Really! But this story is the most damaging because it places a (white) face on it and details specific actions. This is starting to look like Tiger Woods all over again. What did Tiger end up with --- 13 women?

What got Tiger in trouble and is doing the same for Herman is the denials. Tiger's women said that when they found out about all the women, they felt "raped and violated" and wanted their side of the story told.

Herman's women are saying that his denials make them feel "raped." And, like Tiger's women, they want their side of the story told. The total is up to four women and six witnesses (two of which are men.) Most did not know one another and all their stories are consistent and two of them received settlements that involved non-disclosure clauses with punitive penalties. (If you tell what happened you have to pay back four times the settlement.) But the legal consensus seems to be that Herman has violated the NRA settlement terms and the women are probably legally free to talk all they want now.

The issue that has been troubling the GOP fat cats however, is the "race card." It appears that all the women involved were young and white. One witness, a male, said that he preferred blondes, but never hit on interns. That shows a calculating nature since interns can't be threatened with loss of job since they aren't being paid and are not technically employees. Just the aspect of not hitting on interns shows that Herman knew what he was doing was wrong and was aware of the consequences (or lack of them at the NRA.)

Even the National Rifle Association is complaining. Apparently they are getting thousands of hateful e-mails intended for the National Restaurant Association. "I'll give up my sexual harrassment when you pry their cold, dead fingers off my ...." Oh, never mind!

"I'm not selling my story" and "I'm really embarrassed" while standing in front of several cameras.

These women are a joke and the media should be shameful for even giving these women publicity.

If I was this woman and Herman Cain did this to me I would have reported it to the police years ago and I certainly would not be in front of the cameras smiling.

Why is it such a big deal now and it wasn't then when it was so fresh and painful to her? I say we take the BJ Clinton route on this one. It's the economy stupid.

JoAnn---what would you tell the police? He harassed me. But there is no physical evidence..it was not a rape...and it is he said, she said. guess how far the police would have taken it. The most likely outcomes were she would either be ignored or humiliated...or both. Police like physical evidence. She did, apparently, tell other people at the time, so the story isn't new. What is new..personal insight into his character is relevant given he is asking for public support to represent and govern us.

Allred is a high price ambulance chasing media whore. The fact that she's involved discredits this whole situation.

Can we get back on track with the campaigning and elections instead of detracting from it?

I don't know about the rest of the country, but I'm more interested in our financial situation, lack of jobs, housing situation, illegal immigration, that fact that both corporate and social welfare is completely out of hand, and numerous other topics.... instead of seeing all of these articles that not a one of us will ever know the complete facts about. If we don't know all of the facts, then we can't pass judgement.

LetsBeRational, read the Chicago paper.

It's obvious the left can't stand the thought of the right electing a black man to run for president -- especially against a liberal black man.

Shameful, but the left must feel they have a monopoly on African Americans.

After just watching her on TV a few moments ago...I thoroughly disbelive her. Here is a woman who says she was embarrased to come forward until now...but look how she is dressed on NATIONAL TV...AN EXTREMELY LOW CUT DRESS THAT EXPOSES OVER HALF OF HER huge BREASTS ...she was not too embarrased to expose that pair to the entire world and she wants someone to believe she was too modest to come forward....and then go to GLORIA ALLRED the most low-life lawyer in the country ??? One lying biatch.....Besides the 'hores downtown skidrow wouldn't be caught dead in that floosys dress....!!!

Trytoberational, you aren't. You have convicted Cain, and swallowed whole...the woman's story. Numbers mean nothing when gold-diggers smell an opportunity. If the woman can't prove her story, then she has no story, legally. She came out, I'm guessing, only after the statute of limitations expired,, for the charge. This way she can attack freely, and doesn't have to fear about a lawsuit on her. Her money will come secretly, may have already come from Cains opponents' backers. Cain may or may not have done a thing to the woman but the damage has been done to him. Nothing will change that, because that is the ambulance-chaser Alla$$ mode of operation. Allred is lawyer scum, no question about it.

AlexM,

Great post. My thoughts exactly... Bottom line, we will never know the real truth..

She wants something out of this story--she looks quite "hard"---like a 'working gal" that is not legal in most States.

Fame, is a powerful aphrodisiac.

