Barring a stunning admission or equally stunning retractions, it’s safe to say that we’ll never know with certainty what happened — if anything — between Herman Cain and his accusers. We’ll be able to make educated guesses, but those guesses will be drawn primarily from our subjective judgments of character and veracity but without reference to the kinds of evidence common in sexual-harassment cases. Corroborating evidence like hotel receipts are likely long-destroyed (very few businesses have record retention policies permitting retention for more than a few years), memories are impaired or embellished by time, and the lack of any contemporaneous legal complaints means that the parties were not subject to the under-oath crucible of depositions and other forms of discovery. In other words, the only real “evidence” is the accusations themselves (and spare me any argument about the very nominal settlements — such tiny amounts mean only that a claim was made, not that it had any credibility).
This is unjust . . . to Herman Cain. He faces old claims from women who obviously felt that the initial incidents (if any) didn’t merit a legal filing. In some ways, Herman Cain faces a more difficult challenge than Clarence Thomas. At least Justice Thomas had the opportunity to confront his accuser in a format where Americans were able to weigh their competing stories, saw them competently cross-examined by senators from both sides, and were able to reach a judgment, a judgment that was decisive at the time: Justice Thomas had been wrongly accused. As painful as that experience was, I wonder if it is ultimately less painful than shadow-boxing against accusers whose celebrity attorneys parade them on the morning shows, making allegations that are impossible to disprove yet equally impossible to ignore. Herman Cain is being forced to prove a negative — without access to contemporaneous evidence.
There is obviously no statute of limitations on accusations, and it is certainly possible that the claims are true in whole or in part, but the very age of the stories themselves — combined with the total absence of tested (or testable) legal claims — should shape our judgments. As for me, after more than a week of excruciating public controversy, I’m still giving Herman Cain the benefit of the doubt.
Like it or not, people are judged by the company they keep. The real test of Cain's leadership rests on whether or not he keeps his chief of staff. I understand why people want to give Cain the benefit of the doubt, but anyone who enters the race for the highest office in the land without a track record has to accept - and expect - that the electorate has precious little to judge him/her by other than by the calibre and judgment of people surrounding them to respond in time of "crisis management." Guilty or innocent, Cain has been harmed greatly by the horrible judgment of his chief of staff. If Cain continues to stand by Block, to me, that's a bigger red flag than whether or not these allegations are factual. Does Herman Cain really want Mark Block waking him up to take that 3:00 am phone call?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAgreed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGood call.
If he retains that moron take it as a bad sign not only of Cain's leadership but, also, as an indication the dude has dirt on Cain he doesn't want to surface.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow about Romney's association with Politico in pushing out this smear campaign?
Does that count?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd, let's also not forget how confident Block was that the allegation came from Perry's "new hire."
Cain may be innocent, but it's the "cover up" that almost always is worse than the crime.
If Cain's going to run a 'Non-conventional" campaign, he's GOT to be prepared for unconventional events.
Block is way in over his head. Polling today (Rasmussen, I think) shows 51% of voters now think these allegations are serious. Not a good trend of Team Cain. If Cain is serious about his run, he really needs to dump Block and get some professionals. Amateur hour is going to sink him.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIs there any proof that Romney's campaign was involved? I haven't seen any, but I would like to know if there is. (Other than the Perry campaign pointing THEIR finger. That isn't proof.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI fully agree. Every since the Cain camp accused Perry of leaking the story I've thought that Block had to go.
Cain always says that you need to identify the problem and then surround yourself with the right people to solve the problem. Now is the time to practice that theory.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAt least two of them did make a complaint, and were compensated for it. If more than 50% of rapes go unreported, it doesn't seem unreasonable that some women don't formally complain about sexual harassment. It also doesn't seem unreasonable that a woman who didn't complain when she thought she was the only one would feel more comfortable (or feel it's more necessary) to come forward knowing that the behavior was repeated.
What doesn't make sense is the comparison to Clarence Thomas, when the obvious comparison is Bill Clinton.
It is also senseless to conclude that the left is involved. The longer the republican primary is contested, the better for the democrats. If anyone is orchestrating this one, they have an (R) after their name.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhen Gennifer Flowers started the "bimbo eruptions," she had tapes. The character and quality of the evidence is fundamentally different here. I don't know if Cain is innocent, but the very age of the charges and lack of record make it virtually impossible for us to judge . . . and that's unfair to Mr. Cain.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd recall how Linda Tripp was put through the wringer as a liar until Monica Lewinsky produced that stained dress.
If she'd taken it to the cleaners, liberals and RINOs would STILL be maintaining Clinton's innocence.
The evidence is what matters---it's the only way you can decipher the truth of the matter here.
It's just that few people---including many at NRO---care about the truth.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI suppose that's true, but what percentage of people have tapes of their sexual harassment? I don't know if the allegations are true, and it's possible that some hard evidence in the NRA agreements will exonerate Cain or cast additional doubts on him.
If the NRA has released the two women from their confidentiality agreements, we may get a clearer picture soon.
I'll admit that it does seem odd that all of the accusations are from the same, relatively short, period of time. On the other hand, the early to mid 90s are really when sexual harassment became a common legal concept (at least that's when I had to start going through tedious training courses on it), and maybe he learned from his mistakes after a few rounds.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt could also be that the job itself created too many opportunities for "flirtation". It seems there was a lot of wining and dining associated with his job, and lots of time away from home and family.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCertainly, such judgments on the strength of such evidence would be grossly unfair if Cain were being charged with a crime. But he is merely asking for the favor of our votes, so a different standard prevails.
As an erstwhile Cain enthusiast who would like to be won back, I now suspect -- I certainly don't know, but I suspect -- that Cain is at the very least a great flirt. What else to make of his weird "flower" comment to Greta van Susteren (coupled with the number of complaints against him)? I am in the market for a serious candidate. He can have quirks, yes, and I have found some of Cain's quirks charming up until now. But too much of a "roaming eye" is too much of a dangerous distraction, at least if we have other choices.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseShorter French:
If you've been accused of serious wrongdoing and are thinking of running for office, don't worry -- even if you are guilty. Just wait a while. Then take advantage of French's new rule that time alone should absolve you!
These new rules about "old" allegations are great, btw. They were so important and helpful when charges were made against Bill Clinton -- so many conservatives coming out to say that the "old" allegations, as to which no legal claims had been filed, should just be ignored! Yeah, I'm sure we all remember really well people like Mr. French giving Clinton the "benefit of the doubt" in circumstances like this. Hilarious.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNobody has suggested Cain has ever assaulted or abused a woman.
The same cannot be said for Clinton.
Further, Cain has not lied under oath, which is the part of the Lewinsky scandal with which I had the biggest problem.
There is no comparison. Quit trying to make it because all it does it expose blind partisanship on your part.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Nobody has ever said" Cain assaulted or abused a woman?! What about Bialek?
As for the claims that Clinton lied under oath, I agree that's a different issue than anything Cain is facing (at least so far -- who knows what we'll hear before this is over). If claims of Clinton's affairs and such hadn't been pursued for years before he even met Monica Lewinsky, and he was criticized just on the question of whether he lied under oath, you'd have a fair point.
But when the allegations about Clinton's extra-marital activities first came up, they were just like Cain's: (1) old, (2) not anything that a prior "legal complaint" had been filed about, and (3) nothing to do with any claim of lying under oath. They were pursued, relentlessly, by folks on the right -- for years. Nobody on the right EVER said these are just too "old" to care about!
The Lewinsky stuff obviously came later, AFTER years of examination of "old" sexual harassment claims.
The "blind partisanship" here is that anyone would stoop so low as to say that merely because allegations of criminal sexual assault and trading sex for employment (which is what Bialek claims Cain did) or serious sexual harassment (what the others appear to be claiming) should just be ignored because they're "old" claims. That kind of "get out of jail free" card has never been offered to any Democrat -- and is even new I think in terms of Republicans, who used to try to be the party of strong moral values.
So much for that, eh?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseClinton's behavior was criminal. You had angry chicks that could have picked his junk out of a lineup. He was so far beyond "harassment", there is no valid comparison to Cain. None. Stop it. Get over it. Maybe if you're lucky and you pray real hard, you'll get what you want in that regard, but, for now it's total BS and you know it.
As for Bialek, there is zero proof. None.
That "it's the gravity of the charges not the weight of the evidence" stuff is for nimrods.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat about Bialek? He put his hand high up on her thigh (never touched her genitals according to her) and then put his hand on her head and pulled it down toward his crotch (never saying how close or how hard he pulled her down). She said to stop - he did. she asked him to drive her back to his hotel - he did.
Where's the assault? A clumsy and crude attempt at a pass but not assault.
None of which Cain admits to. All smoke and mirrors.
Unless definitive evidence comes up to show Cain is lying - pshaw!
If evidence to the contrary comes forth that proves Cain is lying, then he's toast. Because that's the real issue now - his credibility, not his sexual indiscretions. That just would have cost him support in certain circles.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOh, I get it. Cain doesn't "admit to" an assault or sexual harrassment of anyone. So, we're all done then.
Again, glad to see the same standard applied to Bill Clinton and Cain here. When Clinton was accused of affairs, sexual harrassment, etc., you and others like you considered it over and done with as soon as Clinton didn't "admit to" the charges. Right? Oh, wait, I seem to remember that it didn't happen quite that way.....
Hilarious.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"When Clinton was accused of affairs, sexual harrassment, (sic) etc., you and others like you considered it over and done with as soon as Clinton didn't "admit to" the charges."
Never mind there was a civil trial, that he lied and was later disbarred. He never had sex with that woman. It's exactly the same as Cain's situation.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse