Should we trust Cain?

Targus,

These issues are two different issues. I did not demand an investigation for McCain when the New York Times insinuated McCain had an affair in the last month. Why? The differences are apparent in both of these instances. Here is why I am calling for full disclosure and why I think he should step down.

1. Cain admits there were sexual harassment allegations. Thus the allegations are confirmed.
2. Cain admits there were settlements. Thus, the charges were serious.
3. The initial two women said they were harassed at the time, filed a complaint, and left.

Yet, even there I did not call for anything. My comments on this was that we should believe Cain. But since then the following occurred.

4. A conservative talk show host says that Cain said some very inappropriate and sexual things towards his staff.
5. A staff member of the NRA has come forward claiming he witnessed sexual harassment by Cain.
6. A third woman has come forward and claimed she has been sexually harassed. An investigation reveals she complained at the time but never filed an official complaint.
7. There have been others who confirm they witnessed sexual harassment behavior.

Thus, I would not call for a complete investigation on Obama because at this point, the evidence is much less. I didn't call for it against McCain because it was unverified allegations. In this case, the allegations have been proven to have been made, substantiated by other people, and other statements collaborate the other stories. I didn't call for anything when just two women came forward, I said I believed Cain. Now, it is much more than two women who filed charges over 12 years ago, there is a series of allegations from a variety of sources that date back to the very night he harassed a lady.

Thus, I believe it shows a character issue.

BTW, I don't think Obama is qualified to be President for other reasons. But that is another issue.

 

I don't like Perry.

I have been on an investigation of a sexual harassment case. Based upon this evidence, we would have acted on any employee. You never get complete evidence, but you get testimonies and actions. If this was brought before me when I was in management, we would have deemed the person guilty and fired them. One allegation is significant, but five different people?

Yes, they are anonymous, but you must admit that two of them are so to us because they filed a non-anonymous complaint and settled. They can't come out in the public. Two men are not anonymous. The final lady is anonymous. Thus, you can't trust that since you don't know them that it doesn't mean they are not known. That is a fallacy of your argument.

 

He does not have complete authority, but oftentimes they will not release the information because of the impact it will have on the company. This would be a legal liability for the NRA if Cain wanted to sue them. So, I assume that part of the problem with the NRA is fear of repercussions from Cain on this situation. He has threatened to sue Politico over factual statements made by them (and he said they were true) so, unless the NRA gets a release from Cain, they probably would be reluctant to release any information.

 

First, I have never been accused. We have had very strict rules for when I was in the ministry.

Secondly, this is not one person accusing Cain. There are over 5 people now who have come forward and said that they have witnessed or been the recipient of sexual harassment from Cain. Three complained at the time, one the night of the incident.

If five people brought a complaint of this nature about any of our Pastors, I would strongly investigate and we would ask him to step down with pay while we investigate fully the situation. If it were one person, we may or may not ask, but five different people is rather convincing.

 

No, there are plenty of specific allegations. There were two settlements over specific allegations. One man said he witnessed sexual harassment behavior from Cain. Another lady was given sexual innuendos and asked to join Cain in his Corporate apartment. That is very specific. If my Pastor asked a lady in our congregation to join him in his apartment, there is a problem. One lady testified that she felt that if she didn't perform that her job was at stake. That is very specific.

Yet, sexual harassment behavior does not even have to be that specific. The law makes it much more broad than these allegations actually need to be.

 

Hank,

The problem here is that two of the victims have come forward and faced Cain, over 12 years ago. They are anonymous to us, but they have faced Cain at the time. Like with rape victims, the media is right to protect these victim's identity. However, they addressed it at the time (not being anonymous) and received a settlement. Because they are anonymous to you, does not mean they have hidden from Cain. Two people are not anonymous to us, we know their names. One is a talk radio host. One is involved in politics. Both came forward publicly with their accusations.

There is only one truly anonymous victim. Yet, even the media found that she complained of Cain's actions at the time, but never filed a formal complaint.

Thus, the anonymous issue is a talking point, but not a good one. While the public does not know their names, they are not anonymous. Like a rape victim, we should not publicize their name. That would be a gross injustice in our system and one that I would not want to put any victim through.

 

Let me address two of the "talking points" being advanced.

1. These are anonymous charges. No they are not. Two women filed and are known to Cain and the people they filed to as well as the investigators. They are not anonymous, but are known and have a settlement. They are not known to the public, but they came forward and Cain knows who they are. Two men are not anonymous, they have been interviewed by the media. One lady is anonymous, but she complained at the time to people but never filed official charges. The anonymous charge is bogus.

2. They should come forward and make themselves known. No they should not. Like rape, they should have the right to not be known worldwide as a result of a jerk's indiscretions and immoral habits. I knew a rape victim whose name was published in a newspaper. This is a horrendous overstepping of the media and should not be done. Only if these ladies' accusation are proven false or they allow the release of their names would I be for this. This has been the standard policy of media since the 1980's, and it should remain as such. Those who advocate otherwise truly do not have compassion for the intimate nature of these charges the the victims' plight.

Thus, these are not anonymous charges (I suspect someone in talk radio is saying this) and these women should be afforded privacy as they are victims of a sexual crime.

 

The first two women have not come forward, yet. They came forward back then, and that is what is being reported. Secondly, they are not anonymous either. Their names should be with held from the public, but not from investigators.

I worked with an issue where a person in a church was accused of molesting a minor. Never did we give anyone the name of the minor and after the investigation, the man was kicked out of the church and now sits in jail. To this day, only a few people know the identity of the victim, even though they are the ones who went to the Elders. We felt she had a right to privacy and after further investigation, her story proved to be true. This situation is very much the same. While this is not a minor, the general public does not need to know that lady "X" may have been groped. This will do as much to hurt their character as it would Cain's.

If we required them to become public, there would be much fewer allegations and more offenders would walk free being able to offend others. We should only require enough to investigate fully, not enough for the entire world to know the identity.

Yet, the myth that this is anonymous charges is false. They are known, just not known to the general public. I would fight for their privacy.

However, let me note that Cain's campaign is the one who said they are trying to keep these women from testifying. I think I posted a link to that story elsewhere. So, I do not think Cain wants full disclosure. For that reason, arguing you want them public but to be kept silent is only to attack and defame these ladies.

 

The public does not have the right to know the identity of victims who were sexually harassed. This is an ethics question and ethically, I think the media and public have been near unanimous that the rights of the victim takes precedence over the "need" for the public to know their names. You are wanting to change the entire ethics and the way we handle victims in America. They have faced Cain publicly, over 12 years ago. Doing it now is rehashing what they handled back then.

Secondly, they are not anonymous. They are known, but not by the public. BTW, two of them can't be known because of agreements signed by them and the NRA. Cain said he is opposed to us getting more information on them. So, he seems to be hiding things.

Finally, two of them we do know their names and they have made their statements public. So, what do you do about those two? People are discounting these testimonies and ignoring them as though they have not been made. Yet, they are public testimonies and we have the names of the people and the allegations. Why are you ignoring their testimony?

You see, I think this "anonymous" is just smoke and mirrors. We have two testimonies where they are not anonymous. You are just ignoring them. You see, if they came out into the public, you would find another reason not to believe them. So, that is just smoke and mirrors. Did you believe Anita Hill against Thomas? You see, these are just smoke and mirrors in my opinion. We have two public testimonies and yet you are still saying "I won't believe until they are not anonymous." Yet, you never address the two people we do know. Oh, you will probably attack those two who have went public, but that is to be expected.