Joel Bennett, the lawyer for one of the former employees of the National Restaurant Association who accused Herman Cain of sexual harassment, spoke to Wolf Blitzer live on CNN moments ago.
Bennett said that in his legal opinion, what occurred between Cain and his client met the legal definition of sexual harassment. But despite repeated questions from Blitzer, he refused to specify what the alleged actions were, and he said his client would not be appearing to shed any further light on the matter.
When Blitzer pointed out Cain’s vehement, blanket denial, Bennett replied, “In all my years of lawyering, I’ve never seen anyone accused of sexual harassment say, ‘I did it.’”
In short, Mr. Bennett is arguing, ’I won’t say what he did, but trust me, he’s guilty of wrongdoing.’ This is ridiculous. To Politico, the public is supposed to take this into account in their assessment of Cain but we can’t even get any sense of what triggered the original complaint, and whether this was much ado about nothing or whether Cain actually did something wrong.
Without the basic details, the public cannot take this into account in their assessment of Cain, or ought not to. Despite all the drama of the week, we know about as much as we did Monday. Two employees made complaints, but we don’t really know much about what the complaints were. Was there some bad behavior on Cain’s part? Were the NRA payments just designed to avoid the cost of litigating the claims? Who knows?
“It’s over, from our perspective,” Bennett said of the controversy.
Yes, this story ought to be over. While this story does not reassure much about Herman Cain and his campaign – i.e., blaming Perry, walking back the accusation, then having Cain seem to walk back the walk back – he’s been wronged by having a politically damaging accusation widely aired but never being able to cross-examine his accuser or refute the charges.
I think the answer to all media accusations about these candidates should produce the same response, "We have seen what happened to other GOP candidate concerning unfounded allegations by the media. We will wait until there are specifics before making any response to these allegations, as I do not trust the sourcing"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCan the Cain Campaign sue Politico and the lawyer for libel or slander over this??
This has been a very harmful and shameful hit piece.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHmmm. What's the complainant's name?
Emily Litella?
And I think we *should* know her name. After days of her lawyer grabbing every camera he could find to demand that the NRA release her from the confidentiality clause so she could address the issue, only to have her pull a highly suspicious "never mind" when they accede, it would be interesting to discover whether or not this woman has ever filed any other complaints against others for harassment before or since her payout for the Cain complaint.
I know if I were her and I had a history of playing Hara$$ment Sweepstakes with employers, I'd probably get suddenly & inexplicably shy about having my name released when my bluff got called, too.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'd like to think this fight is won, but it's only the opening act.
The puzzle: Why would an attorney seek to release his client from a Confidentiality Agreement when the client has stated on multiple occasions that she doesn't want to say anything publicly, be another Anita Hill?
Possible explanation: The client is waiting to announce the signing of a book deal with a lefty book publication. Something I would expect to occur in the coming weeks.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think the reason he tried to release his client from the confidentiality agreement, was in hopes they would refuse and make the story appear even more scandalous.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf she speaks, she will have to pay all the money she earns in legal fees, and spend the next five years in court.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseShe did not speak today because she has a legal and binding agreement with the NRA, (an agreement Cain was not party to, nor did he sign). The NRA has said absolutely nothing about this matter, and therefore has not breached the contract. If she says anything on any level, she is libel for breach, and can be sued. Her lawyer knows that and his appearence today was all for show. I wonder how much he was paid by Politico.
"Why would an attorney seek to release his client from a Confidentiality Agreement..."
How much is said attorney being paid and by whom?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA woman doesn't want to dredge or relive the trauma of being harassed so Cain wins? A woman doesn't want to be a public figure, and probably had no idea when she accepted the settlement 12 years ago that this might happen, so Cain wins? She doesn't want to violate the confidentiality and face possible legal trouble, so Cain wins?
One thing is certain, this woman's ethics are certainly better than Herman Cain's the way he has violated the spirit of the settlement. Maybe we should run her for President.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo what exactly meets the legal definition of sexual harassment? What I heard was that there was nothing "overly sexual" that occurred. Was it a compliment about her figure? A hug? I mean, some people are just ultra sensitive about things that many wouldn't bat an eye over. I'd like to know what meets the legal standard of sexual harassment. That would help put this a little more in perspective.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSorry Jim, I have to disagree. Cain has lost big this week. He's finished as far as having any shot at being elected is concerned, and his continued public campaign risks infecting the entire Republican party. The last thing the GOP needs heading into the presidential election is to have a national cartoon (ala Christine O'Donnell) dragging the party's image down. Until this week, Cain was my guy, Not anymore. Yes, the allegations are vague and anonymous. But he knows the story and he wasn't straight. That's bad enough, but he's got everybody who's not a Republican laughing at him coast to coast.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCain won this week, both his support and his donations went up. I don't think people in our
party are stupid enough to fall for this Clarence
Thomas type gameplaying.
I bet his accusers are Democrats.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Democrat party didn't seem to get "infected" by the actions of Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Edwards, et. al.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJust because the Dems are accepting of it in their candidates doesn't mean Republicans should be accepting of it in theirs.
And Jim's right about Cain's mishandling of the entire matter. It doesn't help that he tried to smear Rick Perry again, a few weeks after he smeared Perry as a 'racist' on an equally flimsy story in WaPo instead of giving the candidate the benefit of the doubt, like every other candidate in the GOP primary is did to him over this matter.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAll of the Democrats you mentioned were personally damaged by sexual improprieties. Arguably, Al Gore lost in 2000 due to Clinton fatigue and that Gore would have won 2000 if Clinton had stepped down in 1999.
I am not comparing Cain to those men because we don't know what, if anything, Cain did. However, Cain has a responsibility to clear the air and he hasn't. That could be a problem if he is the nominee.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat's true, and totally immaterial. When you support conservative candidates, you have to accept the higher bar as part of the deal.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSorry to see you go.. but considering the huge grass roots fundraising, he seems to have gotten a whole lot of new support. Bye, bye.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis attack disgusts me. I sympathize with Cain and feel Republicans should have recognized it for what it is. It would seem that after years of this tactic, they would have learned something. Like the libs, they attack Cain rather than the media. I am joining the Cain train and will write him in if I have to.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCain had the opportunity to confront his accuser and fight for his reputation when this first happened -- but he settled. That tells me something.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAfter seeing how Politico spun the accusers retreat as "Cain' accuser breaks silence", this is one time I wouild like to call what the press did to Cain evil. I know, it's bad form to do so, but their behavior is inexcusable. I know I will never go to Politico's website ever again.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFunny how there is always a disconnect between the pundit class and the "folks". I take OldNumber7 at his word that Cain lost him this week, and I assume there are many more that fit this demographic. I was on the fence regarding Cain for some time, but his unfailing incoherence on all things foreign policy related, then his shameful play of the race card on Perry, and virtually everything since has convinced me he is a dangerous pretender. Dangerous in the sense that he either wins as the Not-Romney and gets knee capped in the general, handing back the White House to the Idiot in Chief and the SCOTUS to the progressives, or he simply makes it easy for Romney and we get down ticket disaster, a Democrat controlled Senate, four years of feckless "moderation", and a Democrat POTUS and Senate in 2016.
I know Jim is not actually doing the happy dance over today's news, but must maintain the appearance that he has no actual opinion. Tough job. However, I have no such constraints, and I will say what plenty people are thinking. That Cain is a disaster in the making, and if the timetable goes reasonably well for Obama, Cain manages to tap dance his way to the nomination without much further damage, then they will have a relatively easy time taking this guy down in the general. They were prepping for Romney, and undoubtedly had (and have) a strong campaign to discredit him and demoralize the core and shift the middle, but now they are looking at the unexpected gift of possibly running against a black Ross Perot with a history of "making settlements". With a budget of say 10 million or so, bet they can find someone to actually fess up that Cain did a bit more than estimate a woman's height.
But that will not be the centerpiece. Cain's unflinching incoherence of foreign policy, combined with genuine international issues (both economic and national security) will shine a light on Cain as possibly being a greater risk than Obama. Remember, the audience for this soap opera is the moderate middle. Assume a less than enthusiastic Republican base, a re-energized Democratic base (they will smell blood), and a confused center. Yea...quite a nightmare scenario, but very possible if we nominate Cain or even Romney. Stupid is as stupid does, and Republicans demonstrate every election cycle why they are referred to as the stupid party.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse