Cain Slammed By Sexual Harassment Allegations

Politico:

Herman Cain on Monday called stories about sexual harassment allegations against him “a witch hunt” and repeatedly said that he never harassed female employees while he was CEO of the National Restaurant Association…

Cain reiterated that he’s not aware of any settlements paid to women who accused him of harassment. He said there is no reason for the restaurant association to divulge more information about the story.

“As far as we’re concerned, enough said about the issue,” he said. “There’s nothing there to dig up.”

Even so,

He added: “If the restaurant association did a settlement, I wasn’t even aware of it and I hope it wasn’t for much. If there was a settlement, it was handled by some of the other officers at the restaurant association.”

Cain said it’s possible that more sexual harassment allegations could be forthcoming, but that they would be baseless… [Pols emphasis]

So, uh, these are not things you say to reporters unless you pretty much know there’s more scandal lurking out there–in which case, the last thing to do is to declare “enough said.” That’s practically begging the press to keep “digging.”

That said, we’re reminded of the last-minute story that hit Colorado GOP Senate candidate Ken Buck the weekend before the 2010 elections about a job discrimination settlement while he worked at the U.S. Attorney’s office. A notably similar situation, with an alleged victim in a settlement agreement that prevented her from talking about the case. That can place victims who settle at a significant disadvantage if the matter goes public, since the alleged offender generally has an easier time finding surrogates and others willing to disparage the case on background. In Buck’s case, the allegation surfaced too late to matter anyway.

But a presidential campaign is a higher profile affair than a U.S. Senate race, and there’s lots of time to fill in these blanks: especially if there are multiple such alleged cases. And the fact is, we just don’t think it will take much to sink Herman Cain’s unlikely “frontrunner” status.

0 Shares

51 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Middle of the Road says:

    that brought complaints against Cain. A little detail that we should just overlook ’cause clearly there’s nothing to see here. No siree, Bob.

    Clearly, as CEO, he would not be notified of these settlements. That’s totally believable that the CEO that the allegations are being brought against would not be informed that tens of thousands of dollars were being paid out to the complainants. How could anyone doubt poor Mr. Cain here?  

    • sxp151 says:

      because they are responsible for all aspects of the company and its performance! Except for the payola for the employees they’re trying to fuck, that’s for rogue interns to handle.

      • Middle of the Road says:

        This is all just happening because according to Cain’s campaign, he’s so awesome and we fear the mighty power of the message he’s bringing the sweaty masses.

        And it’s all the media and liberals (I guess they are one and the same according to the press release) fault.

        “Fearing the message of Herman Cain, who is shaking up the political landscape in Washington, Inside the Beltway media have begun to launch unsubstantiated personal attacks on Cain,” the campaign said in a statement. “Sadly, we’ve seen this movie played out before – a prominent Conservative targeted by liberals simply because they disagree with his politics.”

      • VanDammerVanDammer says:

        implausible deniability is a perfect measure of character for a POTUS candidate.

        Between these assertions and his election finance shenanigans it looks like Herminator is making enemies fast on the tightie rightie side.

        I just love that asshole Cain’s judgment and character are revealed as he claims to have NO knowledge that 2 front office NAR employees being bought off & moved out just for spurious claims — he must have had a helluva lot of trust in his HR dept & the assoc lawyers.    

  2. ProgressiveCowgirlProgressiveCowgirl says:

    If they were allegations from people who had never brought up the harassment at the time, suddenly coming out of the woodwork now that he’s running for President, they would have little merit–not that a legitimate report couldn’t surface for the first time today, but it would be very hard to investigate.

    In this case, the specific allegation involves multiple settlements. One would think that the NRA would not want to be tarred with that brush and look as if it protected a CEO who harassed women. If the settlements never happened, the NRA will likely speak out to that effect, with documentation, as soon as its lawyers have cleared a spokesperson to do so.

    If they refuse to discuss it… well, then, Cain might have a problem. I mean, another problem, besides being completely unqualified for any elected position, not to mention an ignorant bigot.

  3. Libertad 2.0 says:

    1. Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill all over again

    2. Democrat-controlled media will do anything to stop the Cainanator.

    Surprised that A-GOP and company aren’t already here espousing it.

    Interesting Slate article on why that argument is flawed:

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/wei

    The problem: Cain’s situation is nothing like Thomas’s. Start with the known facts. Cain, according to Politico’s reporting, has two harassment settlements to account for from his days at the National Restaurant Assocation — the last of them occurring 12 years ago. Thomas had to answer Anita Hill’s claims that she’d been sexually harassed when working for him at the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights — nine years before the hearings. Hill then went on to work for Thomas at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. That’s a key difference. Hill did not air her claims until Thomas was a candidate for a SCOTUS seat. Cain’s accusers made their claims and changed the courses of their careers in the 1990s.

    • ArapaGOPArapaGOP says:

      3. “Innocent until proven guilty” does not apply to Republicans. At least not on this blog.

      • Middle of the Road says:

        because I actually believe you are fairy savvy when it comes to political machinations within campaigns.

        This isn’t about his guilt or innocence. It’s about his responses to the allegations, which up to this point have been pathetic. Initially, after he left Face the Nation yesterday, he wouldn’t even respond to questions. His campaign’s response has been half assed and the message has varied throughout the day in response to a well researched article.

        If he has nothing to fear, then he needs to stop pretending he “vaguely recalls” something about this and then doesn’t remember hearing about two settlements that were in the 5 figure range.

        He was the CEO as well as the accused, for God’s sake. Are you really, with a straight face, telling me you buy his response thus far?

        • ArapaGOPArapaGOP says:

          “Slam” a man with scurrilous allegations, then microscope every word of response to produce the “pathetic” sturm and drang you’re looking for. “Well researched?” Why are there no details then?

          You’re right that I understand campaigns and politics, and I’ve watched this kind of baseless character assassination happen repeatedly on the campaign trail. It was done to Ken Buck, for example. I understand how it works well enough to be thoroughly disgusted.

          One more thing: I don’t support Cain, and I’ve made that clear over and over. But I don’t appreciate your side’s dirty tactics.

          • Fidel's dirt nap says:

            dirty tactics, sob, sniffle, they’re so hurtful.

            You’re funny.

          • Old Time Dem says:

            Because the settlements are covered by non-disclosure agreements, and the NRA is not a public entity subject to FOIA requests.

          • Gilpin Guy says:

            It was the Romney campaign that nuked Cain just like Clinton dug up the Akers angle against Obama.

            Don’t be such a gullible asshole and admit where the dirty vetting came from.  It was your camp all the way.  They don’t play nice in a Republican primary.

          • ClubTwitty says:

            I’m going with another candidate.  Its a GOP firing squad, we’re just the spectators.  So if by ‘your sides’ you mean Karl & Co. you may be on to something.  

            But now Cain is acknowledging he knew about one of the settlements.  

            But you should be happy that your GOP oppo team is so effective.  The guy no one really wants to win the nomination is sitting pretty as one after another of the ‘anyone but Mittens’ hopefuls self-immolates.  

          • VanDammerVanDammer says:

            there are strong suggestions that the nefarious folks whispering this dirt are Parry folk.  That would be YOUR side.  Why the fuck would any Dem would be dishing on Herman now?  We’re honestly not taking him serious and based on campaign finance shenanigans and his ongoing re-remembering of this emerging story who will benefit?  

            Your purported knowledge of political machinations is friggin’ laughable if you think a Dem leaked — this is backroom TX mudslinging.  Who has motive?  Who will benefit from Hermie’s demise?

            Parry’s backers got a lotta favor paybacks coming their way for their uas-of-today  investment and they’ll play dirty given the chance.  

            Methinks “spurious” is the word you’re looking to paste on these allegations and I’d suggest you save your disgust for your own ilk.  These are GOP dirty tricks and you have yourselves to thank …          

      • droll says:

        CoPols is government now? I hope that means the checks finally start rolling in. A lot of folks here have certainly invested enough time to earn them.

        But what are we going to do about that “hot butt sex” person who was banned? Blantant violation of its right to free speech. Shabby, Pols, shabby.

        You know that whole “Penalty Box” is just for fun, right? They don’t actually come to get you, force you into a nice warm straitjacket… No matter what those nasty voices tell you.

        • ArapaGOPArapaGOP says:

          Means it wasn’t very serious, or it would have been six figures. And it’s absolutely the kind of thing that could be relegated to the legal department, and the CEO kept out of it for liability and public image reasons.

          I wasn’t there, I don’t know, but you weren’t either.

        • Middle of the Road says:

          It is not uncommon for a large corporation to settle rather than drag it out, even if the accused is innocent. There’s a reason that part of the settlement included both complainants not be allowed to speak publicly about the incidents. What that reason may be is utter speculation of which there will be no short supply of, I’m sure.

          Is he innocent? Is he guilty? Who knows, other than Cain? But the bottom line is his campaign’s response to this so far is horrible. It’s top news everywhere. If Cain wants the whole thing to go away, the current way he’s handling it is producing the exact opposite result.

          I guess nobody on the GOP side learned a damn thing from the John Edwards debacle.  

          • AristotleAristotle says:

            but I’m also aware that few cases like this are spurious; I’m aware that the court of public opinion doesn’t operate like the court of law; and I’m aware that the most likely source of this story is a Republican, and our GOP operative buddy is doing his part to spread disinformation that those dastardly liberals are at it again – even though there’s nothing for any Democrat to gain from sinking Cain’s candidacy at this point.

            • Gilpin Guy says:

              Conservatives would stroke out having to vote between two black men.  It’s voter suppression via natural selection.  Democrats have a vested interest in keeping Pizza Man front and center as a likely Republican nominee.

              I’m thinking now it was the Romney campaign because they know their man will look good next to Perry.

      • Old Time Dem says:

        is a legal concept that defines the burden of the prosecution in a criminal case.  Defendants are not required to prove their innocence, but once the prosecution has brought forth a scintilla of evidence of guilt the presumption evaporates.

        It should be obvious that it does not mean much more–if it did, there could be no such thing as arrest or pre-trial detention, as either represents a real deprivation of liberty without guilt being established.

        Further, it is hardly a useful principle outside of the legal arena.  Quite obviously, most people make judgments on other’s behavior that falls far short of conviction–whether formally or not.  Particularly in important matters–such as who one dates, marries, or votes for–there is rarely a presumption of innocence.  Instead, we look for a reason to date, marry or vote–not merely the absence of a reason not to.

        In this case, credible sources indicate that Cain’s former employer settled harassment claims, and Cain (and his campaign) have equivocated in their denials.  Whereas a baseline judgment might be that, in the absence of any evidence tothe contrary, Cain had not harrassed anyone, the evidence is sufficent to wipe away that baseline judgment.

      • Ralphie says:

        I think Mr. Cain ought to be given the opportunity to explain.

        Because when you’re explaining, you’re losing.

        And I’m unaffiliated.

        I don’t think you’ll find a Democrat in the world who doesn’t want Cain to be given every opportunity to explain.

        For that matter, I don’t think you’ll find a Democrat in the world who doesn’t want Cain to be the candidate.

        I’d be looking at Republican opponents to make your “innocent until proven guilty” argument.

  4. Gilpin Guy says:

    I’m glad that Obama got vetted last time.  No dirty laundry to air out on him this time.

    The Republicans?  Not so much.

    The juicy stuff is probably still out there, waiting for the nuke order from the handlers of a losing candidate.

    • VanDammerVanDammer says:

      hell, he now wants to see Obama’s grades (which would just be more embarrasment for the Aggie cheerleader that flunked his college civics course).

      And of course Parry would love for everyone to shine them lights anywhere other than on his slimy TX pay-2-play ass.  Anyone with 15 mins of time and just a bit suspect of Parry ought to read Matt Taibbi’s Rick Perry: The Best Little Whore In Texas

  5. caroman says:

    Don’t worry GOoP, I hear Fred Thompson is being awakened.

  6. caroman says:

    Herman Cain is no different than Donald Trump who’s no different than Sarah Palin who’s no different than Michelle Bachmann who’s no different than Gary Johnson who’s no different than….

    i.e., a bunch of clowns who have absolutely no chance of being president.

    I mean it’s like they have a stage full of Mike Gravels.

    Wasting our time on candidates like Cain is just that.

    We need to focus:  We have multiple Romneys to prepare for.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.