Herman Cain Accusations
I’ve expected a smear attempt on Herman Cain. The MSM ignored him as long as they could, and then just treated him as an afterthought. All the while his numbers kept surging.
Let’s think about this personally for a minute. Suppose you are running for office. Your office gets a phone call about two allegations from many years ago, but no details or even names are provided. What do you do?
You are in a Catch-22, regardless of whether the accusations are true. If you are innocent, do you dare being the first to mention the one baseless accusation you remember from years ago? After all, the journalist may be following false leads from entirely different women. The veracity of each claim won’t matter anymore, though. You now appear to have a pattern.
This analysis comes from a political know-nothing nobody, of course (see my blog title). UPDATE: Professor Jacobson better explains the problem of creating a pattern:
“Now Cain isn’t fighting just the two people who complained at the time, but a diffuse group of ever expanding complainers who gain strength from numbers. The volume of complaints is what now matters, as they will tie up the candidate and slowly drag down the campaign.”
Folks who know more than me about political campaigns say the decision to wait was a serious mistake.
Who knows how this is going to play out. The usual suspects will pounce on the appearance of a pattern, of course. So far, the allegations haven’t damaged Cain campaign in Iowa, sayeth a journalist at Politico. So far, the allegations appear to be helping Cain, not hurting him.
However, the story keeps evolving, even as I type. A third anonymous woman says he “made sexually suggested remarks or gestures.” Now that post is updated: a radio DJ says Cain said “awkward/inappropriate things” to his female staff once, too. On top of all this, a pollster who worked for National Restaurant Association at the time of the alleged behavior (um, behavior? comments? we still don’t know what the accusations are, do we?) has given the impression that the allegations are serious indeed.
What a pile-on.
Perhaps we need more than a minute to think about this, after all. Here’s some points to keep in mind as this story continues to mutate.
First, getting accused of sexual harassment is extremely easy. The comment thread at that link contains similar stories of harmless compliments being taken the wrong way. Many years ago, a good friend of mine lost his job thanks to an accusation of harassment.
I knew him well enough to be outraged. He was a good guy. He didn’t even get to find out who the accuser was. His position was low-level, and the corporation was more interested in averting lawsuit risk than getting to the bottom of the allegation.
Second, these women may not be lying. They may just be too easily offended. The level of political correctness that has saturated our culture is well past ridiculous. Herman Cain is not known for being politically correct.
Third, a $35,000 severance is no biggie, and not evidence of guilt. Back when Erick Erickson was a lawyer, he handled several sexual harassment suits. None settled for less than the high-end of six figures.
Fourth, about that whole “settlement versus agreement” thing. Many years separate me from my legal work, but I remember a sharp difference between those terms. “Settlement” means the case was resolved by the parties’ attorneys while en route to trial. The settlement is submitted to the judge so it can become an enforceable court order. “Agreement” gives the connotation of a private arrangement entirely outside the lawsuit process.
Herman Cain is not an attorney, but wouldn’t his corporate work experience have imbued him with a thorough understanding of this legal lingo? Does this seem like hair-splitting to any readers out there with legal experiences of their own?
Finally, the urge to criticize Cain’s response is understandable. I wouldn’t call it bizarre . . . maybe inartful. I don’t think the response is a reason to write him off, however. I do believe that the Ruling Class is frightened by Herman Cain.
They want us to write him off. They don’t care whether it’s because we think he’s a dirty old man, or because we think his campaign didn’t handle the crisis well.
Should the ability to dexterously deflect accusations of sexual deviance really be a skill we require of our presidents, anyway?
INSTALANCHE! I most humbly thank you, Mr. Professor of Awesomeness.
The radio dj claimed to have heard some inappropriate comments plus another person who had detailed information since he had previously worked on Cain’s senate campaign are both working for Rick Perry. This stinks to high heaven to me. These accusations of inappropriateness could all be a misunderstanding or have blown out of proportion. I don’t think we should count Herman Cain out of the race. I think how these accusations came out is ticking off average Americans and thus helping Herman Cain. I have an uneasy feeling that the establishment Republicans are responsible for this leaking of the accusations. But I do think it is better to deal with this propped up scandal by the media now rather than later during the general election.
The one thing I respect is the truth. Little else will matter in this case since the fact remains that there was a settlement of the claim for which he acknowledges and that he was not to have spoken of the details of the settlement or the basis upon which the claim may or maynot have been filed. On both he failed to either be honest or to follow the settlement terms and conditions.
Randy you describe a perfect Catch-22. The annonymous accusations, the lack of factual information, no names attached….just Cain has committed the thought crime of “inappropriate comments”. This allows for three types of response: 1 no comment, 2 I cannot comment due to the settlement or 3 to respond within the confines of the known and/or unknown nature of the accusation.
No comment in our media age is an admission of guilt therefore to not comment is to say yes I am one who makes “inappropriate comments”…..that are….akin to sexual molestation, disdain for womenfolk, and I am probably a rapist to boot.
I cannot comment due to the terms of the settlement…this will be viewed as slightly slicker than the response to “no comment”
Therefore the only course of response is choice 3 to respond within the confines of the known and/or unknown nature of the accusation. We do not know who the women are that have broken their agreements by bringing forth the accusations by violating the terms of their settlement agreements. We do not know who “alerted” Politico, who have been and mostly likely are performing their own self bragged role as an “extension of the Obama Campaign” (see Journolist). We do not know actually any facts only that accusations have been made. Right back to Catch-22. If you remember the Joseph Heller reference it was to an amusing book regarding how one could get out of the army in WWII, to wit. If you want to get out of the army during the war it is a sign of sanity. If you are insane and you want to get out of the army you would have to show that you are sane by wanting to get out of the army. If you are sane and want to get out of the army the fact that you want out of the army is proof that you are sane therefore you cannot get out of the army. Capiche?
Well said, Karensky, thanks for that.
Hello, Randy L Knop, and thanks for visiting and commenting. Mr. Cain acknowledged the existence of one severance agreement, and now there is a question of whether he violated the confidentiality terms of that agreement. That question is not yet answered, since we haven’t seen the terms of that agreement.
Come ’round again, because I respect truth too. I’m not sure we’ll ever be certain of the complete truth of these allegations, but maybe soon we’ll at least get some details.
Details would be nice, would they not? Without details, I have to agree with Teresa 100%: this stinks to high heaven.
and now there is a question of whether he violated the confidentiality terms of that agreement.
Is Herman Cain a party to the agreement? If he isn’t, then isn’t it true he couldn’t violate its confidentiality terms.
If he was not a party to the release of claims, his attorney was incompetent. I am willing to bet that both women released claims against him personally, and he signed it, too. Thus his claims that he did not know anything about it is a lie.
That’s not exactly true. The company may well have had a policy 15 years ago to refer all matters of this nature to HR or to a third party intermediary for processing; it may well have been a law firm on retainer for things like this. The point is, we have no idea how the restaurant association dealt with these situations back then; there’s no proper context in which to evaluate all this, because no one has the particulars — including, it’s very possible, Herman Cain himself. To automatically assume he must be lying without knowing the context is premature to me. What bothers me is that the women decided to violate the terms of the agreement (if Cain agreed never to speak of it, surely the women did, too) NOW, at THIS particular moment in time — instead of, say, at the beginning when he first announced. That puzzles me … the timing in this whole situation stinks to high heaven, and I’m not prepared to judge Cain until ALL MOTIVES and MOTIVATIONS are out in public. Somehow, I don’t think the people driving this want that; they are banking on the public just doing as you did; brand Cain guilty and judge him accordingly.
Been there. Done that. Remember President William Jefferson Clinton?
Glad you liked my Clinton reference, Tom.
That’s a big article. Really don’t want new voters to miss that reference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton#Sexual_misconduct_allegations
The author wrote “Third, a $35,000 severance is no biggie, and not evidence of guilt. Back when Erick Erickson was a lawyer, he handled several sexual harassment suits. None settled for less than the high-end of six figures.”
This is simply the wrong way to think about it. The amount of a settlement is a function of an employee’s lost wages and benefits, and the egregiousness of the allegations. You cannot compare, without understanding the employee’s lost wages, a “six figure settlement” to a $35,000 payment.
I read somewhere that the settlement represented one years salary. Think about that . . . the allegations were enough that, before the employee filed a complaint, the company offered her a years salary not to sue, to waive and release the entity and Cain from any claims, and to keep her mouth shut. I have NEVER in 14 years representing employers, offered a years salary before a complaint was filed. It is simply not done. I have, in one case, offered a $100k per year salesman $10,000, along with an explanation to his lawyer why he would lose if there was a lawsuit. He took the deal.
Thanks for your added input B-Rob. I suppose you are right: we really shouldn’t let the money number influence our opinion of the underlying facts, either for or against Cain.
Put another way, some folks get way more than they deserve in settlement or severance, and some get way less.
It’s really just the underlying facts, and the witness credibility that should matter most. And one week later, we still have neither facts nor witnesses . . .
Bill Clinton isn’t the right analogy. Cain’s accusers are working from the Clarence Thomas playbook, which is exactly why this is really outrageous and unforgivable. How do you destroy a black conservative who started from poverty, succeeded on every level and has the esteem of nearly everyone who has ever met or worked with him? The answer seems to be that you go back to the ancient racist stereotype of black men intrinsically being sexual predators. When this turns out to be a big cloud of nothing, Cain’s accusers will laugh it off. Ha ha, harmless mistake. But there’s an old familiar stink in the air. You can smell it now and the smell will linger after. This story is not about Herman Cain. This story is about who is orchestrating this campaign. Don’t forget that.
This is, indeed, Clarence Thomas all over again, but the Clinton reference is still meaningful. The public decided that Clinton’s pathological womanizing was not an issue. By that standard, the fact that Cain was not convicted of assault or worse means he was no worse than Clinton (who by all rights should have been tried for raping Juanita Broadrick and assaulting Kathleen Willey, just for starters). A settlement of a sexual harrassent claim is no big deal, false claims are made to shake down employers all the time, but even if Cain actually said or did something “inappropriate” he didn’t go any farther than we know Bill Clinton went.
I was in agreement, waiting for the facts. Then Cain started talking.
Sorry, folks, this man had TEN DAYS’ warning the story was coming out, and can’t keep his story straight from hour to hour?
He might have survived the actual incidents if they weren’t that bad. He cannot survive lying to the public about it.
The truth doesn’t keep changing its story.
Keep in mind who Herman Cain is running against.
Obama and his fellow thugs and cronies are not above anything when it comes down to his victory in 2012.
To set the enemy force against themselves this early and use the MSM to exacerbate the chaos, while sitting back and watching everyone ignore Solyndra, guns for hire, subpoenas for Eric Holder and etc.
There are still investigations going on as to why Obama’s SSN is invalid.
It has not yet been proven that he is eligible to be POTUS.
Isn’t it great how the media can drop a few stories, OK, 50+ stories, that distract us from the fact that they are providing cover for the worst president in the history of the United States of America?
It’s all inuendo, but somehow even if Herman had made an off color remark or succumbed to a an indiscretion it’s not like he raped anybody like Bill Clinton did. Or exposed himself.
The fact that we don’t even know who Obama dated before Michelle, or his grades or his close ties with communists like Bill Ayres got no coverage shows that the Obamedia is working full time on us.
Don’t fall for the trap the media is laying for us, which is to make us fight amongst ourselves over ideological and moral purity, while Obama is *bleep* raping the country.
Sorry. That was an outburst. I meant political buggery.
But I’ve had about enough of all of this.
The fact that the Obama machine is going after Cain should tell you who it is they fear.
Don’t get distracted by flashy trinkets. Keep your eyes on the prize.
And by ‘the prize’ I mean the American recovery after what Obama has done to this nation.
Congrats on the instalanch!
I don’t much care for Cain; I don’t like his 999 plan, and I don’t even think he wants the job. I do think it’s baseless. I like what Coulter said, that being accuse of sexual harassment in the 90s was like being accused ow witchcraft in the 17th century.
Obviously, harrasment charges put one in a difficult spot. How do you defend against it. How do you show in all the interactions you had withsome one you didn’t say something they could construe as inappropriate or even sexually aggressive?
I like Cain in some ways. I didn’t like what seemed like muslim bashing, but I’ve seen him as badly treated on several occassions, especially the O’donnel interview.
JMS and Marty J, you both make excellent points and I thank you for the input.
Adjoran, I’m not aware of where Cain changed his story. I mean, he chose to remain silent and make no comment initially, which may not have been wise. But I can imagine why he didn’t initally spout off about the one thing he remembers–some lady who had a problem with height comparisons–because he figured surely Politico wasn’t talking about that harmless old story when they called about sexual harrassment.
Then there was the agreement v. settlement thing, which I don’t view as a story change at all given the sharp differences between the two in my mind.
Nevertheless I’m glad you are here and commenting, and come back any old time.
So, Ron and P Henry, you think Obama’s campaign is behind it? I have heard something about Rahm but haven’t read the articles.
Missy S, thank you. I needed that ‘lanche, my numbers been slumpin’ LOL. And I think your comment treats the issue very fairly, especially if Cain ain’t your cup of tea. I haven’t decided about that 999 plan, but the way I figure it, with a solid Tea Party conservative like him in the White House, the new Tea Party-influenced GOP Congress will be able to tweak it if necessary, and he’d be okay with that.
Hi Bruce, thanks for commenting. And thanks for giving Cain a fair shake too. I remember he shocked folks with an anti-muslim comment, but can’t remember the details. Didn’t he walk that one back, at least? The thing is, being the type that doesn’t offend people is just not high on my “what I want in a President” list right now.
Oh, and P Henry, sorry for “bleeping” you, but my momma reads this blog! LOL. But really, she does.
Cheers all!