Should we trust Cain?

I have to wonder what Ruiz's motivation for his fervent prejudgment, despite evidence and reason, of Herman Cain is.

 

A lot has been posted so rather than quote others and respond individually, I’ll try to address it all in one post.

As to paying the women to break the ND agreement being a felony, I was presuming the payer would not hold a press conference and hand over a gigantic prop check! Of course the money would be paid under the table.

As to the idea of Cain releasing the documents related to the case, it presumes that he has documents and anyway, releasing documents is not in Cain’s best interest EVEN IF IT SHOWS his innocence. The Cain campaign dearly wants this issue to go away and releasing documents is not the way to go about this.

The radio talk show host has only said Cain behavior, “was inappropriate and awkward” and it “crossed personal boundaries.” Notice that “sexual harassment” was not a term that was used.

Chris Wilson, the pollster for the NRA who says Cain sexually harassed a young woman at a Virginia restaurant is having his story contradicted by another source. Wilson claimed that “everybody at the restaurant was aware of it.“ The source says “I did not see a lech” and “did not see him do anything inappropriate” and added that he never heard anyone discuss anything that may have been inappropriate. He said there were six people at the Ruth Chris Steak House that night.

Allegations were confirmed? Allegations by their very nature do not need to be confirmed!

Faulty logic. Settlements do not indicate the seriousness of the charges only that the person(s) being charged don’t want to proceed with a legal fight.

Yes, left after they received the settlements.

Could you provide me with a link that says the conservative talk show host said Cain said “sexual things”? Because I haven’t seen that.

And another staff member has said that he didn’t witness anything inappropriate by Cain that night at Ruth Chris’.

Yes, she said that since one of her co-workers had already filed, she figured she didn’t need to do so. Makes you wonder how offended and uncomfortable she (allegedly) was.

And there are more and more witnesses that find the allegations incredulous. Meanwhile, another woman who worked with Cain at the restaurant association, said, “I found him to be a good boss.” Christina Howard, a former lobbyist for the association, said, “I felt no problem going into his office and asking for his advice.”
She said she didn’t recall allegations about Cain during his tenure and added, “I’d roll my eyes at anyone who would make that allegation.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...tion-fight/2011/11/02/gIQAg8MheM_story_1.html

Ruiz’ comment that sexual harassment is “like rape” and therefore these women should not have to come forward is absurd. Notice that I am not objecting to their privacy, I think they should have it, but to compare their reluctance to coming forward to the reluctance of women who have been raped to come forward is an insult to rape victims, IMO.

 

Actually ITL, even if it rises to the level of a felony (although I've never heard of a felony of disclosure, sounds more like a civil infraction) there are mitigating circumstances. The possible slander and libel (because of electronic media both probably apply) constitute a possible defamation of character against Herman Cain which would eclipse a disclosure breach.

Are there any lawyers or law students out there?

What is your judgment?

A Post Script. when there is a subjective "crossing of boundaries" there can be no sexual harassment charge made until 1) the offendee warns the offendor of his/her displeasure at least once and 2) The act is repeated.

Having been a corporate board of director member in my life time, we had to make collective corporate judgments against employees concerning these kinds of situations.

ANY term of endearment such as "sweetie" or "dear" or "honey" or act of endearment such as a hug whether innocent or flirtatious by either gender can be a "Crossing of Boundaries". In fact any act of uninvited physical contact can constitute an offense.

Once warned you may never use the term or act of endearment again without the offended's permission (which occasionally happens).

We need to see the documentation.

Thanks
HankD

 

Political theater. Crooks calling crooks a crook so they won't look like the biggest crook.

Haven't y'all seen this enough now to recognize it for what it is?

 

My point is that "inappropriate behavior" and "crossed personal boundaries" is not necessarily sexual harassment, not necessarily a crime. It could be that Cain did something uncouth and/or moronic with no sexual overtones at all.

I don't believe I have attacked Politico.

I agree the number of people making accusations is a problem for Cain.

I'm not calling them liars. NNE outside of Cain and the women actually know what happened. Until we hear what actually happened it's impossible to take sides.

I agree the number of people making accusations is a problem for Cain.

Objection. Conjecture.

I would say he's an incompetent campaigner for political office.

In cases like this, the definition of words are important.

Same city, same steak house, same number of people attending. I'd say it was the same date.

Well sure. Is a woman going to file a sexual harassment case if a co-worker says, "Did you do something with your hair? It looks great." or "That perfume is very nice."? Now, if someone were to say, "Why don't we sneak back to my place and do the nasty in the shower" I'd say the woman had better file harassment charges. This is why it's very important to know exactly what happened and/or what was said.

Being hit on by a man is NOT the same thing as sexual abuse or rape. I can't believe you can even use the two terms in the same paragraph.

 

So what are we hearing now?

That the Restaurant Association has released this woman from the nondisclosure agreement and she is free to talk...

And her response is...

"I don't want to discuss the details."

This is priceless !!!

So Ruiz, what does that tell you?

 

Greed of the alleged victim. They took the money (and not much, either) and were silent afterward. That is until Cain became nationally recognized.

 

Others have, and I see no need to repeat them.

 

Five will get you ten it doesn't matter to him.

 

You are still wrong. To protect the innocent there has to be openness. This man says that this did not happen so they need to come out and show it did. It is not enough to make the accusations. If they do not come out they should be sued by him in open court for slander.

 

It tells me it was fake smoke.

 

Politico has published about 90 stories on Cain. Their infatuation of him shows their fear of him.