It will be interesting to see if she is another "Kill the Cain" Campaign--

If it is true, Cain Should address this issue immediately, instead of stonewalling.

So in 2011, if you hit on a women and put your hand on her leg, it is sexual harassment?

He had a wife so if he did this it was wrong, but it is not sexual harassment.

Maybe it is "he said she said", but anyway you slice it, Cain is toast.

On a brighter note, that the National Rifle Association is getting the Nat'l Restaurant's hate email made me LOL. Didn't see that coming (who knew "thousands" were too dumb to make that error), hilarious!

p.s. - Tom, if you do that, while out on business with a co-worker, probably. IF you are the boss man, and even worse, in addition, imply if they want to keep their job, "put out" - then, duh - what part of sexual harassment is not clear there?

Cassandra,

He wasn't out with a co-worker, employee, or subordinate. He was out with a woman that flew from Chicago to DC to have dinner, drinks and ask for help in getting a job.

She said after she said no to his advances he stopped. This sounds like a guy hitting on a chic that he wants to sleep with and again this is not sexual harassment.

The very fact that Cain responded (a couple of weeks ago), when asked if he made any inappropriate sexual advances stated, "Outside the National Restaurant Association, no."

Uh duh! Outside of killing just that one person, I never committed murder.

And NOW he claims he NEVER made inappropriate sexual advances, ANYWHERE.

Which is it, Mr. Cain? You better get that handkerchief ready, you're gonna be needing to mop a LOT of face sweat.

Its never a joke when a man harasses a woman? Yet the same lawyer (Alred)sp. used the stimulus package joke earlier in the same interview...

It just goes to show her lack of concern for what is right and her concern for making a name and money for herself.

I'm not saying any of this is ok I just wanted to point out her double talk.

As a Army SHARP (Sexual Harrassment and Rape Prevention) representative, it is documented that 80% of sexual harrassment and rape go unreported due to the reasons Ms Bailek listed, it's a "he said, she said," situation. The means and support for people who have experienced SH and rape are still difficult to get to work in the victims favor. I am not saying I believe Ms Bailek, but there is a good potential that these accusations have, at least, some validation. But, as in any criminal matter, he is innocent until proven guilty.
The issue I have with Mr Cain is; he denied it from the beginning, he was, in fact, accused of misconduct and he stated he wasn't. When he was asked directly about it he said..."never, outside of the restaurant association." That got some really good play here.
Sexual Harrassment is a serious issue, I don't know any women who haven't at some point in their life, experienced it in one respect or another. Many women barely speak of it, and even more resist reporting it. This, above most, is a key supporting factor for this.
Mr Cain needs to step up and admit the complaints happened, and address them if he is innocent. There is over a year to clear it up. Beyond that, there is always 2016.

People forget the workplace issues.

1) If you are job-hunting (which the most recent woman was) and you were to file charges of sexual harassment against the CEO of the national association of your industry, I would have to think that your chances of finding a job would be down the crapper.

2) The other three women all faced the same delimna --- they had to choose between reporting the incident and being fired or not reporting it. This is a tough choice and why most workplace harassment is not reported. But when you think about it, the harrassment was bad enough that two of the three women chose to lose their job to keep from working with Cain.

3) Outside of the list of women (which is now at four), there are also six others (including two men) that have come forward as witnesses to Cain's improper advances, pointing out that they were primarily toward blond white women (LOL shades of Clarence Thomas.)

4) One of Cain's perks as CEO was an apartment paid for by the NRA. Employees referred to it as "the love nest."

5) Even though Cain's job with the NRA often involved dining out, heavy drinking, and conventions and events all over the world, Cain NEVER took his wife, NEVER introduced her to other NRA employees, and she was often referred to as "Madam X."

6) In the context of what we know, one in six persons has been sexually harassed in the workplace. Out of those harassed, 43 percent say it was from a manager and 51 percent say it was from a peer. Only 35 percent of people harassed reported it; women (47 percent) are more likely to do so than men (21 percent). If we assume that these percentages hold true with Her-man, they, like Tiger Woods, there will be more women coming forward (a least two more on average.)

Chicago politics at its finest. Why do you people fall for these kinds of ploys? All of these women waited until an election to come out.. and even then there is nothing to substantiate these claims.

The dirty dems are out in full force.

Chris:

1. You would be wrong. Not in this day and age. She had no problem finding the 'right' attorney now, she would have prevailed then...again...true allegations or not.

2. All of these women suddenly have the courage to stand up now, but none did then. Okay

3. LOL... talk about playing the race card. Did these folks come from the OWS crowd?

4. What credible source did you find this?

5. Again.. are you or were you there to witness this.

6. Your arguements are generalized here.

Very poor arguements... something you could find in Star.

Outdoorsman - you are correct is isn't a joke when a man harasses a woman.

But in this case he didn't sexual harasses this women, until people figure this out nobody can have a rational conversation about anything.

You never grind-ed to close to a woman on the dance floor? you never thought a girl was giving you the go ahead to proceed a little further only to be denied? It only becomes harassment after you continue on when she has said no.

Now maybe we should be asking home drinks they had before driving (that is a crime) or whyhe would be trying to sleep with this woman if he is married at the time.

I find it very difficult to believe these women.

Mostly because all the allegations are so old. If 4 different women in the 90's were harassed then there should be women coming out of the wood work in 2000-2010. We're getting people trying to claim a habitual nature, but all of it is over a decade and some a decade in a half old.

Also It's difficult to fathom what this woman is expressing in details. She is not describing sexual harassment. She is describing sexual assault and attempted rape. But even she and her very well paid lawyer is not going down that road. If Alred smelled assault allegations and she thought she could run with it she'd be all over that in a heartbeat.

Not saying Kain is innocent. I'm saying these women are not doing the feminist labor movement any favors at the moment.

Translation, as soon As we get a good enough offer this will be a book and a special Movie on LMN.

Gloria Allred, now there is a name that invokes trust, honesty and integrity. Interestingly, one of Bialek's first words were "I was not paid to come forward". I'm wondering if it should have read "I'm was not paid to come forward... yet".

Funny how a white woman makes these kinds of accusations about a black GOP candidate and it is considered fact, not even a "wait for an investigation" response from the left or black community.

The right takes issue with Obama and it is all about the right being racists. They say it is not but they are "liars and racists".

Where is the left making the claim that this woman is a racist?

Cniht,
One of the complaints listed in an article last week was from 2009.

Cain is a liar, we already have a liar in teh White House, had a bigger one before that. dont matter what party they're all liars.

Didn't Gloria Allred represent the woman who had a son from governor Arnold? how did that turn out? How soon we forget when the facts or situation doesn't fit the way we want them to. Believe what you want but please try to base them on some reality. Given other 'sex' scandals of recent past one would expect to see these people stop the denials or cover-ups as they become worse as they continue with this strategy.

The left isn't claiming this women is a racist because they are the actual RACISTS. The left has no problem with white male politicians sexually assaulting and harassing women but are all up in arms over a black man accused of doing it.

The left is the very definition of RACISTS and HYPOCRITS!!

Women have been Vilified when it comes to unwanted sexual contact, ever since EVE was blamed for getting Adam kicked out of Eden.

That's just the way it goes in a Male Dominated World.

I believe she is telling the truth and I believe there are more to come because, Herman "Superfly" Cain is a Sociopath Narcissistic Serial Womanizer!

Any other man would be accused of Assault not Harassment!

When a woman hires a celebrity attorney and comes out dressed to the gills and then makes the rounds of all the shows, it certainly makes one wonder about the nobility of her intentions.

The question I keep asking myself is why, if I had done the things he is supposed to have done, would I run for President of the United States KNOWING that these things would HAVE to come out? I am left with two choices: Number one, he's really not as smart as I thought he was, since he would HAVE had to know this would come out, or #2, there are people who are extremely desperate to get him out of the way and will stop at NOTHING to discredit and ruin him.

I have learned over the years that an allegation doesn't HAVE to be true to ruin someone. All it has to be is reported....

4 women? Come on... My question would be ... how many women said yes to "You want a job, right?" ... then got a job or another favor... or just got used totally? Is this the type of individual you would want as president of the united states? Forget the sex... He has always reminded me of Kwami Kilpatrick (ex detroit mayor) and is more all about I'll grease your palm... errrrr... Ill wash your back if you do m.... errrr ... wash mine..... Just get out Herman and let the country get on with it without YOUR distraction

Wilberta Berry

Women have been Vilified when it comes to unwanted sexual contact, ever since EVE was blamed for getting Adam kicked out of Eden.

That's just the way it goes in a Male Dominated World.

I believe she is telling the truth and I believe there are more to come because, Herman "Superfly" Cain is a Sociopath Narcissistic Serial Womanizer!

Any other man would be accused of Assault not Harassment!

And women have been using sex as a weapon ever since they learned they could play the victim card by screaming "sexual assault". Do not get down on just men about the situation, try looking at your own gender regarding those that have been found to make false accusations just to impugn anothers character.

Any other man would be accused of assault? Save it. A man makes a claim that a woman sexually assaulted him and he is laughed out of the room with jeers like "And you loved it!" or "Is she hiring?". You want to worry about a double standard, try worrying about that one.

Also, your comments about men and about Cain truly do indicate that you simply have an axe to grind with men and with conservatives.

What a crock. It is always about the money. You can bet if Allred is involved there is a payday somewhere down the line.

I don't care wht he did, well i do but so what? He did what he did cause he is a letch. But he also lied and lied and lied. He should have owned it and it probably would have gone away by now.

As for if it's about money. SO WHAT? If i had been one of these women, hell yeah i'd use it to get me some money too. The SOB needs to pay up. He is an adult and should be responsible for his actions. Well we got a year to go, I think i'll be completely fed up by the time the election comes around. I will vote them all out, we need to start over. What we have ain't workin

What gets me is he is so arogant about all this. Why in the hell did he think he could run for president and this not come out? If there is dirt it always comes out. DUH Besides he is a smartarse and i don't like him.

and the ad with him just looking at the camera and slowly starts smiling. That ad is so disturbing. I'm sure women that know him were really disgusted with that. Looks like a perv.

Maybe because it didnt happen?

Funny, the left is all upset about him lying about this, but when it was Slick Willy lying about things he was accused of, and when they were foudn to be true, the lying did not seem like it was too much of an issue then.

I agree, the lying is destestable, I can not abide by that for any candidate but the left was so willing to defend a liar on their own side but so willing to hang a liar on the right.

And if you dont believe me, Anthony Weiner lied also, but that was not much of an issue to them either.

.....I'm sure most women after being practically sexually assaulted by a man then proceed to ride back to their hotel room in the same cab......this is just another character assasination by the left of anybody who becomes a threat to their messiah. Afterall, I'm sure Gloria Allred wouldn't want to influence an election now, would she?

Herbert...your divorce papers are in the mail!

I can soundly claim to have absolutely no first hand knowledge of any of this whatsoever and still don't know enough about Herman Cain personally to reach any kind of conclusions about his character, but I can offer an observation or two that one might want to take into consideration.

Sexual Harassment was a big thing in the 1990's. Yeah, it's been around forever, but before 1991 or so, most people had never heard that term used to describe it or had never given it any thought. Once it became a household word, it was, in a sense, 'in style' for awhile.

I know a number of men who were accused of varying types of sexual harassment, in many cases much more than once and by different people, over a course of maybe five to seven years. In most cases, they were informed that there was a complaint filed, but they weren't told who had made the complaint and they hadn't the slightest idea who it may have been. Most of the time, after being told about the complaint, the issue just kind of 'died on the vine' and nothing ever seemed to come from it. Strangely, after maybe 1998 or right around 2000, no one was accusing them of sexual harassment anymore.

Now, I can see different reasons why that could be. I can see different motivations for some anonymous person making the complaint, which never seemed to resolve in any way. Given the nature of the allegations in the cases I'm familiar with, there's just not enough information available to know. However, some men just seemed to be 'lightning rods' for accusations for several years.

I will say that the more responsibility the man held, the larger the number of allegations. Still, most seemed not to go anywhere beyond being extremely unnerving and frustrating to the men the complaints had been filed against. To say the least, being made aware of it definitely ruined these fellas' day.

The really strange thing is the number of first class creeps I am/was familiar with who absolutely were, without question, guilty of sexual harassment because they did it openly and notoriously every day who never seemed to catch any real grief for it and kept on doing it until who knows when. The men who always seemed to be catching the heat were always the last ones most would expect this to be an issue with, but they did usually make pretty fair money themselves or else would have been the responsibility of an organization that at least looked to be doing pretty well, financially. The real jerks usually weren't worth much and most of the places where they once could be found are long since gone, too. Funny how that works.

Maybe Cain did what these women are alleging, maybe he didn't. It is interesting, though, that all of these complaints are from the 1990's. Any more recent ones out there? I can't say without knowing him personally, but it could be that Cain was, himself, just an easy target. He probably appeared to have means, represented organizations that were known to have means, and possibly for whatever the reason people who liked to file complaints when it was an 'in' thing to do had no problem with accusing him. It could be he wasn't liked personally, or else just wasn't seen as likable enough for anyone to feel any guilt about using him as a name and face on which to base an allegation for whatever personal satisfaction or other gain they may have realized from it.

People are fascinating creatures.

I wonder if anyone down playing this, what they would have to say if someone behaved like this with their daughter? Or wife? I agree with why people don't report these things- he can come up with an expensive attorney and drag someone through the mud. If you don't have the $$ to defend yourself it does come down to he said, she said. These guys go after people in a vulnerable situation, because they know they can play the mud slinging game and that makes many women back down- you can see the backlash and now all the scrutiny she is facing. Everyone thinking she's out for money. So if she never gets money for this, does that make her more credible? People will still find a reason to beat her down. I think she has alot of guts to do this.

Hebbert...Hembet...Herman...whatever your name...your divorce papers are in the mail!

Wait a minute, Clinton was accused multiple times of sexual harrasement while the Gov of Arkansas, and the left chose to elect him TWICE! A black man is accused and suddenly they don't want him to be president?

Paula Jones? Jennifer Flowers? Kathleen Wiley? Juanita Broaddrick?

http://factreal.wordpress.com/2011/11/03/flashback-the-msm-ignored-clintons-accusers-of-sexual-harassment-and-rape/

RACISTS!

(Actually I believe them to be nothing more than hypocrites but do those of you on the left see how idiotic it looks when the race card is played on EVERY SITUATION!)

oh please, when Clinton lied the pubes were like OMG OMG OMG he lied. Where is the OMG OMG because a presidential candidate has lied how many times now?

Okay, let's straighten a few things out here, for you knuckledraggers...

1. First, this isn't he said/she said. This is now he said/she said/she said/she said/she said.

2. These women are NOT just coming out now. They came out, to either attorneys or friends/family, when this happened. We are just having it brought to our attention now. For those who are claiming this fourth woman was just waiting for her chance, you're missing a couple cars on the logic train. If that was her motivation, she would have had to of consulted a psychic to know that 10 + years after this happened, Cain would run for president and she'd be able to "cash in". Furthermore, it's not like any woman started this process. Politico did, by unearthing the complaints/settlements. Now, seeing the situation, that other victims of his are out there, and that this may be socially relevant, she's decided to tell her story. It's not like she just popped up and said, "Here I am!".

3. Any person, who hasn't experienced sexual harrassment or assault, and automatically writes off the woman's story, well you're disgusting. You obviously have zero insight into the difficulties, extreme stress, humiliation, frustration, anger, accusations, and consequences of bringing this kind of charge. Have some women "cried rape", for sure, do the majority of those who make accusations lie??? Absolutely not. In fact, the system is set up to make litigating or proving any kind of sex crime or tort extremely hard. Those who've made the claim that women "make this up all the time" etc, etc, etc, need to do some serious research pertaining to the social sciences and laws that govern this. I've heard people on here scream about how we should all believe Cain because it's nothing but a woman telling her story and there's no evidence. Ahem, that's why we shouldn't convict him, however he has no more to back up his side than the women do. So if a man has nothing but their word, it's credible, if a women has nothing but her word, she's a liar??? What makes Cain inherently more believable? The women aren't the ones who've been denying or changing their stories.

4. This isn't about his freaking race. That's a desparate claim, from people who are desparate to keep the "Cain Train" going. Remember, this is the guy who a couple weeks ago denied racism even still existed. Now this is some racist conspiracy??? