## Cain

Post by soka1 » Wed Nov 09, 2011 8:03 pm

An article again about his supposed sexual harassment:
One of the two women who settled sexual harassment claims against Herman Cain with the National Restaurant Association spoke publicly for the first time on Tuesday about her allegations against the Republican presidential candidate.
Moments later, a defiant Mr. Cain once again declared her allegations to have been found "baseless" and repeated his claim that his only offense against her was to have made a gesture about her height.
Mr. Cainâ€™s denials came in a nationally-televised news conference in which the embattled presidential candidate railed against a "Democrat machine" even as the latest accuser to come forward, Karen Kraushaar, joined Sharon Bialek in publicly discussing what they called Mr. Cainâ€™s inappropriate behavior.
Days after declaring he was moving on from the brewing controversy, Mr. Cain waded back in with an emphatic plea for decency from his long-time lawyer followed by a rambling defense of his own personal integrity and a condemnation of the media.
Anticipating calls fo end his presidential run, Mr. Cain declared that "ainâ€™t gonna happen because Iâ€™m doing this for the American people and for the children and the grandchildren. And I will not be deterred by false, anonymous, incorrect accusations."
Mr. Cain called the news conference to respond to Ms. Bialekâ€™s allegations, made in a dramatic news conference in New York City on Monday. But it started just minutes after one of his original accusers finally began to speak publicly about her experiences with him.
Ms. Kraushaar, a spokeswoman at the Treasury Department, said in an interview that she was upset that her name had leaked into some press reports. But she said she had decided to speak out now that her identity was publicly known.
â€œWhen you are being sexually harassed in the workplace, you are extremely vulnerable,â€ she said. â€œYou do whatever you can to quickly get yourself into a job someplace safe, and that is what I thought I had achieved when I left.â€
In an earlier statement, Mr. Cain said that he has no memory of Ms. Bialek, his latest accuser, even as his campaign began an outright assault on her credibility in advance of a news conference by the presidential candidate on Tuesday.
In an interview with ABC News, Mr. Cain said he did not recognize Ms. Bialek and does not remember having any interaction with her. He rejected all of her accusations saying: â€œI have never acted inappropriately with anyone. Period.â€
â€œI reject all of those charges,â€ Mr. Cain said. â€œHow can I defend charges when I donâ€™t remember this person by name?â€ He added a few minutes later, â€œI donâ€™t even know who this lady is.â€
But even as Mr. Cain denied knowing Ms. Bialek, his campaign sought to undermine her account by providing reporters with details of her background, saying that she had a â€œlong and troubledâ€ financial history that should call into question her allegations against him.
In an e-mail titled â€œWho is Sharon Bialek?â€ Mr. Cainâ€™s campaign says she has sought the public spotlight by making â€œpatently false allegationsâ€ against the Republican presidential candidate.
Mr. Cainâ€™s public comments, and his decision to schedule a news conference, was the latest twist in a lurching, unpredictable strategy from the Republican presidential candidate and his inexperienced, threadbare campaign staff, which consists mainly of a manager, a spokesman and the candidate.
His campaignâ€™s e-mail casts Ms. Bialek as a frequent job-hopper who has gone bankrupt twice and has what the campaign calls â€œa lengthy record in the Cook County court system.â€ The campaign lists her as the defendant in six lawsuits brought by companies and individuals.
â€œWhich brings up the question of why she would make such reprehensible statements now?â€ the e-mail says. â€œThe questions should be â€” who is financing her legal team, have any media agreed to pay for her story, and has she been offered employment for taking these actions.â€
In interviews on national television Tuesday morning, Ms. Bialek expressed little surprise at the criticism of her background.
â€œThereâ€™s not â€” there were no skeletons in my closet,â€ Ms. Bialek said on NBCâ€™s â€œToday Show,â€ relating a conversation she had with her lawyer, Gloria Allred, before going public. â€œI told her that this may come up and I expected this. This is â€” this is what happens. Itâ€™s not about me. Iâ€™m not the one running for president.â€
A statement issued Monday night made clear that Mr. Cain believes that Ms. Bialekâ€™s background will help to undermine her.
â€œAfter attacking Herman Cain through anonymous accusers for a week, his opponents have now convinced a woman with a long history of severe financial difficulties, including personal bankruptcy, to falsely accuse the Republican front-runner of events allegedly occurring well over a decade ago for which there is no record, nor even a complaint filed,â€ the statement said.
The statement also accused Ms. Allred of being a â€œcelebrity lawyer who specializes in generating publicity for herself and her clientsâ€ and said Ms. Allred had â€œgiven over ten thousand dollars to liberal Democrats like Barack Obama, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer.â€
Through the day Tuesday, pressure mounted on Mr. Cainâ€™s campaign, with Mitt Romney, an opponent in the Republican field, telling ABC News that the allegations against Mr. Cain were â€œserious,â€ with Ms. Bialekâ€™s accusation â€œparticularly disturbing,â€ adding, â€œtheyâ€™re going to have to be addressed.â€
I personally think that these people hate Cain and are lying about not being paid or told to say these things. Despite being a democrat, after seeing what Cain has been going through, despite my hate for the ones who are inspire chef and try to take over our country, I do sorta feel sorry for him.
Links to my favorite song here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPD8Z51H ... re=related
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWm2wny2Aaw

### Re: Cain

Post by sarobah » Fri Nov 11, 2011 5:35 pm

I donâ€™t have a personal stake in the politics and I am not saying that Cain is guilty. However, itâ€™s interesting how people who went berserk over Bill Clinton for his sexual indiscretions have fallen over themselves in the rush to find excuses for Cainâ€¦ as they did for Arnie a few years ago. And keep in mind that some of Clintonâ€™s most vociferous critics were engaged in their own affairs at the very same time they were accusing Clinton.
Then there is the accusation that these women are lying. Being called a liar is something victims of sexual harassment, especially women, will always have to put up with, and most especially when the accusation is against a rich and powerful man.
So it seems to me that Cainâ€™s defenders are (1) maintaining a blatant double standard and (2) falling back on the old trick of blaming the victim.
Actually, Cain has TWO double standards. His lawyers â€“ according to the allegations â€“ went to great lengths to cover up the accusations and now he has the temerity to attack his accuserâ€™s lawyer. Because apparently only the rich and powerful are allowed to have legal representation. That does not augur well for a Cain presidency.
As the saying goes â€“ whatâ€™s good for the goose is good for the gander.
But the funny part of all this is that Cain does not have any realistic chance of winning the nomination, let alone the presidency. And yet according to his fan base, the LIBERAL FEMINIST CONSPIRACY!!! has chosen him to be the victim of this evil campaign of lies. The force of logic is not strong with these people.
Words, like Nature, half reveal and half conceal the soul within.

### Re: Cain

Post by Kyle » Sat Nov 12, 2011 10:03 pm

Just to be clear on this, you are talking about people who say the women are lying and not simply questioning their claims right? I know from past experience when you have situations like this, especially involving women as the (alleged) victims of any kind of sexual crime, many people will jump all over your ass if you don't immediately assume they're telling the truth. I don't think that's what you're saying but I've seen it happen way too many times to completely ignore the possibility.

### Re: Cain

Post by Vukk » Sun Nov 13, 2011 4:44 am

Clinton could have F***** 1000 women in office while 'off duty' and to me it wouldn't matter to me. He did it in the oval office and then he lied about it. That was why he was impeached. The senate decided not to fire him.
Sadly enough, I had a co-worker who had a sexual harassment filed (and basically thrown out) with the company he worked for because he opened a door for a person who worked for him in a gentlemen like manor. She said because she was his employee, he was being 'extra nice' to her. That was his story anyway. Could Cain have something similar happen?
I go to a fast food during lunch every now and again where the guy who collects money in drive thru has one of the best (and loudest) personalities I have seen. He told a lady she should take her top down as it was a nice day out (she was in a convertible).
Now, do I know if they are true with Cain, no. It could have been something only the lady in question would consider harassment to something Cain could have been fired for. I don't know.
Now, the one who is just now coming forward with sexual assault charges after over a decade, is the only one of the bunch who I don't think even has a 'leg' to stand on. Short time, yes; no lawyer, yes; 10+ years, no; a lawyer, no.

### Re: Cain

Post by Qarl » Wed Nov 16, 2011 1:26 pm

Since I'm only a juror in the court of public opinion, I only need to report my verdict in the public forum -- here. I don't believe Cain is telling the truth.
If Cain were to simply deny the claims, and not allow his campaign to attack the accusers, his denials would be more credible to me. Any attempt to attack the accuser's character and question the motivation causes me to question whether he is telling the truth. And it causes me to think that it's more important for him to become president than it is for the truth to come out, whether it favors him or not.
If he were to say something like the following, it would be more credible to me.
"No I didn't sexually harrass this person, nor have I ever sexually harrassed any person. I obviously regret the accusations because they are likely to damage my campaign in the short run, but I trust that the truth will come out in proper time, and hope that people will suspend judgment until they hear the facts. I'm confident that the truth will win out, and that when all the facts come to light, my name will be completely cleared. I would have preferred these allegations, which I maintain are false, should have been brought out sooner so they could have been dealt with promptly and without the media circus of a political campaign. But now that they are here, they need to be addressed. I also want to be clear that I support a woman's right to make appropriate accusations of sexual harrassment, because it's a problem in government and the workplace. I support everyone's right to live and work in an atmosphere free of sexual harrassment, and having a healthy way for women who believe they have been victimized to speak up and have their complaints heard and investigated is a critical component of a progressive society. Allow this woman to make her claims, as I do, and allow the facts to come out before you reach a conclusion."
If the truth is on your side, calm and confident reliance on the truth is a strong defense. But if the truth is not on your side, attacking and undermining the accuser is often a very effective defense.

### Re: Cain

Post by swamidfs » Tue Nov 22, 2011 7:02 am

I think it is funny how with Bill, there were alot of people who wanted to turn a blind eye to it that now want to throw Cain under a bus. Seriously, what is the difference between what Bill did and with what Cain is accused of? The real issue hidden here is the fact that this country is divided and takes sides without really considering any facts. If your a republican, bill was a sick puppy. If your a democrat, cain is the sick puppy. We no longer have an inpartial standard of what os right or wrong anymore. All we have is I am a tea party guy and we are always right or I am an occupier person and we are always right mentality. True independant thinkers do not exist. If Bill with Monica was wrong, the Thomas should never be on the surpreme court.
As for the whole Cain attacking his accusers, I disagree with the previous post. It does not make him look questionable. In reality he is not attacking them, he is only questioning the accusation. On the other hand, remember, Bill attacked his accusers as having questionable motives and even mocked Monica when he made his famous "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" speech, that later was found out to be untrue.

### Re: Cain

Post by Qarl » Tue Nov 22, 2011 5:52 pm

> swamidfs wrote:As for the whole Cain attacking his accusers, I disagree with the previous post. It does not make him look questionable. In reality he is not attacking them, he is only questioning the accusation. On the other hand, remember, Bill attacked his accusers as having questionable motives and even mocked Monica when he made his famous "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" speech, that later was found out to be untrue.

I can appreciate your point of view. I'm not really trying to convince anyone else they shouldn't believe Cain. Rather, as one member of the public, I get the opportunity to decide whether I believe him or not, and I get to post my opinion here. I personally do not believe him, and have stated my reasons why. It sounds like you do believe him, and I can accept that perspective.
Regarding Bill, I don't give him a free pass, nor turn a blind eye. My personal opinion was that he wasn't telling the whole truth, and I personally wanted him to receive serious consequences for his lack of judgment and attempt to cover it up. It may have been a republican circus that ultimately attempted to hold him accountable, and I don't necessarily agree with what the Congress did or how they went about it, but I didn't think he should have been given a free pass. Again, I'm not trying to convince another person to agree with me, but stating my opinion. If someone likes my reasons or conclusions and adopts them, it's fine with me. If they don't, it's fine with me.
Regards,
-Carl