is that Cain is running for the GOP nomination — voters want someone that can win against Obama. If Cain can’t effectively deal with this kind of issue why should voters put him against Obama when he will still have difficulty addressing it?

Bradky on November 8, 2011 at 5:07 PM

If you were only talking about a person’s right to be presumed innocent you would have a point. But the reality is that Cain is running for the GOP nomination — voters want someone that can win against Obama. If Cain can’t effectively deal with this kind of issue why should voters put him against Obama when he will still have difficulty addressing it?

Bradky on November 8, 2011 at 5:07 PM

Oh, that’s right; I seem to remember last time we “had” to choose McCain because he was so good at addressing the lying, slandering, and smearing tactics that Obama uses.

How about calling out the lying, slandering, and smearing tactics first? Or do you not care about that since you don’t like Cain?

How about this. You and your fellows need to realize that this is what is in store for ANY Republican. You need to realize that it’s wrong. And you need to seriously evaluate why you support lying, slandering, and smearing ahead of the presumption of innocence when you want it to pick off another candidate.

northdallasthirty on November 8, 2011 at 5:14 PM

*still sittin’ watching all this.* Well, all this crap would’ve been unloaded on Todd (remember they did this once-Trig?)

ProudPalinFan on November 8, 2011 at 5:32 PM

This sounds like just another man in a position of power using that power over people ‘less’ than he is to get what he wants.

I was never a Cain supports anyway, he is not qualified to be
POTUS. His crude comments about Rick Perry and “the rock” further confirmed that he is not the kind of person I want in the White House.

Just like Bill Clinton, all these women can’t be wrong and trashing their reputations in the media is not the action of a gentleman.

Common Sense on November 8, 2011 at 7:57 PM

What a bunch of weak republicans using baseless accusations to drive your own desired agendas. Hope you enjoy your four more years of the worst president in american history, because that is the seed your actions nourish.

ray on November 8, 2011 at 8:06 PM

Just look at the pic you used for the story.

Cain looks like a con-artist.

oldyeller on November 8, 2011 at 11:26 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4