Posted on 11/05/2011 2:38:47 AM PDT by Cardhu
The attorney for one of the women who accused Herman Cain of sexual harassment said Friday that “a series of inappropriate behaviors and unwanted advances” spanning months led his client to take action. He also challenged the presidential contender’s credibility in claiming not to recall details about the incidents or her allegations.
The late-day news conference by lawyer Joel P. Bennett offered the most details to date of a scandal that has consumed Washington and the race for the Republican nomination for the past week. His account contrasts with comments made by Cain, who initially disputed the allegations but later said he recalled a single incident while he was head of the National Restaurant Association in which he compared a female subordinate’s height to that of his wife.
“Mr. Cain knows the specific incidents that were alleged,” Bennett said. “My client filed a written complaint in 1999 against him specifically. It had very specific incidents in it. If he chooses not to remember or acknowledge those, that’s his issue.”
The restaurant association also released a statement Friday confirming that it had agreed to the settlement with Bennett’s client in September 1999 “without any admission of liability.” The statement noted that Cain had denied the allegations at the time and was not a party to the settlement. The statement also said the association has waived a confidentiality requirement, giving Bennett’s client permission to speak about the allegations. Bennett said his client, who has been married for 26 years, does not plan to do so.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Here’s why Herman Cain will survive. The Left is trying to make the Koch brothers radioactive to conservative candidates. Here’s how Cain handles it (from deeper in the article):
“I’m very proud to know the Koch brothers,” Cain said. “They make it sound like we’ve had time to go fishing together, hunting together, skiing together, golfing together. But just so I can clarify this for the media — “
Aside: Okay, it sounds like he’s ready to go defensive here, right? Instead, he says”
“This may be a breaking news announcement for the media — I am the Koch brothers’ brother from another mother.”
And suddenly the Koch brothers are no longer a problem...sheer genius, and no Washington insider could possibly have come up with it. They wouldn’t have dared, just like they wouldn’t have had the guts to run the smoking ad.
Bennett failed to mention all the many women who never contacted him for fear of retribution. Add them to the mix, and the case against Herman Cain is simply overwhelming!
there are lies and there are damn lies and that’s a damn lie.
Nobody supported this when it first came out.
I am a Perry supporter and if you want to look at the very first thread ever put up on Free Republic about this story you will find me there, defending Cain and saying that this is bogus.
Show me a Perry supporter who immediately believed this about Cain.
the people who are a little disappointed with Cain now are not necessarily Perry supporters, but are people who have serious doubts about the way Cain and his campaign manager have handled this.
“She” did not bring it up. Politico brought it up.
That's all that is needed....ask any 100 people and a majority will probably tell you that "Cain sexually assaulted at least three women"
It's a high tech lynching. Just like what was done to Clarence Thomas, Sara Palin and many other true conservatives. Of course it's obvious.
Who is doing it? Does it really matter? It's either a RINO, or a Liberal.
And we have no proof of who it is. And no one is doing much digging to find out—so much easier to point fingers and call names.
I see you remember every detail of your story.
I also remember every detail of something that happened to me in the workplace many years ago. It’s a funny story and I may tell it some time.
But the fact that our memories are so sharp about these things makes me tend to believe it’s odd that Mr. Cain cannot recall the incidents.
If someone says something bad about you, you go over it in your mind, wondering if you did anything wrong, wondering why the accuser thought you did, self-justifying.
In other words, you think long and hard about it.
Yet, Mr. Cain cannot recall.
Sykes has lost a regular listener (me) over this...he’s being tremendously irresponsible over his sneering contempt for the Cain candidacy.
And with this story at least, he seems to have different recollections as time passes. Changing stories remind me all too much of the Clinton machinations.
Well, Rush has temporarily lost a listener over this also.
I understand where he’s coming from. He loves Clarence Thomas who was similarly attacked. But that’s where the similarity ends and I don’t want to listen to 3 hours of a passionate defense of Cain.
But he hasn’t lost me. He’s still the greatest force for common sense and conservatism and I love him dearly.
I’ll be back when he’s back.
This politically correct hypersensitivity is too much. All one can do is stand still and (possibly) nod. Even then, you shouldn’t look at anyone. These hyper-ventilators are too much.
I don’t get to listen to Rush all that much, but I don’t believe he has expressed opinion about Perry one way or the other. Sykes is deliberately misleading his listeners because he has something against Mark Block.
The head of DuPont human resources called my director and they had a reprimand put in my personnel file.
I don't make small talk well. I try, but I really don't like hearing the sound of my own voice unless I have something important to say. All I was trying to do was attempt small talk.
My bet is that the Cain incidents could have been as trivial as mine.
I think Cain was kind of a benign predator — the mildest kind - never intending to hurt anyone or perhaps even actually do anything more than joking. Now maybe most any man can be described that way at times. But really good husbands would never even create that appearance. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.
Timeline:
Cain left his exec post at association June 30, 1999
Accuser filed her complaints sometime in July, 1999.
Cain is no longer at his exec job & has no access to company documents.
Company terminates accuser & writes her a severance check dated 9-9-1999.
I contend that whatever negotiations that occurred were handled by the attorneys & the insurance company & Cain truly does NOT have access to such documents.
Other execs were probably eager to get this toxic employee out of their company & were wondering how long it would be before she accused someone else of improper conduct ‘which made her uncomfortable’.
I have seen such employees in my lifetime as a bookkeeper. The company cannot get rid of them fast enough.
One woman, chastised for absences & late to work & longer than allowed lunch hours was given a 2 week notice instead of giving her a severance check for 2 weeks & immediately showing her the door. She worked for a magazine publisher. Early days of computers. She wiped out all the subscription lists of all the magazines that publisher printed. Then walked out the door with her check.
It took them weeks to restore all those lists.
I could never function in an environment like that. If trapped in one I would end up blowing everything up. Thank God for keeping me clear of that stuff.
Not 26 years ago. she filed charges in July, 1999——AFTER Cain left his exec job June 30, 1999.
One step away from accusing someone who is dead.
1999 to 2011 makes about 12 years, I think.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.