Coming next: the joint press conference of Cain’s accusers

posted at 8:40 am on November 9, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Herman Cain may have hoped to put to rest the allegations of sexual harassment and impropriety in his press conference yesterday afternoon.  Instead, his accusers will raise the stakes in their own joint press conference, in which they will detail their complaints.  Attorneys for the two women who have gone public confirmed to the Los Angeles Times that their clients will meet with the media soon:

The women whose complaints Herman Cain attacked in a news conference Tuesday are planning to counter with a news conference of their own, attorneys for the women said Tuesday night.

“My client has decided to hold a joint news conference with as many of the women who complained of sexual harassment by Herman Cain as will participate,” said Joel P. Bennett, the Washington lawyer for Karen Kraushaar, whose harassment claims against Cain got the current controversy rolling after a report of it appeared last week in Politico. …

“We will advise all media in advance of the date, time and location of the conference,” Bennett said in the email to The Times, noting that he had already been in contact with Bialek’s attorney, Gloria Allred, to discuss the news conference.

Allred confirmed that in an email to The Times: “I said I would recommend it to my client, and I think she would want to participate, but I have no details yet and have not had a chance to discuss it with her,” Allred wrote.

The strategy for the two women will be to present their cases together, so that they can establish a pattern of behavior from Cain and bolster their own cases in the process.  That will become more difficult for Cain to defend, especially if one of the other anonymous women who filed complaints decide to go public and join them.  I’d guess that Allred and Bennett are working to expand the roster for the press conference for that reason, so don’t be surprised if Sharon Bialek and Karen Kraushaar end up sharing microphones with more than just their attorneys.

However, Kraushaar may have to explain another complaint she filed in her next job to defend herself from being painted as having a pattern of her own, as the Associated Press discovered last night:

A woman who settled a sexual harassment complaint against GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain in 1999 complained three years later at her next job about unfair treatment, saying she should be allowed to work from home after a serious car accident and accusing a manager of circulating a sexually charged email, The Associated Press has learned.

Karen Kraushaar, 55, filed the complaint while working as a spokeswoman at the Immigration and Naturalization Service in the Justice Department in late 2002 or early 2003, with the assistance of her lawyer, Joel Bennett, who also handled her earlier sexual harassment complaint against Cain in 1999. Three former supervisors familiar with Kraushaar’s complaint, which did not include a claim of sexual harassment, described it for the AP under condition of anonymity because the matter was handled internally by the agency and was not public.

To settle the complaint at the immigration service, Kraushaar initially demanded thousands of dollars in payment, a reinstatement of leave she used after the accident earlier in 2002, promotion on the federal pay scale and a one-year fellowship to Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, according to a former supervisor familiar with the complaint. The promotion itself would have increased her annual salary between $12,000 and $16,000, according to salary tables in 2002 from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

The later complaint didn’t directly allege anyone of sexual harassment, although it did include mention of the e-mail, which turns out to be a joke that was “widely circulated on the Internet” about the differences between men and women cast in computer references.  The main body of the complaint concerned the refusal of INS to allow her to work from home after her accident, which forced her to take leave and lose seniority that counts toward promotions.  Kraushaar told the AP that other employees had been allowed to work from home and that she filed the complaint to get fair treatment, but ended up dropping it for unspecified reasons.

She knows how it looks now, though:

The complaint at the immigration service was “nobody’s business,” Kraushaar said, because it was irrelevant to her sexual harassment settlement with Cain years earlier. “What you’re looking for here is evidence of an employee who is out to get people,” she said. “That’s completely untrue.”

They are two separate incidents, and two different kinds of complaints.  A judge likely wouldn’t admit one as a defense against another in a court proceeding, as they would not be relevant to each other.  Still, Kraushaar isn’t pursuing her claim in a court — she’s apparently going to pursue it in a press conference, trying to win judgment in the court of public opinion, and the public will have a very different idea of what’s relevant and what isn’t.

I’d assume that the Cain campaign will look through the backgrounds of these women and publicize anything like this they find.  Cain and his team certainly did that with Sharon Bialek.  However, after last night’s fiasco with Mark Block claiming “confirmation” that Josh Kraushaar was Karen’s son and that he currently works for Politico — both false — why should anyone take what the campaign says seriously anyway?

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

I would just say to you Newt supporters–are you sure Newt married ALL his bimbos?

cartooner on November 9, 2011 at 10:08 AM

This is the main thing I am worried about right now.

I still support Cain, but would switch to Newt in a couple months if Cain goes down and Newt goes up.

I think people are so sick of Obama that (right now) they don’t care about Newt’s marriages. I’m talking about in the general with Independents.

But the media hasn’t even started tarnishing Newt yet. They will try to destroy him and they might succeed.

Unless Republicans wake up and fight this stuff.

We need to fight and defend Cain, so that it will be easier to defend Newt.

A good defense is a strong offense and it has to start NOW.

They will do this will all of our conservatives. We need to unite and defend them all.

Elisa on November 9, 2011 at 11:24 AM

So, an Obama admin press hack is organizing a high tech lynching?

Is this the Dem machine that Herm was talking about?

faraway on November 9, 2011 at 11:24 AM

Lilith would cost Adam an arm and a leg so the cheapskate asked God what he could get for a rib.

cartooner on November 9, 2011 at 11:20 AM

I have heard lots of NSFW jokes about why Lilith didn’t like Adam. Yes, they’re about what you’d imagine.

My conclusion is that Lilith is to justify certain sexual behaviors of the fairer sex, IYKWIMAITTYD.

platypus on November 9, 2011 at 11:24 AM

Bizarro No. 1 on November 9, 2011 at 11:22 AM

Conservatives that insist on constantly playing the race card really aren’t conservative.
I grew up Jewish and conservative in a black neighborhood-so I know a little bit about ‘racism’.

annoyinglittletwerp on November 9, 2011 at 11:25 AM

how about this, was cain in favor or opposed to TARP? do any of you cain supporters know his position on that?

chasdal on November 9, 2011 at 10:26 AM

First of all, I believe there is evidence out there that Cain – a former head of a federal reserve bank – DID support TARP.

Second, I’m not entirely sure what that is even relevant today as it is widely accepted that all TARP funds have been repayed.

Lots of people opposed “bailouts”, and if banks had taken that money and run, it would be more relevant. Support for or against TARP is not the same as supporting “too big to fail”, or, essentially, anything else for that matter. Support for TARP is support for TARP and nothing more. Hell, I didn’t support TARP at the time, but unless you WANTED to see the entire financial industry burned to the ground, which was basically the only alternative, it seems now like a no-harm, no-foul scenario. There is no time machine we can jump in to go back and prevent the industry from reaching the point of needing TARP. They apparently DID need it AND it has all been paid back.

Asking the question “Did you / do you support TARP” is nothing more than idiot mainstream media gotcha journalism. It is a yes / no question designed to show infer beliefs based on the answer. It is a middle school debate club level question. I can see why you think it is important.

deadrody on November 9, 2011 at 11:26 AM

So, an Obama admin press hack is organizing a high tech lynching?

Is this the Dem machine that Herm was talking about?

faraway on November 9, 2011 at 11:24 AM

Well, it already has more factual support than any of the accusations against Cain do.

platypus on November 9, 2011 at 11:26 AM

I just hope these other women are different ethnicities from each other so our liberal brothers and sisters can feel good about the inclusiveness of these accusers.

NotCoach on November 9, 2011 at 8:51 AM

I am a white dark haired male and CAIN didn’t HIT on me…I think I have a discrimination suit on my hands what do you think?

RedLizard64 on November 9, 2011 at 11:27 AM

Odie1941 on November 9, 2011 at 10:26 AM
and i dont know if the women are lying or not. im not gonna say cain did anything based on their accusations. the lies he has told that i listed earlier were his reaction to their accusations. no matter guilty or innocent he still told those lies. if the hand of God writes on the wall he is innocent of sexual harassment it doesnt change that he lied.

chasdal on November 9, 2011 at 10:30 AM

You are the perfect end result for a poltical hitjob… throw chit against the wall and see what sticks.

You are reduced to sticking to your guns and now believing in the lowest common denominator, after every bogus “claim and opinion” you made about Cain is summed up as “he lied” – which again, when examined – is a mixture of not recalling, trying to prove a negative – and political insticnts – though wrong, when he blamed Perry – based on info from his team.

You dont like him and never did, so you were used like a cheap suit for the purpose. You promoted scandal that you yourself admit bears no evidence to the damning claim of “sexual harrassment” – which is tearing a man down politically, via his integrity and character; yet conclude “he is a liar”

You are a fool who was useful.

Now take a shower.

Odie1941 on November 9, 2011 at 11:28 AM

TEN Reasons Cain should be President …

1. …

I’m excited folks I tell ya – very excited about Herman Cain!!

HondaV65 on November 9, 2011 at 10:42 AM

I’m curious – do you actually think that was helpful to anyone ? Or are you just practicing for your next career as a comedian ?

deadrody on November 9, 2011 at 11:29 AM

deadrody on November 9, 2011 at 11:26 AM

Don’t remember who said it but – Any excuse will serve a tyrant. We can adapt it for this scenario – Any excuse will satisfy someone who won’t vote for Cain anyway.

platypus on November 9, 2011 at 11:29 AM

As I asked, why did she ask for such insane compensation at INS (thousands in cash, a $12k+ payraise, reset sick leave, the ability to work from home and a Harvard fellowship) for relatively minor offenses, and yet only settle for 50 grand when she complained to the NRA about someone she’s characterizing now as a “monster”? If Cain were such a “monster”, she should have been able to sue for enough money to never have to work again.

fusionaddict on November 9, 2011 at 11:31 AM

deadrody on November 9, 2011 at 11:29 AM

My old buddy Honda is so cynical since the Palin affair that his meds don’t work any more. :)

platypus on November 9, 2011 at 11:31 AM

block lied about kraushaar last nite which gets laid at cains feet since that his guy. he has spent more time trying to destroy his accusers than anything.

chasdal on November 9, 2011 at 9:33 AM

I’m getting awfully tired of self-appointed psychics here who keep saying so-and-so “lied.”

Have you considered that Block maybe went off “half-cocked,” and was MISTAKEN?

That’s much different than a lie.
How many folks here got the two Axelrods mixed up?

Yelling “liar, liar” gets none of us anywhere without proof, and undercuts the credibility of those who keep screaming it.

cane_loader on November 9, 2011 at 11:34 AM

fusionaddict on November 9, 2011 at 11:31 AM

Monster is a shyster word. This attorney Bennett should be answering to his Bar association for breach a NDA and for violating attorney-client confidentiality without authorization.

He is a dirtbag who is less skilled than Allred.

platypus on November 9, 2011 at 11:34 AM

I think my biggest disappointment is the lack of objectivity by bloggers who have lined up behind their candidate of choice and are instead joining in on the character assassination of a GOP candidate. There are so many obvious holes in Bialek’s story that weren’t even considered, they just jumped on the take down of Cain. Sad what the conservative blogosphere has come too.

Texas Gal on November 9, 2011 at 11:08 AM

Exactly. Frankly, I think the entire field, or at least a solid subset of them should have gone to Cain and stood with him in solidarity for getting to the factual bottom of these allegations and hitting back against the breathless media campaign against him. For GOP “non-supporters” of Herman Cain to be gleefully piling on is, again, shameful. It seems two of my favorite conservative blogs are guilty. Its disturbing not only that they aren’t hitting back against the MSM’s attempts to smear a member of their party, but instead, playing along by the Alinsky supplied playbook.

deadrody on November 9, 2011 at 11:34 AM

I am not sure that the attacks on cain are racial. I do believe they are an orchestrated attack because he is not one of the Washington types. He is an outsider , in their eyes an interloper. How DARE he think he can become president. he isnt one of theirs. Einstien said that the mark of insanity is to repeat the same behavior time and again and expect different results. We have had career politicians in the office of president since IKE, look where we are now. STOP the insanity.

As for the accusers of sexual harassment if there is no proof and its all He said she said. The burden of proof lies with them. Just because a company “settles’ doesnt mean anything happend. all it means is they did the calculations of the cost of defending a case or paying some one off so it will go away which ever is most efficient is the way they will go.

ColdWarrior57 on November 9, 2011 at 11:35 AM

Have you considered that Block maybe went off “half-cocked,” and was MISTAKEN?

cane_loader on November 9, 2011 at 11:34 AM

Of course that’s what he did. He risked that it was unlikely that they could not be related. All he needs to do is apologize to both of them, say he learned a lesson and he will never do it again, and remind everyone how bad off the country is.

Then turn and leave the podium.

platypus on November 9, 2011 at 11:37 AM

Republicans saying these allegations don’t matter, seriously hurts our argument.

These allegations do matter, they matter a lot.

Our real issue is whether or not they are “valid”.

So far it looks like an orchestrated character assassination attempt by Cain’s detractors.

Lawrence on November 9, 2011 at 11:39 AM

These women all have something to gain.

One is a deadbeat with no history of employment and a string of bankruptcies and lawsuits. Her boyfriend also has no employment.

The other is a career bureaucrat who donated to Obama in 2009. She has a history of making false workplace complaints.

Produce evidence or get out.

David Gregory also dropping “Grand Wizard” and making it racial doesn’t help…

tetriskid on November 9, 2011 at 11:40 AM

If CNBC tries to sidetrack policy questions tonight by turning it into another reality-TV gotcha episode on Cain, all of the candidates should walk out, on camera.

I know Newt has the stones.

At some point, the whole GOP field has to make a clear statement to the media. Otherwise, Romney, Perry and Newt are toast, and the media re-elects 0bama.

cane_loader on November 9, 2011 at 11:22 AM

Absolutely. If it comes up, someone besides Cain should stop the question before it is even finished and lay waste to the media. Newt is almost definitely the most qualified to do so and as much as I hope they ignore the subject entirely, I almost hope more that they try and ask such a question, and get properly put in their place for the attempt.

deadrody on November 9, 2011 at 11:40 AM

platypus on November 9, 2011 at 11:34 AM

Even minor acts of sexual harassment are serious enough to net large amounts of damages, reaching easily into the millions of dollars. Why did she settle for less than 50k for a sex harassment claim, but aks for such incredible amounts in her second claim?

What it sounds like to me is she made a frivolous claim at this shyster’s encouragement, the NRA wanted to fire her, but they negotiated her severance so they wouldn’t have to disclose the reason for her dismissal to future employers.

fusionaddict on November 9, 2011 at 11:41 AM

As I asked, why did she ask for such insane compensation at INS (thousands in cash, a $12k+ payraise, reset sick leave, the ability to work from home and a Harvard fellowship) for relatively minor offenses, and yet only settle for 50 grand when she complained to the NRA about someone she’s characterizing now as a “monster”? If Cain were such a “monster”, she should have been able to sue for enough money to never have to work again.

fusionaddict on November 9, 2011 at 11:31 AM

Because she is a professional Grifter. They assess the maximum and minimum con – and usually settle in between – for its about grifting something – the number is irrelevant.

She also stays within Gov positions and/or agencies – where the “harrassment and payout threashold” – is very low, leading to a payout. They also provide nice insurance and retirement benefits as a constant source of dependable (and a key factor for additional suits) income.

The Bielek chick is the same, just a little less polished and runs with alimony and the “Johns as fiance’s” angle.

Odie1941 on November 9, 2011 at 11:41 AM

One is a deadbeat with no history of employment and a string of bankruptcies and lawsuits. Her boyfriend also has no employment.

The other is a career bureaucrat who donated to Obama in 2009. She has a history of making false workplace complaints.

tetriskid on November 9, 2011 at 11:40 AM

That the Cain campaign plan going forward, is it?

Good luck with that one…

JohnGalt23 on November 9, 2011 at 11:46 AM

This bears reposting. In my mind there is no longer ANY doubt about Sharon Bialek’s character. She HAS NONE. My ex-girlfriend pulled the same grift on everyone in her life. When I finally dug up her divorce papers, she had unpaid promissory notes left and right, as well as a 45-page credit report.

LOOK AT BIALEK’S HISTORY OF DODGING HER RESPONSIBILITIES:

Though Bialek said her financial troubles were due to extenuating circumstances around 2000, court records show she continued to run afoul of creditors as recently as this summer.

In February 2000, Bialek borrowed $3,000 from Northwest Side resident Mark Beatovic, who handwrote a loan agreement in which she agreed to pay him back with interest over the next year. But in 2005, Beatovic filed suit against Bialek for not paying off the loan. In 2007, a judge ordered her to pay Beatovic $3,900.

Broadacre Management, which owned the luxury residential tower at 474 N. Lake Shore Drive where Bialek lived in 2000, filed suit in March 2000 to evict her for not paying that month’s rent, $2,250. By the time the judge signed an eviction order in August, Broadacre claimed she owed $6,750. A year later, the judge ordered her to pay $4,930 to resolve the case.

In 2007, a credit card company, Midland Funding, filed suit claiming she had defaulted on a 2002 credit card balance of $1,000. Another case was filed in 2009, but the court was unable to provide records on that suit.

It’s unclear whether she has resolved those debts.

The Tribune reported Monday that the IRS filed a tax lien against Bialek for nearly $5,200 in 2009. This August, the Illinois Department of Revenue claimed Bialek owed the state more than $4,300, including penalties and interest, relating to income taxes from 2004.

A major source of Bialek’s income over the last decade has come from child support payments supplied by West R. Naze, the marketing executive with whom she had a child in 1998. Both Bialek and Naze filed claims in fall 1999 that resulted in Naze being ordered to pay Bialek, who was unemployed at the time, $2,350 a month.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-herman-cain-accuser-1109-20111109,0,4756421.story

And this woman gets to stand up against a man with almost universal praise from those who have known him from all over the years, then smear him with unsubtantiated accusations, and we’re supposed to believe a woman of this character, and destroy Cain?

Follow the money. Sharon Bialek has a massive, massive integrity problem

cane_loader on November 9, 2011 at 11:50 AM

While everyone else is watching the shinny object, this happens
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/08/white-house-silent-on-conversation-with-french-president-dissing-israeli-prime/#ixzz1d8g32shf

I am suprised Fox picked it up.
I read about this yesteday.

ColdWarrior57 on November 9, 2011 at 11:53 AM

“It’s not the nature of the evidence; it’s the seriousness of the charge.”

Jim Treacher on November 9, 2011 at 11:53 AM

And I must add:

It has been my experience, and I also learned this through dealing with my ex, that people and companies do NOT usually go through the time and trouble of going to court over small amounts, unless they really have no other option.

Reading between the lines, not one, but MANY individuals and companies have taken Sharon Bialek to court to get her to live up to responsibilities that she refuses to live up to.

The reason my ex-girlfriend was sued was because she so determinedly dodged all the responsibilites that it made the plaintiff ANGRY and made them determined to teach her a lesson. The plaintiff against my ex told me that to my face – that it never had to go to court over such a small amount, but that someone needed to hold her accountable.

This Bialek woman reminds me so much of my ex that it’s jarring.

She keeps getting sued because she takes people’s money and then tells them to go jump in the lake. When enough people in your life have to sue you, then you have no integrity.

Cain’s accuser has ZERO integrity. Does that matter to any of his attackers, both here and in the mainstream media?

cane_loader on November 9, 2011 at 11:57 AM

cane_loader on November 9, 2011 at 11:57 AM

You are batting 1.000.

Sorry you had to live through something like that – my wife had an ex boyfriend – same type of grifting POS. He would take blank checks at night from her chekbook, cash them at a local bar – and used them to get 2 credit cards, prepaid cell phones, etc. $25k racked up in 6 months.

He unfortunately met me one night. According to his DDS, everyones even.

Odie1941 on November 9, 2011 at 12:04 PM

Hey dudes, I’ve posted a comment I just made on a news thread below, as I always manage to be the last or near last comment, and this seems worthy of getting out.

In summary, the tea comment was just one of others that Cain allegedly made while in the company of Deace or his employees that were inappropriate.

Bill C on November 9, 2011 at 11:16 AM

Here’s a minute of audio from 10/24 with Steve Deace discussing what’s probably his main charge against Cain- that he complimented one of his female employee’s appearance, which Deace believes a married man should never do. She doesn’t sound upset or offended by it to me, and it’s clear Deace is taking offence on her behalf, telling her her she should be offended.

Shouldn’t this audio negate at least this one set of accusations?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asn4RThvv6w

scotta on November 9, 2011 at 12:05 PM

Exactly. Frankly, I think the entire field, or at least a solid subset of them should have gone to Cain and stood with him in solidarity for getting to the factual bottom of these allegations and hitting back against the breathless media campaign against him. For GOP “non-supporters” of Herman Cain to be gleefully piling on is, again, shameful. It seems two of my favorite conservative blogs are guilty. Its disturbing not only that they aren’t hitting back against the MSM’s attempts to smear a member of their party, but instead, playing along by the Alinsky supplied playbook.

deadrody on November 9, 2011 at 11:34 AM

It’s been quite an eye-opening experience to watch the lack intellectual curiosity or critical thinking on the part of several conservative bloggers concerning this attack on Cain. It appears to me that some just decided to ignore obvious conflicts in the accusations that were laid against Cain because it didn’t fit their intended narrative, or I’m left to believe they didn’t have the skills in the first place. Neither are good options.

Texas Gal on November 9, 2011 at 12:06 PM

cane_loader on November 9, 2011 at 11:57 AM

You are batting 1.000.

Sorry you had to live through something like that – my wife had an ex boyfriend – same type of grifting POS. He would take blank checks at night from her chekbook, cash them at a local bar – and used them to get 2 credit cards, prepaid cell phones, etc. $25k racked up in 6 months.

He unfortunately met me one night. According to his DDS, everyones even.

Odie1941 on November 9, 2011 at 12:04 PM

It gets where you cansmell a grifter, doesn’t? Anyone who has never been targeted by a grifter, as I was, would not understand.

EVERYTHING I read tells me that Sharon Bialek is a classic grifter.

When will the media come out and opine just that?

*crickets*

And, I’m glad you caught the grifter.

So do we still take Bialek’s accusations at face value?
This whole thing, no matter his missteps, is grossly unfair to Mr. Cain, who has had a heckuva career and a climb from nothing.

cane_loader on November 9, 2011 at 12:09 PM

Hey dudes, I’ve posted a comment I just made on a news thread below, as I always manage to be the last or near last comment, and this seems worthy of getting out.

In summary, the tea comment was just one of others that Cain allegedly made while in the company of Deace or his employees that were inappropriate.

Bill C on November 9, 2011 at 11:16 AM

Here’s a minute of audio from 10/24 with Steve Deace discussing what’s probably his main charge against Cain- that he complimented one of his female employee’s appearance, which Deace believes a married man should never do. She doesn’t sound upset or offended by it to me, and it’s clear Deace is taking offence on her behalf, telling her her she should be offended.

Shouldn’t this audio negate at least this one set of accusations?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asn4RThvv6w

scotta on November 9, 2011 at 12:05 PM

Deace’s jumping in like that is reprehensible.

People keep forgetting that most of these accusations are not of crimes. It’s about stupid stuff like sugaring some tea.

Weak tea.

cane_loader on November 9, 2011 at 12:14 PM

And now for the entertainment.

Remember when every Cain-hater here was wetting their pants and insisting that they would remember the allegations if they were charged with sexual harassment?

Turns out not even those who make the charges of sexual harassment can remember them.

Kraushaar said Tuesday she did not remember details about the complaint and did not remember asking for a payment, a promotion or a Harvard fellowship.

Oh, and it gets better:

Bennett, her lawyer, declined to discuss the case with the AP, saying he considered it confidential.

So when will the Cain-haters be demanding that confidentiality be waived so that “the truth” can get out?

We’re waiting. Come on HondaV65, come on TheRightMan, come on Punchenko, come on Aslan’s Girl…..try applying the same rules you imposed on Cain to your own sources.

northdallasthirty on November 9, 2011 at 12:14 PM

Quoting mistake. The quoted portion of my response to scotta is my words. Scotta’s is the non-quoted part.

cane_loader on November 9, 2011 at 12:15 PM

Something that should be noted from the Chicago Tribune article on Bialek’s finances:

Bialek returned to court in 2002 seeking more money from Naze, whose income had increased. By then, Bialek was again gainfully employed, at WGN Radio, which is owned by the Chicago Tribune’s parent company. She gave differing accounts of her income, saying she was making about $90,000 a year in one court filing but about $64,000 a year in another.

IOW? SHE LIED.

And she is a deadbeat. Her mother died around 1990. The allegation that she filed her first bankruptcy due to “helping pay off her mother’s medical bills” means zilch, since she filed bankruptcy again in 2001, and she’s STILL not gotten caught up with her current creditors. And, once again, according to the article, there is strong evidence that the “fiance” is filing bankruptcy himself.

This woman has no credibility, and I strongly suspect that Gloria Allred latched onto her without looking into her background.

JannyMae on November 9, 2011 at 12:16 PM

Who is behind Joel Bennett?
Who is paying Gloria Allred?

These are the questions we should be asking.

cane_loader on November 9, 2011 at 12:16 PM

This woman has no credibility, and I strongly suspect that Gloria Allred latched onto her without looking into her background.

JannyMae on November 9, 2011 at 12:16 PM

Yes, but something’s been bothering me. As others have said, Allred usually has something in her back pocket.

I’m wondering – you would think Allred would look at her client’s background, and known that her credibility would be shredded (rightfully). So what’s Allred’s game? What else does she have? I’m thinking she may have something else to drop on Cain, otherwise, how does it help Allred to have her client outed as a grifter?

Oh, I’ll say it loudly: SHARON BIALEK IS A GRIFTER.

cane_loader on November 9, 2011 at 12:20 PM

Bennett, her lawyer, declined to discuss the case with the AP, saying he considered it confidential.

Isn’t this the same lawyer who claimed that Bialek’s story was “very similar?”

JannyMae on November 9, 2011 at 12:20 PM

And calling Paula Jones “trailer-trash” is just an ad hominem.

Calling Bialek a grifter is based upon an identifiable financial history. So this is not just a Carvillean “smear-the-accusers” situation.

cane_loader on November 9, 2011 at 12:21 PM

Cain would have a better case if he hadn’t lied his butt off the first couple of days. He knew darned well who the story was about, he knew they had received settlements, and he knew how much they were.

If he did not, given his ten day notice before it ran, then he is too much of a bumbling idiot to be elected to any responsible office.

So is he a serial liar, or a fool?

deadrody on November 9, 2011 at 11:26 AM

I agree with almost everything, but you should clarify: all the TARP funds loaned to BANKS has been repaid. Obama’s auto bailouts are still in the red and getting redder, and Lord knows what else the corrupt jerk did with the rest of it.

Adjoran on November 9, 2011 at 12:22 PM

So when will the Cain-haters be demanding that confidentiality be waived so that “the truth” can get out?

We’re waiting. Come on HondaV65, come on TheRightMan, come on Punchenko, come on Aslan’s Girl…..try applying the same rules you imposed on Cain to your own sources.

northdallasthirty on November 9, 2011 at 12:14 PM

Leaving one mark wasn’t enough for you – you had to leave a mark on each of them.

Yes, I’m cheering you on. Especially after the abuse you experienced the other night.

platypus on November 9, 2011 at 12:22 PM

Bennett, her lawyer, declined to discuss the case with the AP, saying he considered it confidential.

Isn’t this the same lawyer who claimed that Bialek’s story was “very similar?”

JannyMae on November 9, 2011 at 12:20 PM

I’m sick of the double standard. If Bennett says the case is confidential, then he should not be talking about it at all!

cane_loader on November 9, 2011 at 12:23 PM

cane_loader on November 9, 2011 at 12:20 PM

Good questions. You may be right about there being “more,” but I also wonder if Allred was so eager to have this kind of bombshell to drop, that she let herself be fooled by Bialek.

Even if there is something else, if what Bill Kurtis has alleged is true, then she will be reduced from low credibility to ZERO credibility.

JannyMae on November 9, 2011 at 12:24 PM

cane_loader on November 9, 2011 at 12:23 PM

Find out what state his Bar license is from, and file a grievance on him. Use phrases such as “the integrity of the profession” and “corruption of client confidentiality” for maximum effect.

platypus on November 9, 2011 at 12:25 PM

These women all have something to gain.

One is a deadbeat with no history of employment and a string of bankruptcies and lawsuits. Her boyfriend also has no employment.

The other is a career bureaucrat who donated to Obama in 2009. She has a history of making false workplace complaints.

Produce evidence or get out.

David Gregory also dropping “Grand Wizard” and making it racial doesn’t help…

tetriskid on November 9, 2011 at 11:40 AM

She works in the Treasury Dept for the inspector general for tax administration.

Cain wants to abolish the IRS. The only candidate who is planning on doing this.

The Washington establishment is fighting for their survival. Not just with Cain, but it was the same with Palin.

Elisa on November 9, 2011 at 12:27 PM

And calling Paula Jones “trailer-trash” is just an ad hominem.

Calling Bialek a grifter is based upon an identifiable financial history. So this is not just a Carvillean “smear-the-accusers” situation.

cane_loader on November 9, 2011 at 12:21 PM

Most of the people bashing Cain have David Gregory type situation.

tetriskid on November 9, 2011 at 12:28 PM

How come Hotair is not reporting the history of the new woman and her propensity to file false complaints at work. I guess exculpatory evidence against herman Cain doesn’t count now…just attacks and smears.

good to know.

Chudi on November 9, 2011 at 12:29 PM

Cain would have a better case if he hadn’t lied his butt off the first couple of days. He knew darned well who the story was about, he knew they had received settlements, and he knew how much they were.

If he did not, given his ten day notice before it ran, then he is too much of a bumbling idiot to be elected to any responsible office.

– Adjoran

Have we established that he, in fact, had ten days notice? And have we established that he had been given enough information to dig up the more-than-decade-old “settlements?” And have we established that he had access to the claims and NDA’s, since he was apparently not involved with them directly? If we have, then you’ve got a point, but without establishing those things as facts, you have no evidence to call Cain a liar.

JannyMae on November 9, 2011 at 12:29 PM

How come Hotair is not reporting the history of the new woman and her propensity to file false complaints at work. I guess exculpatory evidence against herman Cain doesn’t count now…just attacks and smears.

good to know.

Chudi on November 9, 2011 at 12:29 PM

It’s disgusting really.

Even the AP story is reporting it.

Just wait until the 2012 cycle. I bet it will be another full repeat of 2008… just soft peddling for Obama.

tetriskid on November 9, 2011 at 12:33 PM

Yes, but something’s been bothering me. As others have said, Allred usually has something in her back pocket.

cane_loader on November 9, 2011 at 12:20 PM

The hairs on the back of my neck say the same thing and I wonder if it is connected to Bialek’s persistence to see and whisper in Cain’s ear at Teacon. She’s using that event as evidence that he said he recognized her. The reporter who witnessed the exchanged at a distance said Bialek hugged Cain and she heard Cain saying uh huh, several times. I suspect that was a set up on Bialek’s part and I wonder if she was recording his responses from questions she scripted to support her accusations. Because I totally don’t understand why she would be hugging him a month before she makes charges of “unwanted sexual advances” against him, much less seek him out.

Texas Gal on November 9, 2011 at 12:33 PM

I remember reading that Politico called him 10 days before but wouldn’t give him any of the facts – they wanted him just to confess to anything they thought he should be confessing.

That’s not right. Do you blame Cain for not just telling his whole romantic history on Politico’s demand?

cane_loader on November 9, 2011 at 12:34 PM

Leaving one mark wasn’t enough for you – you had to leave a mark on each of them.

Yes, I’m cheering you on. Especially after the abuse you experienced the other night.

platypus on November 9, 2011 at 12:22 PM

Meh, I’m not going to dwell on that. Nor am I going to demand an apology. People say and do things in the heat of the moment, and I’m certainly not going to get too upset at people for wanting their candidate to succeed.

But as was also said the other night, this is a case of hanging together or hanging separately. This will happen to every single candidate as long as it’s allowed to happen, because this is the only way that Barack Ding Dong Obama knows how to do anything.

But if it is repulsed, driven back, and broken, Ding Dong hasn’t a snowball’s chance in hell. With his white liberal handlers in the media squashing everything that even looks remotely negative about him and painting Republicans and conservatives as child- and grandma-killing monsters, he can barely hold 40% approval. If he had the press coverage that Bush did, the helicopter would be spooling up and he would be changing his sixth pair of pants on the day while Michelle ran around trying to pry the pictures off the wall and shove the lamps into her handbag.

That’s probably why I am so passionate about this. The media is the key to the Obama Party’s existence. Without them, they have Pelosi’s policies, Reid’s charisma, and Obama’s foreign policy expertise. BOOOM.

northdallasthirty on November 9, 2011 at 12:35 PM

One of the stupidest defenses of Cain is that we need to defend him or they will come after others as well. WOW!

conservador on November 9, 2011 at 12:36 PM

Cain accuser (Karen Kraushaar) filed complaint at next job

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57321187/cain-accuser-filed-complaint-at-next-job/

“To settle the complaint at the immigration service, Kraushaar initially demanded thousands of dollars in payment, a reinstatement of leave she used after the accident earlier in 2002, promotion on the federal pay scale and a one-year fellowship to Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, according to a former supervisor familiar with the complaint. The promotion itself would have increased her annual salary between $12,000 and $16,000, according to salary tables in 2002 from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management”

Hard Right on November 9, 2011 at 12:37 PM

Yes, but something’s been bothering me. As others have said, Allred usually has something in her back pocket.

cane_loader on November 9, 2011 at 12:20 PM

It’s called the media vanishing the instant she dumps her client.

Allred is the Obama Party’s mouthpiece. All she has to do is make the charge and create the chaos. After the fact, the media will suddenly go blind and ignore what happened to her client.

What will change this time, I think, is that there were not enough people in California who cared to investigate exactly what Allred did with Meg Whitman’s maid after the allegations came out and publicize it. In contrast, anyone that Allred touched for this fiasco is going to be watched like a hawk, with the “Obama supporter Gloria Allred’s client receives $250k payout for no-show job” type coverage.

northdallasthirty on November 9, 2011 at 12:40 PM

One of the stupidest defenses of Cain is that we need to defend him or they will come after others as well. WOW!

conservador on November 9, 2011 at 12:36 PM

What color is the sky in your world?

cane_loader on November 9, 2011 at 12:40 PM

Has everyone seen this?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/veteran-anchor-bill-kurtis-says-bialek-was-former-cbs-employee-with-a-track-record-hers-and-cains-roles-may-even-have-been-reversed-in-car/

Or this

Kraushaar said Tuesday she did not remember details about the complaint and did not remember asking for a payment, a promotion or a Harvard fellowship. Bennett, her lawyer, declined to discuss the case with the AP, saying he considered it confidential. Kraushaar left her job at the immigration service after dropping the complaint in 2003, and she went to work at the Treasury Department.

from here http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ap-exclusive-cain-accuser-filed-complaint-against-supervisors-in-her-next-job-3-years-later/2011/11/09/gIQARjlL4M_story.html?tid=sm_btn_twitter.

Can’t remember her complaint in 2003 but is crystal clear about 1996? Interesting.

Cindy Munford on November 9, 2011 at 12:41 PM

One of the stupidest defenses of Cain is that we need to defend him or they will come after others as well. WOW!

conservador on November 9, 2011 at 12:36 PM

umm. you destroy your enemy when they come out of their trenches.

faraway on November 9, 2011 at 12:43 PM

One of the stupidest defenses of Cain is that we need to defend him or they will come after others as well. WOW!

conservador on November 9, 2011 at 12:36 PM

Ah yes, the old “demanding facts and evidence before condemnation is defending” line.

So here’s the question: will you be throwing your candidate under the bus when allegations are made, or will you be demanding facts and evidence?

And if you demand facts and evidence, will you stand meekly by when others state that you are “defending” whatever behavior your candidate is accused of doing?

You and your fellow Cain-haters seem desperate to steer the conversation toward condemnation of Cain and away from actually providing the facts and evidence on which he should be condemned. Indeed, you’re browbeating and attempting to bully anyone who would ask a basic question, like can Sharon Bielak provide receipts, a plane ticket, an actual date, to back up her story. Why is that?

northdallasthirty on November 9, 2011 at 12:45 PM

One of the stupidest defenses of Cain is that we need to defend him or because they will come after others as well. WOW!

conservador on November 9, 2011 at 12:36 PM

They’ll come after others whether or not we defend Cain. I’d like to see a conservative in the Oval Office, but we’d better get used to the fact that Dems see Republicans and Republican voters as enemies. It’ll be just as true of Romney if he gets the nod.

gryphon202 on November 9, 2011 at 12:46 PM

One of the stupidest defenses of Cain is that we need to defend him or they will come after others as well. WOW!

conservador on November 9, 2011 at 12:36 PM

And to this, will you please affirm that you agree with and support the following statements?

1) Accusations and filing of complaints are proof of guilt

2) Women never lie about rape, sexual harassment, or anything of the sort, and that anyone who says otherwise is a misogynist woman-hater and simpleton.

3) If a woman comes up and defends someone accused of sexual harassment, it is absolute proof that they did not harass anyone

4) The number of accusations is what counts, and the more accusations there are, the more guilty the person is.

northdallasthirty on November 9, 2011 at 12:47 PM

Cain’s biggest enemy is HIMSELF. After the way he’s treated Perry-I’m sounding like a broken record but I’m p.o’d-and his refusal to can Block like…last week-proves that he lacks that character that conservatives should be demanding out of their candidates.
Notice-I DIDN’T mention the ‘accusations-because I think they’re a political hatchet job.

annoyinglittletwerp on November 9, 2011 at 11:15 AM

Yes, I’ve noticed you recognize the hatchet job in your comments.

I say this to you as a friend who likes you. You have to get over the Perry thing. (same with the “race card” thing, that I don’t agree with you on.)

Look at the big picture.

I said immediately that Cain and Block shouldn’t have blamed Chris Anderson. They made a big mistake and, yes, they should have apologized to Anderson. Cain is not perfect but that doesn’t make him a bad candidate or a bad conservative. He has a lot to offer our side. I don’t think he should have fired Block, who seems like a nice man and they are loyal to each other.

But Cain needs to high people with more experience and knowledge. He has more money now and he hired a top notch lawyer this week. That’s a good sign.

Should they have blamed Perry? Not publicly. But the jury is still out for me on whether the Perry camp has clean hands on this.

Personally, I think Perry should have publicly reprimanded or fired his pollster Chris Wilson for what he publicly said about Cain. Perry’s people should have stayed out of it, at the very least. For appearances and not to let the media ruin a conservative.

Perry shot himself in the foot with the “heartless” thing and the debates. It was not Cain’s doing. (I blame back pain and pain medication. It’s a darn shame. I hope he recovers in time.) The only way for Perry to rise in the polls has to come from Perry doing well, not from bringing down someone else. But I will give Perry a pass on how he handled Cain’s situation. Newt is the only one who defended Cain.

I don’t blame Cain for making some mistakes last week. I don’t remember a candidate facing such a firestorm in a long time. Maybe Palin in the fall of 2008.

I know you are mad. I was mad at Bachmann for what she did to Perry, but I got over it.

Look at the big picture. We all have to stand together against what they are doing to Cain. They did it to Palin and the establishment RINOS had a big hand in it. Same with Cain. Conservatives have to stand united here and vocally denounce the RINOS who are criticizing Cain, including the meme about him not handling this situation well.

Because Newt will be next, or Perry, if he can get back up there. (It is still a possibility.)

Cain’s polling and fundraising cannot go down and he needs to stay in the top tier, even if he doesn’t get the nomination. And he needs to be defended especially by those who want another conservative.

Elisa on November 9, 2011 at 12:53 PM

I think it’s ridiculous to see people here buying into that the 2nd accuser works for Obama. OMG, tell me it isn’t so.

Except, how long as Obama been President? And everyone who works for the Federal Government is considered an Obama lackey?

How about she’s worked for the Federal Govt since she left the NRA and has been in the position she holds now for 8 years now FOR A BUSH APPOINTEE as a Communications Director for the Inspector General in the Treasury Dept.

Want to push the Democrat connection? Fine. This one concerns me much more and should you too:

CAIN’S WIFE VOTES DEMOCRAT
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Cain-Wife-Votes-Democrat/2011/11/04/id/416931

A private citizen can be a member of whatever party they want. They can switch back and forth. Be a member of one and vote for a candidate of the opposite. I don’t care. What I do care about is a candidate who wants to be the GOP nomination for the President of the United States, has a wife who would then become First Lady who votes Democrat. And for Years. Really? This is also on top of all the Democrats and Liberals, along with Liberal views, Cain has supported while a Republican and supposedly a conservative, at that.

TriciaNC on November 9, 2011 at 1:02 PM

One of the stupidest defenses of Cain is that we need to defend him or because they will come after others as well. WOW!

conservador on November 9, 2011 at 12:36 PM

They’ll come after others whether or not we defend Cain. I’d like to see a conservative in the Oval Office, but we’d better get used to the fact that Dems see Republicans and Republican voters as enemies. It’ll be just as true of Romney if he gets the nod.

gryphon202 on November 9, 2011 at 12:46 PM

Yes, they will come after any conservative. But they are getting more brazen and bold and doing attacks that were unheard of until recently with Cain and Palin.

If we don’t unite and slap them down, it will get worse and worse.

The best defense is a good offense.

We need to wear them down and make it harder for them to attack with rumors and anonymous. MAke them look ridiculous. If we don’t defend Cain, it emboldens them and lets the public think this is just regular voting politics.

Elisa on November 9, 2011 at 1:04 PM

If we don’t defend Cain, it emboldens them and lets the public think this is just regular voting politics.

Elisa on November 9, 2011 at 1:04 PM

Should read: lets the voting public think this is just regular politics.

Elisa on November 9, 2011 at 1:07 PM

Conservatives that insist on constantly playing the race card really aren’t conservative.
I grew up Jewish and conservative in a black neighborhood-so I know a little bit about ‘racism’.

annoyinglittletwerp on November 9, 2011 at 11:25 AM

I contest this assertion on the basis that true Conservatism has it’s roots in the heart, not in the mind. For example, someone who’s acting as a racist might not realize that their behavior is incongruent with true Conservatism, but when they figure out that that’s the case, they’ll change because they are commited to true Conservatism – I wouldn’t label a person like that, “racist”

I believe that the infighting here at HA ultimately stems from a conflict between those who agree me about the heart, and those who disagree with me. This certainly would explain the conflict well, wouldn’t it?

On one side, you’ve got those who are invariably impatient, ungracious, unforgiving, self-righteous, and insulting, who appoint themselves as the arbiters of who the “true” Conservatives are, and on the other side you have people who sincerely accept their own imperfections, and strive to be patient, gracious, forgiving, humble, and slow to anger, with the understanding that they will keep striving until they’ve reached their goal.

What I am saying is so obvious that I don’t have to tell you the names of those who are consistently guilty here of unapologetic ugliness directed at dissenters, because you can pick them out just as easily as I can! :)

Bizarro No. 1 on November 9, 2011 at 1:11 PM

TriciaNC on November 9, 2011 at 1:02 PM

That rates about #337 on the importance or relevance scale right now.

Odie1941 on November 9, 2011 at 1:13 PM

Want to push the Democrat connection? Fine. This one concerns me much more and should you too:

CAIN’S WIFE VOTES DEMOCRAT
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Cain-Wife-Votes-Democrat/2011/11/04/id/416931

A private citizen can be a member of whatever party they want. They can switch back and forth. Be a member of one and vote for a candidate of the opposite. I don’t care. What I do care about is a candidate who wants to be the GOP nomination for the President of the United States, has a wife who would then become First Lady who votes Democrat. And for Years. Really? This is also on top of all the Democrats and Liberals, along with Liberal views, Cain has supported while a Republican and supposedly a conservative, at that.

TriciaNC on November 9, 2011 at 1:02 PM

Thank you for the view into the mind of the “concerned Christian conservative” Obama moby for this election cycle.

Now, let me point out the Mack-truck sized hole in your theory.

Georgia voting records show Herman Cain’s wife has voted in Democratic primary and runoff elections numerous times since 2000, the Atlanta-Journal Constitution reported Friday.

In 2008, Gloria Cain voted in Georgia’s Democratic presidential primary, which Barack Obama won.

In 2004, she cast a ballot in the Democratic presidential primary in March, but then voted in the Republican primary in July, when her husband was on the ballot as a candidate for U.S. Senate, the paper said. Cain lost in the primary.

Now, since you claim that Gloria Cain has always “voted Democrat”, please provide the ballots that you obviously have that prove in every one of the instances mentioned that Gloria Cain voted for a Democrat candidate.

Voting IN an election AS a Democrat does not mean that you voted FOR the Democrat. Kevin Eder, aka “Keder” on Twitter, is a registered Democrat, but I hardly see people there claiming that he “voted Democrat” by virtue of his party affiliation and the fact that he has likely voted IN Democrat primaries. You need to provide the ballots to prove that she “voted Democrat”, as you are claiming.

Or you can just sputter and continue to attempt to smear like the Obama moby you are as grown-ups look at your claim, recognize your illogic and outright bigotry, and laugh at you.

northdallasthirty on November 9, 2011 at 1:19 PM

The problem for Cain is that he payed some of these women off to prevent lawsuits. It wrecks his argument that everything is fabricated.

WisCon

This is why these kind of attacks are successful. Too many people aren’t interested in getting the truth. Cain didn’t pay anyone.

If Cain does one of his usual classy attacks on Perry(false accusations or whatever)then that should be it for ‘Herb’.

annoyinglittletwerp

Since Perry only made one classy false accusation attack against the Romney camp, he’s ok though, right?

It’s become a matter of pride for Cain.
don’t expect him to do what’s right concerning Block.

annoyinglittletwerp

When does the Perry camp do right by what they did to the Romney camp?

chasdal

You really need to pick up a dictionary when you get the chance, because you’ve made it obvious you don’t know the definition of “lie”. It’s pretty telling that you have to lie about Cain “lies” as proof he is lying, lol.

and i dont know if the women are lying or not. im not gonna say cain did anything based on their accusations. the lies he has told that i listed earlier were his reaction to their accusations. no matter guilty or innocent he still told those lies. if the hand of God writes on the wall he is innocent of sexual harassment it doesnt change that he lied.

chasdal

Funny how your burden for lying changes. You don’t know that Cain has lied about anything either. Again, pick up that dictionary when you get a chance. And try not to get the liberal version that says Bush lied about WMDs because they weren’t there.

The number of accusations, whether true or false is indicative of the fact that Cain acted inapropriately at the least in spending countless hours alone with women.

astonerii

Say what? False allegations are proof Cain acted inappropriately? Wow. You are a moron.

xblade on November 9, 2011 at 2:20 PM

Now Karen Kraushaar, according to a report at ABC, says that Cain is a “monster.” No further details, of course. Those will come out in dribs & drabs, which is the obvious strategy. It didn’t take long to go from too reluctant to face the media to doubling down on her accusations.

She also says, according to the same report, that she was unwilling to be identified because of her fear of “retaliation” from Cain supporters. This woman is starting to tick me off.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/herman-cain-monster-accuser/story?id=14912783#.TrqS3fKwW_8

labwriter on November 9, 2011 at 2:57 PM

She also says, according to the same report, that she was unwilling to be identified because of her fear of “retaliation” from Cain supporters.

If you’re going to wait 12 years and then try to take down a presidential candidate only then, then stand the heat or stay out of the kitchen.

If she took a settlement, then her complaint is satisfied. If she was going to come forward 12 years later, she shouldn’t have taken the money. There’s a basic “having cake and eating it too” element at work here.

cane_loader on November 9, 2011 at 3:15 PM

I think my biggest disappointment is the lack of objectivity by bloggers who have lined up behind their candidate of choice and are instead joining in on the character assassination of a GOP candidate. There are so many obvious holes in Bialek’s story that weren’t even considered, they just jumped on the take down of Cain. Sad what the conservative blogosphere has come too.

Texas Gal on November 9, 2011 at 11:08 AM

Exactly. Frankly, I think the entire field, or at least a solid subset of them should have gone to Cain and stood with him in solidarity for getting to the factual bottom of these allegations and hitting back against the breathless media campaign against him. For GOP “non-supporters” of Herman Cain to be gleefully piling on is, again, shameful. It seems two of my favorite conservative blogs are guilty. Its disturbing not only that they aren’t hitting back against the MSM’s attempts to smear a member of their party, but instead, playing along by the Alinsky supplied playbook.

deadrody on November 9, 2011 at 11:34 AM

Yep. All of this. They will come for each and every one of our candidates.

If this is the way “conservatives” stick together, we’ve lost already.

kim roy on November 9, 2011 at 3:32 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3