November 5, 2011

Note to Cain accuser: Saying "very specific instances" does not equal specifying instances.

The still-unnamed woman communicates through a lawyer:
The lawyer, Joel P. Bennett, who represents a former employee of Mr. Cain’s at the National Restaurant Association, said the accusations did not center on a single exchange that could be easily misinterpreted, which is how Mr. Cain has characterized it. Mr. Bennett said there were multiple episodes that led his client to file a formal complaint with the restaurant association.

“Mr. Cain knows the specific incidents that were alleged,” Mr. Bennett said during a brief news conference outside his Georgetown office. “My client filed a written complaint in 1999 against him specifically and it had very specific instances in it, and if he chooses not to remember or to acknowledge those, that’s his issue.”
This is maddening. Very specific instances. Okay. That's what we need to hear about. What are they?! They don't become very specific instances because you say "very specific instances"! That's still completely abstract. Get specific. Get specific to the point where we can judge for ourselves whether the details amount to something that counts against Cain and that exposes you to a defamation lawsuit if the details are false.
Mr. Bennett described his client as “anxious” to rebut Mr. Cain’s comments while maintaining her desire not to become “a public figure.” 
You want to accuse and remain impervious to any tests of your truth-telling.

Mind-boggling!

59 comments:

Mogget said...

I am not a Cain supporter; I've had enough of untested presidents.

However, the sad part is that the folks who carry this sort of story will not suffer any degradation of their reputation, while Mr. Cain's reputation has been impugned.

Tank said...

What we've got so far is unamed individuals who've not described any actual behavior. So we can't evaluate either the complainers or the substance of their allegations.

If this wasn't leading the news every 2 minutes, it would be a joke. Despite "all" the journolism committed, we have no actual facts to consider.

EDH said...

But his denials — he said repeatedly that his only crime had been telling a woman that she was as tall as his wife — have also fueled a sense of outrage among his accusers and their friends that he was using his national platform as a presidential candidate to rewrite history and diminish the seriousness of his actions.

Crime?

wv - "moider" = a murder in Brooklyn

Tank said...

What is the point of calling a press conference to say that you can't name the accuser or specify the allegations, but we should trust you [the lawyer], who, of course, has no personal knowledge of the actual events.

Psychedelic George said...

The settlement was for peanuts. Hard to believe this amounts to much of a beef.

AJ Lynch said...

Where is G. Gordon Liddy when we need him?

Aren't there any good burglars left who could sneak into the NRA offices and steal the Cain files?

Or sneak into Columbia & Harvard and give us a peak at Prez Obama's college grades?

edutcher said...

"Mr. Cain knows the specific incidents that were alleged" .

Unfortunately, the rest of the human race does not.

However, if this destroys any rep Politico had before this, it hasn't been a total loss.

Curious George said...

"Mind-boggling!"

Really? Then you confuse easily. The goal is smear Cain. The actual events are not sufficient...they likely won't pass the laugh test. So they can't come out. Instead, this crap.

Now do you understand?

AllenS said...

It's my understanding that Cain didn't pay for the settlement, but the NRA did. If Cain didn't sign anything, what's to stop him from naming the woman? Is there a lawyer in the house that can answer this question?

Don't Tread 2012 said...

This is a smear tactic in its purest form.

Unspecific 'allegations'. No burden of proof for the 'accuser(s)'. Un-ringing the bell? Don't think so.

"The medium is the massage" - McLuhan

Slumdog Killionaire said...

This has been and continues to be feminism's M.O.: The shirking of responsibility or accountability. Anita Hill originally wanted her accusations to be anonymous: She tried to avoid testifying personally. False accusers in sexual cases want to be able to take down men by name but remain anonymous so that when their lies are exposed they suffer no consequences. Women want to be admitted to the workplace (reasonable) but don't want to deal with anything that might ever offend or upset them in any way, the way men always have had to (unreasonable). All reproductive rights belong to women, all financial responsibility to men. This is sacred feminist policy.

Chuck66 said...

Hey AA and Meade, if you have any updates on the lefty reaction to the pre-emptive recall filing, let us know. It sounds like the Walker haters are busting a nut over this. Its nice to see the right hand side of the aisle fighting back for a change.

PaulV said...

More than once women were peeved at me when I did not have a clue what I did to cause the anger. Call me clueless.

EDH said...

Sometimes attempting to sound too specific makes you look like an idiot as well.

Do... I... Make... Myself... Clear?

"You have 24 hours to respond."

I think the webcam guy is trying to be One Tin Soldier, "I Just Go Berserk."

William said...

I don't blame the woman for wishing to remain anonymous. The bidding for her story has not yet reached seven figures. Oprah Winfrey here's your chance to put your network on the map.

Hagar said...

We do know that there originally were at least two women who filed claims, since both Cain and the NRA confirms that. (Well, strictly speaking, Cain only know about the 2nd one because the NRA lawyer told him about her.) We still do not know, and apparently neither does Mr. Cain, know who, what, where, when, and why.

And, at this point we do not actually know that either of these women still exist and still feel aggrieved. We only know there is a lawyer who says so.

DaveW said...

Yet everyone believes it. Because everyone knows women don't lie about this sort of thing right? Plus everyone knows about black guys. Enough said.

I'm not a big Cain supporter, but I'm open to anyone that has more sense than Obama, which includes, well, anyone. But this crap has gotten really old.

I don't know what happened with Cain and this woman, or these women or whatever, but this stinks.

Michael said...

This is an opportunity for Cain or his surrogates to play the same game and begin to refer to the slutty come-ons that an unnamed accuser made to him and who then falsely accused him of harassment when he declined her advances. This unnamed woman repeatedly and on specific occasions got drunk and tried to seduce Cain. She had a reputation for this kind of behavior with her cohorts who thought she was a nut case and many of them have said as much but do not want to be named. Everyone thought she was playing around on her husband and were worried that her behavior was going to get her fired. It is thought that members of the association were also solicited for sex but none claimed she waa asking for pay. Cain also declined to call the woman a whore as did others.

Patricia said...

This is ridiculous. Someone says Cain said or did something inappropriate, or a series of inappropriate things, but we don't get to know who says so or what Cain is alleged to have said or did. Even the witnesses are allowed to remain anonymous. How do I decide if this affects my opinion of Cain if I don't get to know these basic facts?

Is the accuser waiting for a book deal? For Cain to get the nomination, so she can inflict maximum damage?

vnjagvet said...

Michael's got it. Bennett is using the common lawyer's device of telling the truth, nothing but the truth, but not the whole truth. IOW, he is giving information that may be 100% accurate but is entirely useless -- except for the purpose of smearing Cain.

J Scott said...

The parallel to the OWS movement is striking. If they get specific, both accuser/OWS, then people can evaluate their positions.

Honest people can therefore conclude that neither party has a defensible position.

McCarthy had legitimacy as long as he could accuse without being called on the specificity of the charges. Once he was called on it, his bluff called as it were, honest people were able to determine that his accusations were without merit.

MayBee said...

Anderson Cooper chose to present it last night as "Cain accuser stands by her charges"

Synova said...

Of course it wasn't one incident. Is it ever?

I have no trouble believing that Cain was inappropriate. But we're not told what his inappropriateness was. What seems friendly, and flirty, and *nice*, on the giving end, is not always friendly and nice on the receiving end. And as soon as it's not nipped in the bud, it gets to be something that builds. On the receiving end a person thinks, "I can grit my teeth and smile and pretend that didn't bother me." So what is the person doing it supposed to think but that it was acceptable?

And it builds.

I'm convinced that this is why what Cain remembers clearly is the hand to the chin allegation. Because, in retrospect, the other allegations made at least a bit of sense. Okay, so she didn't like the flirting or the familiarity or being touched on her shoulder and back... but she didn't say anything... but it still makes sense that this might have been received as sexual rather than friendly... except the hand to the chin thing... WTF?

If he was grabbing asses and pressuring for sex and threatening employment, that would change my mind about him in a heart-beat.

But if it was like I guess it was, the women were still right to complain, so that it was finally (if belatedly) understood that what he did made them uncomfortable and made the workplace stressful and hostile... but it doesn't make him a bad person... only old fashioned.

damikesc said...

If Cain didn't sign anything, what's to stop him from naming the woman? Is there a lawyer in the house that can answer this question?

PR-wise, it'd be a disaster. You never punch down. You always punch up. That's why Obama was such a moron for attacking Limbaugh.

His accuser is not important enough for him to bother with.

...now, if he can get supporters to go after her, then it'd be a wise move. Just don't do it yourself, Mr. Cain.

It's also funny seeing the Left, who FERVENTLY defended Clinton who can be demonstrably proven had committed FAR worse.

Yet everyone believes it

After Crystal Mangum, I don't buy a damned thing without clear proof.

Pogo said...

Cain should just say Vera Baker every time they ask.

wef said...

Here's one "very specific instance" that the press is covering up:

Herb Cain raped Juanita Broaddrick.

(And I bet you didn't even know that she worked for the National Restaurant Association.)

n.n said...

This is just stupid. When someone's accusations are sufficient to effectively destroy another person's life in our society, the burden of proof should be high and rest with the accuser. The effort to manufacture perceptions in lieu of actual evidence should be rejected by our society. Whether the allegations will be substantiated or not, the process they are following is despicable. They do not even present circumstantial evidence to support their claims; other than a settlement, which is entirely ambiguous.

MayBee said...

Cain should just say Vera Baker every time they ask.

Ha!
A commenter at pajamas media suggested that rather than calling the accusers "Jane Doe", they should be referred to as "Vera Baker".

Darleen said...

Synova

When did women stop being adults?

If something bothers you, you take care of it. You don't "grit your teeth".

Even within the US there are different cultural experiences and what one might find appropriate in one context may not translate well in another.

But this "perception is everything and intentions mean nothing" is the wetdream of passive-aggressive controllers and lawsuit-lottery players everywhere.

This woman has got nothing. Nada. The NRA found Cain had no liability.

Left-feminism has done real women no favors.

maria horvath said...

How did Rush describe this yesterday? -- an anonymous accuser making anonymous charges.

John M Auston said...

I once overheard a woman at work, talking about her Easter plans.

I said: "Easter, is that the holiday where Jesus comes out of his tomb, and if he sees his shadow, 6 more weeks of winter?"

Needless to say, she announced that she was "offended" by that joke. I suggested that we take it to HR then, because I was "offended" that she thought that God did not have a sense of humor, there being, in my view, nothing the omnipotent One lacked.

The situation diffused into a mutual "offended" stalemate, and nothing came of it.

Btw, I think I first heard that joke on the old Smothers Brothers CBS show, and I have heard a Catholic priest repeat it.

We all need to lighten up.

PETER V. BELLA said...

Politico should either put up or shut up. Publish the whole story with all the details, facts, names, and dates.

Or they should print a major retraction. This is nothing but a yellow journalistic hit job.

Synova said...

Darleen, if something bothers you you certainly *ought* to take care of it immediately. Then it would cease to be a problem.

Women (and men, too, I'm sure, but in different situations) often don't want to sweat the little stuff, but the little stuff builds. There's a difference between ignoring (from my own experience) someone who says "fuck" twice in every sentence the first time, and ignoring it all day every day for weeks on end. The best thing to do, OF COURSE, is to say, "Language!" the first time it happens. I don't blame the person for thinking that it was acceptable, since he had no way whatsoever to know that it was not acceptable, if no one said anything. But not everyone has the personality to speak up immediately.

I know that I don't, even when I know it would be better if I did.

I think that we're often our own worst enemies.

Spread Eagle said...

I'm betting it's far less than even Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill.

After watching the Thomas hearings wall-to-wall, I came away with the distinct impression that Hill was a spurned Thomas stalker. She then saw a way to exact a measure of revenge for being spurned by telling stories about him in the confirmation process, but events spun out of control when she was dragged into the media circus as a cause célèbre.

This is even less.

Chip Ahoy said...

I've had enough of untested presidents.

Untested in campaigning against smear artists?

I could live with that, seems a quick learner. What is interesting to me in this moment is observing Cain's campaign money pile go schwing ⤴ while simultaneously Politico's reputation goes ⤵ into the bin.

Ralph L said...

We all need to lighten up.
Racist!

David R. Graham said...

Glad you're making this point for specificity. Thanks, could not be more essential.

Related: IMO, far too much goes into concern over reputation. Ideally, it is not a concern for anyone.

Reputation is two things that frequently do not match: the actual weight of deservedness one bears because of one's impulses and actions over time, the weight of deservedness imputed to one by myriad fellow creatures.

If the intrinsic, actual reputation is good, the extrinsic, imputed one is irrelevant, isn't it? How did Lincoln put it ... If the end bore him out, well and good, but if it did not, ten thousand angels saying he was right would not matter. Or Gamaliel: if it's of God you cannot stop it, and if it's not, it will stop itself.

I am disappointed in Herman Cain for responding to the smear. He knows the truth, and if it bears him out - and he knows if it does or doesn't - that's all that matters. If the truth accuses him, then he is, as Riehl says, a clown show. Either way, it was demeaning to respond to the smear. I suspect Riehl is right, as usual.

margit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) said...

This is why Rush calls 'em the "drive-by" media -- pop off a couple a shots and scram. In this case, "drive-by" accuser, too.

Couldn't survive a real (rhetorical) firefight, any of 'em, which is why they all behave the way they do.

Remember, for the left, it's the seriousness of the (often-bogus) charge, not the quality of the evidence. Hell, this isn't even yet a proffer.

And for the left it's their intentions that matter, not the (often-deleterious) results.

In a word: TYPICAL.

traditionalguy said...

The repetition of the word SEXUAL in a judgement of a happy black man is all the Attacker want.

Proof is irrelevant, a description is irrelevant, and the end of the SEXUAL word being repeated will never happen.

The victim is irrelevant too. The fact is that a termination settlement was paid because SEXUAL things surrounded this black man.

By the way, the happy black man may finally have to admit that black men have SEXUAL thoughts just as if they are equal to white men...No, no, no. That's more than American voters can accept.

I am willing to bet that the voters have out grown their Mind Controllers. We will see.

What ever will Karl Rove do for a living next? Maybe get a gig in the next Egyptian election warning the Muslim Brotherhood about that SEXUAL life happens among Coptics and Pool is coming to River City...the Nile River that is.

jeff said...

"You want to accuse and remain impervious to any tests of your truth-telling."

sounds about right. Like wanting someone to take care of you without earning it. Its the new thing.

"I am not a Cain supporter; I've had enough of untested presidents."

So your choices this time around are Carter, Obama and GHW Bush. Which one you voting for?

Come to think of it, Carter was a Governor. Doubly tested.

Christoph said...

You want to accuse and remain impervious to any tests of your truth-telling.

Mind-boggling!

This sounds pretty commonly female to me.

Basil said...

While post-modern humanity likes to imagine itself superior to Judeo-Christian tradition, there is epic fail here compared to old fashioned Biblical ethics.

"By the mouth of TWO witnesses shall every truth be established," and "Thou shalt not bear false witness."

SunnyJ said...

The lawyer has made himself the star of the show. He's supposedly telling us what the woman's side is yet when pressed he has to admit she says, "leave me out of it".

Several thoughts:
A. The stage this is playing on is relevant..1990's.
B. Strange bedfellows are made of many agendas that are not connected by willing to make "hay" off of each other. Situational ethics...comint into it's own in the 90's.
C. Politico ran over 50 articles on Cain in 3 days. Clinton and Jessica Flowers had 3 articles in 3 months before it really took off.

Prof Althouse makes the point that the manipulation of the word "specific" attempts to make it sound like facts have been added to the shell story, when in fact, there is still no real story.

This lawyer is after his 15 minutes.

Cedarford said...

AllenS said...
It's my understanding that Cain didn't pay for the settlement, but the NRA did. If Cain didn't sign anything, what's to stop him from naming the woman? Is there a lawyer in the house that can answer this question?

=======================
The NRA paid for the lawyering and the settlement re: their executive. Probably some clause in his contract or "what is traditionally done in officer v. employee matters."

Any settlement would have nondisclosure signoffs required of the principal parties (Cain, accuser), plus signoffs for relevant witnesses, lawyers, HR parties involved.

The intent is to, of course, finish the matter, rather than allow any involved party being able to wage efforts later on to damage the character and reputation of any party - including the witnesses, lawyers, and HR people involved.

The law does require the fact that there was a settlement be recorded.
Because it is enforced by contractural law..not some backroom deal where cash is passed by a person in a mask and all parties warned there legs would be broken if details got out. The Bar would discipline or disbar a lawyer that breached it.

Very similar to the mechanisms of non-disclosure following a divorce, a company losing proprietary secrets in the head of a departing employee as part of a severance deal.

Or someone leaving the AF and signing something about specific systems, certain command-related actions of me and subordinate personnel are agreed to be covered under Nat Security, remain classified and never to be disclosed..or else..(Without a cent of extra money given *whine, sniffle*).

traditionalguy said...

# Basil...Good point about Hebrew Torah requiring two or three witnesses to establish a charge against a leader.

The two or three had to risk death themselves for perjury if proven.

The Commandment "Thou shall not bear false witness" means only this situation in a court against an accused who could then lose his life by a Judicial Murder, like Jezebel had done to Naboth to cop his vineyard.

Shame on Rick Perry, the Super Christian...but wait because we don't have two or three witnesses to that yet.

elcrain said...

Well, the smear seems to be working. I was out at a cultural event this morning (rehearsal for a newly-formed community Renaissance choir) and heard a snarky comment about Cain "groping anything he can find with both hands."

I raised my hand and said I would vote for Cain if he were the nominee, but nobody was listening to me.

And to think, the Arts 'n' Humanities tribe think they are so goddamned smarter than anyone else.

Tyrone Slothrop said...

It's interesting to me that this thread has hit the wall after 46 comments-- proof positive that this "scandal" has run its course. Meanwhile, the post above it, about how some people hate Scott Walker, has generated 293 comments, with Ritmo and Palladian smashing each other in the mouth as the thread degenerates. Cain rolls on.

Penny said...

"The settlement was for peanuts. Hard to believe this amounts to much of a beef."

True...BUT

Apparently, 'Beef with Peanut Sauce' is STILL a dish best served in Asia.

Five figures in Asia will cost you about $100.00. ;)

PaulV said...

It would seem that Cain has handled the matter well by letting Politico and rest of media shoot its wad. (gun reference) It will be tough for them to try this again with Cain or eventual Republican nominee. He should thank God for his dimwit enemies.

Carol_Herman said...

Oh, please.

There are people hanging out their windows, now, because they want to hear the juicy details.

As to Herman Cain, he KNEW he had given away 3 or 4 months worth of pay ... to women who accused him of "sexual harassment."

To have a case, something "sexual" had to take place.

I don't disbelieve the women, now. THEY didn't call in and report these settlements!

You want to keep secrets in the Internet age? How likely is that?

Both women had conversations ... to the best of your knowledge ... at least with lawyers! (So your secret flew out the window.)

Now?

Herman Cain thought he was covered by a "confidentiality agreement."

Neither of the women are lawyers. And, they're smart enough to know that media attention can be deadly.

Has it all been bad for Herman Cain? NO! Most folk know a great deal about "sex at the office." But everything they know they learned through gossip. (Or first hand experience.)

Be funny, if one of the women's first names was Monica. Or Paula. Or Juanita. But what are the odds for that?

What are the odds that at least one of the females isn't Black?

Will the story go away?

No. Not yet. And, it's not being driven by these two women.

Penny said...

"Herman Cain thought he was covered by a "confidentiality agreement.""

He was.

But that was back in the day when accusers were making money from filing harassment charges, and they were afraid they might have to pay that back if they continued to whine.

Penny said...

It's a NEW DAY! As Grace Slick once said.

Penny said...

Said it MANY times, and will say it again....

Lawyers are the Distribution Channel for folks who could care less about how they get their "s'mores".

sorepaw said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kirk Parker said...

These stories usually follow a common trajectory...

so...

I'm wondering if it's about time for someone to wander in and point out that the French and the Italians are mocking us behind our backs for our prudish unsophistication in these matters.

drunkdebunker said...

It may be mind boggling but its all the cover the dinosaur media needs. This story ain't going away. Think any liberal blacks will be pissed?

Don't Tread 2012 said...

Isn't it time to trot out all the 'its only sex' stories from the Clinton era?

Not that it would make any difference.

Marine Mom in St Paul said...

We have some great precedents to guide us on whether these incidents rise to the level where they should cause concern for the people, and the press is well aware of how to behave as they gather facts.
1) If there is any adultery (Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Jesse Jackson), not a problem.
2) If there is any lying about events and smearing of those who are accusing (Bill Clinton, John Edwards), not a problem.
3) If there is any improper political appointment(s) resulting from personal relationships (Barney Frank), no problem.
4) If there are any children born of illicit sexual relationships (John Edwards, Jesse Jackson), no problem.
I am having trouble hearing you--did you say something about Herman Cain making some unspecified comments? THAT GUY'S GOTTA GO!