Update: One Cain accuser has money problems, the other filed a job complaint against another employer

posted at 6:50 pm on November 9, 2011 by Allahpundit

I’ve been tossing most of these tidbits into Headlines but here’s the obligatory round-up post. First, something that wasn’t in Headlines only because I just saw it: Turns out my assumption that Bialek is living comfortably in Chicago, supported by her corporate-executive fiance, and has no apparent motive to cash in might be mistaken.

Sharon Bialek’s fiance — who said he is her primary source of financial support — is unemployed and preparing to file for bankruptcy, according to Lake County court documents reviewed Tuesday by the Tribune. And in Cook County, lawsuits show she has been targeted by creditors who claimed she owed them thousands in unpaid rent, personal loans and credit card bills…

Her fiance, Mark Harwood, told the Tribune on Monday that Bialek did not have any current money problems. Harwood, who records show recently left his job in the medical equipment industry, said he supports her financially so she can stay at home with her 13-year-old son.

In court proceedings between Harwood and his ex-wife, Patricia, her lawyers stated last month that Harwood was unemployed and preparing to file for bankruptcy. Harwood could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

Duly noted, but if she’s looking to make a buck by talking to the Enquirer, I don’t understand why she’d reveal the sordid bits of her story about Cain at the press conference. She could have teased them by saying something vague (e.g., “my encounter with Mr. Cain wasn’t so much a case of sexual harassment as sexual assault”) and then let the media come running with its checkbook. And Allred, of all people, would have known that. Why give away the golden goose?

Meanwhile, Ed already mentioned that Kraushaar filed a separate job complaint when she worked for the INS in 2003, but here’s a little more from ABC that emerged after he published his post:

Kraushaar’s former supervisor at the INS, who was named in Kraushaar’s complaint, characterized the 2003 complaint to ABC News as “frivolous,” and said Kraushaar may have been offered a few extra sick days as compensation.

The supervisor alleged that Kraushaar had a “poor work ethic.”

The supervisor, a self-described Democrat, decided to speak out about Kraushaar’s complaint because of “doubts about her credibility.”

Maria Cardona, who also supervised Kraushaar at INS, told CNN that Kraushaar was an “ideal employee,” and said her credibility was “beyond reproach.”

“She was the utmost professional, one of the hardest working individuals I have ever known,” said Cardona, “the consummate team player.”

Kraushaar later told ABC that Cain is, er, a “monster.” Two serious job complaints in the span of four years is odd; the fact that she wanted a fellowship to Harvard as part of her deal with the INS is suspicious; and Ace is right that her objection to a mundane “men and women are like computers” chain e-mail as part of an unrelated work complaint makes it sound like she’s taken a kitchen-sink approach to these things. But if she’s a serial complainer looking to shake down her bosses, where are the complaints before 1999 and since 2003, while she’s been working for the IRS and the Treasury Department? Surely someone must have looked at her askance once over the past eight years; why didn’t she try to wring a few vacation days out of that if this is her M.O.? Or has the media simply not found those complaints yet?

Food for thought as we gear up for debate night. Over at Rasmussen, 51 percent say it’s at least somewhat likely that the charges against Cain are serious and true.

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 have been stating the same thing here on Hot Air for days now. This is a threat to the progressive left’s orthodoxy.

Dr Evil

Good call.

xblade on November 9, 2011 at 8:36 PM

I Googled it, but what the heck’s a labia sebucula? Does it have anything to do with the penisaurus rex?

petefrt on November 9, 2011 at 8:28 PM

Far Worse

gh on November 9, 2011 at 8:50 PM

Gotta’ be something goin’ on there that it produces just so many grand demands on the resources of others. I mean, I’m flabberghasted that the demand for a year at Harvard came into the list of demands by the K-person for being denied working at home. Did she also demand a diamond tiara and an island in the Caribbean?

Lourdes on November 9, 2011 at 8:07 PM


I would’ve demanded for the golden goose.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRTkCHE1sS4

Demosthenes on November 9, 2011 at 8:54 PM

This is a threat to the progressive left’s orthodoxy.

Dr Evil

Be that as it may … who in the “progressive left” had the foresight to arrange four charges of sexual harassment over 10 years ago? And who is pushing this now?

Jaibones on November 9, 2011 at 8:54 PM

Not like Cain hasn’t displayed a pattern of lying …

“I didn’t know about any settlement and I hope it wasn’t much because I didn’t do anything.”

“Oh yeah – I knew about the settlement and it was only three months pay – maybe two months.” (Turns out to have been a year)

HondaV65 on November 9, 2011 at 7:15 PM

You are an insatiable liar. The second statement is not his words, and you know it. He has never said he knew about the settlement before he stated he hadn’t.

MadisonConservative on November 9, 2011 at 8:56 PM

One could also say the same of Cain: In 30+ years of various industries and business it’s only with the NRA that he’s had trouble? If he’s a harasser, there should be people from other places.

kim roy on November 9, 2011 at 7:06 PM

As Ann Coulter says, it’s the Chicago connection. Digging up old dirt is Axelrod’s specialty.

Sleaze ‘R’ Us.

disa on November 9, 2011 at 8:59 PM

Read Anne Coulter’s great column…hmmmm

d1carter on November 9, 2011 at 7:11 PM

And oh, there’s a Chicago angle worth posting:

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-11-09.html

Seems like David Axelrod and his crew have been up to their dirty tricks.

milemarker2020 on November 9, 2011 at 7:11 PM

Thanks for the heads up on this article.

Allah, I think this is worth posting in an update or at least the headlines. (not that I want to tell you how to do your job. lol)

Excerpts:

Suspicions had already fallen on Sheila O’Grady, who is close with David Axelrod and went straight from being former Chicago mayor Richard M. Daley’s chief of staff to president of the Illinois Restaurant Association (IRA), as being the person who dug up Herman Cain’s personnel records from the National Restaurant Association (NRA).

The Daley-controlled IRA works hand-in-glove with the NRA. And strangely enough, Cain’s short, three-year tenure at the NRA is evidently the only period in his decades-long career during which he’s alleged to have been a sexual predator.

After O’Grady’s name surfaced in connection with the miraculous appearance of Cain’s personnel files from the NRA, she issued a Clintonesque denial of any involvement in producing them — by vigorously denying that she knew Cain when he was at the NRA. (Duh.)

And now, after a week of conservative eye-rolling over unspecified, anonymous accusations against Cain, we’ve suddenly got very specific sexual assault allegations from an all-new accuser out of … Chicago.

Herman Cain has never lived in Chicago. But you know who has? David Axelrod! And guess who lived in Axelrod’s very building? Right again: Cain’s latest accuser, Sharon Bialek. . . .

David Axelrod pulled sealed divorce records out of a hat, first, against Obama’s Democratic primary opponent, and then against Obama’s Republican opponent.

One month before the 2004 Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate, Obama was way down in the polls, about to lose to Blair Hull, a multimillionaire securities trader.

But then The Chicago Tribune — where Axelrod used to work — began publishing claims that Hull’s second ex-wife, Brenda Sexton, had sought an order of protection against him during their 1998 divorce proceedings.

From then until Election Day, Hull was embroiled in fighting the allegation that he was a “wife beater.” He and his ex-wife eventually agreed to release their sealed divorce records. His first ex-wife, daughters and nanny defended him at a press conference, swearing he was never violent. During a Democratic debate, Hull was forced to explain that his wife kicked him and he had merely kicked her back. . . .

Luckily for Axelrod, Obama’s opponent in the general election had also been divorced. . . .

In 2007, long after Obama was safely ensconced in the U.S. Senate, The New York Times reported: “The Tribune reporter who wrote the original piece (on Hull’s sealed divorce records) later acknowledged in print that the Obama camp had ‘worked aggressively behind the scenes’ to push the story.”

Some had suggested, the Times article continued, that Axelrod had “an even more significant role — that he leaked the initial story.”

This time, Obama’s little helpers have not only thrown a bomb into the Republican primary, but are hoping to destroy the man who deprives the Democrats of their only argument in 2012: If you oppose Obama, you must be a racist.

Elisa on November 9, 2011 at 9:17 PM

Listening to this debate and I can’t believe that we are going to let Cain be tarnished and dismissed by the powers that be in Washington and in the media.

Elisa on November 9, 2011 at 9:19 PM

Can someone explain to me how one accuser having money problems and another filing a job complaint against another employer vindicates Cain?
TheRightMan

Can someone explain to me how one accuser having money problems
Her money problems point to a character flaw. I assume when she took out loans she signed something that she would pay it back…She lied.
She has offered no evidence to support her claim and her claim is ridiculous on the face. 8 months of employment at the Chicago NRA and she struck up a relationship with the CEO of the NRA who works in DC? This reeks of BS! Her allegation is an attempted rape, why didn’t she call the cops? She waits 14 years to come forward cuz she doesn’t want this to happen to some other woman?
I may have been born in the dark but it wasn’t last night

and another filing a job complaint against another employer vindicates Cain?

This is called a pattern. Looks like she is a serial accuser. What flags might a serial accuser pop? Didn’t file with the EEOC!
Does this prove Cain didn’t do this? No but it does give strong doubt to the character of the accusers

DSchoen on November 9, 2011 at 9:45 PM

To add to the list:

ATLANTA (CBS ATLANTA) -
Private investigator TJ Ward said presidential hopeful Herman Cain was not lying at a news conference on Tuesday in Phoenix . . .

. . . The software analyzes the stress level and other factors in your voice. During the speech, when Cain denied the claims, the lie detector read “low risk.” According to Ward, that means Cain is telling the truth.

geckomon on November 9, 2011 at 10:10 PM

National Review: Bialek May Be in Financial Difficulties

Sharon Bialek’s fiance — who said he is her primary source of financial support — is unemployed and preparing to file for bankruptcy, according to Lake County court documents reviewed Tuesday by the Tribune. And in Cook County, lawsuits show she has been targeted by creditors who claimed she owed them thousands in unpaid rent, personal loans and credit card bills.

In a round of TV interviews, Bialek, 50, said she had no financial reasons for coming forward and had not been promised a job in exchange for accusing Cain of groping her in a parked car 14 years ago. She sought to downplay past financial problems

This has Axelrod’s sleaze all over it.

tetriskid on November 9, 2011 at 10:13 PM

I read yesterday that Sharon Bialek was fired by the NRA after working for them only 6 months because she falsely accused a co-worker of sexual harrassment. Is that true?

gracie on November 9, 2011 at 10:44 PM

Food for thought as we gear up for debate night. Over at Rasmussen, 51 percent say it’s at least somewhat likely that the charges against Cain are serious and true.

And how much of that is because we turned on our own guy? I don’t expect Cain to be treated differently, and some of the criticisms about his gaffes were valid, but I do expect him to be treated fairly. He never got the benefit of the doubt here. Too bad. For once we have a GOP candidate who doesn’t stink of politics, and this is how we bury him. I’m not really loving my side right now.

MisterPundit on November 9, 2011 at 10:48 PM

Listening to this debate and I can’t believe that we are going to let Cain be tarnished and dismissed by the powers that be in Washington and in the media.

Elisa on November 9, 2011 at 9:19 PM

Not I.

And Cain has a lot of supportersw. They better come forward that the several people that accused him of all this. This could backfire in a big way.

Give me further proof otherwise let us move on……

MikeM on November 9, 2011 at 10:55 PM

And how much of that is because we turned on our own guy? I don’t expect Cain to be treated differently, and some of the criticisms about his gaffes were valid, but I do expect him to be treated fairly. He never got the benefit of the doubt here. Too bad. For once we have a GOP candidate who doesn’t stink of politics, and this is how we bury him. I’m not really loving my side right now.

MisterPundit on November 9, 2011 at 10:48 PM

Well said.

Cain did well at the debate tonight as did Romney and Newt. I think it will be a decision between the three. Perry was doing fine until he forgot the third department. Sigh. I could still vote for him EASILY over Obama but geez, the media is going to feed on this almost as much as the Cain allegations. This will be tough for Perry and this is another case of the media driving the agenda.

MikeM on November 10, 2011 at 1:31 AM

Investigator: Herman Cain innocent of sexual advances

Knucklehead on November 9, 2011 at 11:23 PM

Yeah, that’s pretty interesting.

I wonder about this part, though:

“I don’t think she is fabricating her meetings,” said Ward. But, she is fabricating what transpired.”

That was always the question in my mind. Was he actually in this situation, but Bialek has fabricated the sexually aggressive part? Cain’s saying it never even happened.

At this point I’m going to conclude he’s telling the truth unless these women have something concrete to put forward, details that can be corroborated. That K lady asking for a Harvard fellowship is the biggest red flag imaginable.

I still think the response of his team as a whole to this mess can at best be described as flailing, though.

TexasDan on November 10, 2011 at 11:20 AM

geckomon on November 9, 2011 at 10:10 PM
Darn you , I just found that same article.

ColdWarrior57 on November 10, 2011 at 12:01 PM

Investigator: Herman Cain innocent of sexual advances

Knucklehead on November 9, 2011 at 11:23 PM

Very interesting . . . it will obviously not be dispositive for many, mind you.

TexasDan on November 10, 2011 at 11:20 AM

But this a strong plus for a guy who is now being confronted with allegations about “actions”, ones that all supposedly took place well over a decade ago, and where NONE of those allegations were ever tested in a court of law.

Not one single one of them.

Actually, this was the part of the article that I found most interesting:

Regarding

. . . Bialek’s news conference where she says, “He suddenly reached over put his hand on my leg under my skirt and reached for my genitals he also grabbed my head brought it towards his crotch.”

During the analysis of that section the software said “high risk statement.” Ward said that means she is not telling the truth about what happened.

“I don’t think she is fabricating her meetings,” said Ward. But, she is fabricating what transpired.”

Of course, we’ll never really know. The fact is that no court of law today would ever entertain a test of these johnny-come-lately charges.

And for good reason. Any one of them could have had their day in court back then, and not one single one of them chose to do so.

Trochilus on November 10, 2011 at 12:59 PM

We Americans are at risk of losing a grip on a basic tenet of what we have proudly held out to the world as the keystone of our respect for the individual . . . that we believe no one should be railroaded based on untested and highly suspicious allegations.

I have not been a Herman Cain supporter, though I would certainly support him strongly if he became the nominee.

But none of us should stand aside and watch this disgrace take place . . . Democrat, Republican, Independent, or whatever . . . every single one of us should recognize that if we were suddenly confronted with these kinds of highly suspicious and politically motivated allegations, all dredged up from a dim and unprovable past, that our initial reactions would be blanket denial and to naturally try and to strike out and blame the attack on those who obviously have something very big to gain.

We all remember the dishonest 60 Minutes presentation of the ginned up document fabrications regarding former President Bush back in 2004. John Kerry was losing the race and he and his campaign convinced Dan Rather to air bogus documents in a desperate attempt to undermine the Bush reelection campaign.

So, my own sense is that while Mark Block obviously erred in initially blaming Perry, and certainly in making the mistaken Kraushaar connection, that does not somehow concede the central issue — i.e., whether Herman Cain ever did any of this. Mark Block should personally apologize, and step aside for the sake of the candidate.

To me, the core of this attempted character assassination comes down to one very basic point: No court of law would ever entertain any form of “test” of any of these specific allegations today. And, they would refuse to do so for several reasons, but primarily because the charges are so thin and far out of time!

Yet, some are saying that Herman Cain has to respond to the allegations, by which they really mean he has to prove them false! That is asking him to somehow prove a negative in a media scrum, prompted by a Politico driven (91 stories in one week) assault. It is asking for the impossible.

We are witnessing a political lynch mob at work.

Neither “she said — he said” nor “maybe — maybe not” have ever been a legitimate basis on which reasonable people make fair judgments regarding such unprovable, suspicious, and out-of-time allegations.

And none of us should give in to temptation to do so for the sake of a momentary political advantage.

Trochilus on November 10, 2011 at 1:23 PM

Over at Rasmussen, 51 percent say it’s at least somewhat likely that the charges against Cain are serious and true.

Wait until the dust settles. Things change when you can see.

maverick muse on November 10, 2011 at 2:33 PM

Listening to this debate and I can’t believe that we are going to let Cain be tarnished and dismissed by the powers that be in Washington and in the media.

Elisa on November 9, 2011 at 9:19 PM

Here is the reason that he is being attacked.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/282765/real-cain-scandal-thomas-sowell
great article short and to the point!

ColdWarrior57 on November 10, 2011 at 7:57 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3