Should we trust Cain?

And you have come to an unshakable position that he can do no wrong and he is right despite five different people and his slander. You have nothing to rely upon but his own word. You would believe him than five others.

Politics is strange, people will believe a politician despite the number of people who come forward.

I supported Clarence Thomas during Anita Hill and would do so again. I initially believed Cain, but not after all this other stuff has come out.

Do you really believe 5 people are lying and Cain is the only one telling the truth?

 

If I had 5 different people make accusations against me like that against Cain, and brought them to the Elders of my church... I would be more critical of my Elders for not taking it serious than I would be of my Elders if they investigated the claims.

If I slandered the accusers saying it was because I am "Hispanic", I would hope they would slap me in the face and tell me that my statements were uncalled for.

So, if I had the same standards given to my elders, or if I were an Elder hearing the same case, I would take it more serious. In fact, I would probably pull you from all ministry duties and may issue a requirement that you abstain from the Lord's Supper until such a time as we could investigate more or get a more full statement.

In your case, would you let the person go free and stand by this person if five people made similar accusations?

 

The most recent is blaming Perry. But he and the irrational Rush and Sean have blamed the media. He recently said it was a racist attack.

Personally, I would find it hard to believe that Obama will do less in exploiting this than has been done in the media. Rather, I am sure they will make sure this gets more air time in a year than it has today.

 

First, two of the three ladies cannot talk about the accusations. There was a settlement with them totaling $80,000.00. They can't talk due to the package, however, one wants to communicate to the media and has not been afforded this right.

The third lady said that Cain made sexual innuendos and gestures towards her and invited her to him corporate apartment. Again, very disturbing and very specific.

Chris Wilson's statement is very condemning. He said he witnessed these issues.

Five different statements by five different people. BTW, I have been involved in an investigation into sexual harrasment (I was not being investigated). I have a hard time believing they would settle for $35 and $45 thousand if it was utterly baseless.

On the other side, Cain has accused those against him as being motivated by race, falsely accused the Perry Campaign of leaking this information, have bashed the individuals making this statement, yelled at reporters, blamed the media for the reports, etc...

What I see are five different people testifying to his character. Five different people who believe these issues were important enough to file a complaint, go public, or express their concerns. Can one lie? Yes! Can two lie? Yes! However, I have a hard time thinking all five are lying.

Now, as for the Matthew verse. First, Cain's attitude and response since has been horrible. If he had not done this, he has lied to us since this issue has come to the forefront and attacked the reporters and not dealt with the issue. To me, his response alone eliminates him from my list. Secondly, Cain is not holy, Jesus was. If they are lying then they should be sued for defamation of character. However, if Cain is lying through his attacks on these others, he too should be sued for defamation.

If I had to trust five different reports from five totally different people against one person, I would trust the five. They have not changed their testimony, no so much with Herman Cain who has changed his countless times the last few days.

Innocent until proven guilty is a court of law issue. For me, it is his character that I believe is in question. If the same things were brought to me about one of our Elders, I would ask him to step down until we could resolve this issue.

 

Richard Land weighs in on this situation:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/67537.html

I think he is correct, he should release all available information.

 

Christian Science Monitor is reporting that the Cain Campaign does not want the women who alleged the sexual harassment to be allowed to speak.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Electi...rman-Cain-getting-good-advice-on-his-campaign

Here is the notation in the article:

The campaign is going against Richard Land, who even says they need to have everything released to get it behind you.

The campaign admits that they don't want the other side of the story to be told.

 

I have noted those in other posts here. He said that he observed Cain, for instance, engaged in innappropriate behavior with females in a hotel in Northern Virginia. The nature this was inappropriate sexual conduct. He did not specify the nature of this contact, however, he is collaborating the other accusations and he believes Cain's behavior was not good at all, supporting allegations from the other women.

 

I don't know why someone would trust him. Personally, I have found nothing in his responses that evoke trust from us.

 

I have never read his biography, I did read Obama's for a theological inquiry. These are put out by political experts who write novels to make money and to get you to trust him. Is he the kind of person who would slander people in the media, calling them racists just because this information is released? Is one to slander the Perry campaign with little or no evidence? Is he the kind of person who is trying to make sure the women who accused him can never say anything about this event? This is his character.

Sorry, I don't trust someone's own biographical work as telling the entire story, or even a part of the story. Nor do I trust all the story in this issue has been told. However, I know there are five witnesses to separate events, there have been a number of others who collaborate stories of the five, and this is not a recent "new finding" but an issue that was around for a long time.

The question is, do you trust him over five different people who do not have political operatives around then to try to make them look good, to write their life story, and the like? These should be taken seriously. We may not know the entire story, but by the witness of five people, I cannot trust Cain at this point. I agree with Richard Land, the only way to get around this is to have full disclosure. That is something, though, the Cain camp says they do not want to happen.