Should we trust Cain?

It is a felony to pay someone to break such a contract. The person(s) could enjoy jail time if they went against the non-disclosure. This is also called bribery.

The latter scenario is good if the people listed were making these claims recently, are able to reveal who they are, and there is evidence of collaboration. In fact, they have more to lose over this situation than they have to gain. First, the two women cannot say anything for fear of lawsuit, the fact that they reported this over 12 years ago shows they were not trying to make it an issue today. They were brought into this after an investigation, but they have not denied it either. The third lady has had her testimony verified by employees of the NRA who said she complained to them at the time. She wishes to remain anonymous but her story has been collaborated by others she worked with. Thus, the three ladies had stated things back then because they saw it as an issue. The news reports is what made it an issue today.

Thirdly, the political consultant could only lose clout and be lampooned for not staying quiet. The unwritten rule is that you do not out a previous candidate. While he was not a candidate at the time, this may not have been a great move. Some want to link him to the Perry campaign. This is a stretch.

Fourthly, the radio broadcaster has nothing to lose or gain. He is a conservative and while ratings may be an issue, I doubt it.

Fifthly, the Cain campaign accused Perry's campaign of this leak due to another person in their campaign that they thought leaked the information. This seems to bring another person into the fray. He has not said one way or the other anything about this, but it appears there could be more people with knowledge.

On the other hand, Cain could release his birth certificate... oops, I mean all the documents. He could release the women who are making the accusations to tell their side of the story. Yet, he doesn't and his campaign says they do not want to release all the information. To me, it does not appear that the five people have as much to hide as Cain. When his own staff is saying they are against release of all the information,

 

In the presence of two or three witnesses... that is the evidence plus Cain's slander in slandering people as racists. I think there is other evidence, but the personal testimony is overwhelming.

 

Really, the three women did not come forward until after the report, and they had complained 12 years ago about this issue. They also did not say anything during Cain's Senate run. This only came about through factual reporting of the problems. One complainer is a radio broadcaster, does not need fame. Another is a political consultant, he doesn't want the fame.

 

Let us also note, I believe only one person accusing him needs to be telling the truth. Four out of the five could be lying, but if one person is truthful then I think Cain has some serious problems. Do I think all five are lying? No! Could one? Yes! Two? Yes! Three? Probably not. Four? I seriously doubt it. Five? Highly unlikely.

Do I think Cain could be lying? Yes! He is one person.

BTW, Cain says there is a report coming out that will vindicate him. I am interested in knowing what that report is. To me, it will have to be big.

 

I would not be specific, but if it were inappropriate I would say it was. Discretion is key here.

 

First, he is not going to be proven innocent. If he is, I will recant. However, considering the allegation originally made was on the same night she was sexually harassed by Cain. That is not someone looking for a lawsuit, that is someone who goes directly to the board immediately to complain despite being in fear of her job. When Clinton had less evidence against him, I was on the fence but believed him guilty. Thus, when the evidence did come out I was justified. We have 10 times more evidence than we had against Clinton before the dress and yet no Republican was supporting Clinton.

As well, as noted, I only have to have one accurate person. You have to discount five people now. As well, I already contend that he has slandered people for this. That alone is enough to reject him. We don't need another Clinton.

 

From a practical basis, does anyone actually think that he has any chance of beating Obama after all this?

Personally, most people I have talked to around here who normally vote for Republicans, would not vote for him now.

Does anyone think he will actually win? I doubted it before this scandal, I seriously doubt it now.

 

It is five, now six people against Cain. So it is more than "he said, she said." It is "she said, she said, she said, she said, he said, he said against he said."

Secondly, would you agree that he slandered the Perry Campaign, those who reported this, and many of us by calling us racists? Isn't this slander by Cain?

 

Huge difference, Nixon would not be able to win in this political climate. And, as an incumbent Nixon had name recognition, Cain does not. The first thing people will know about Cain are these allegations.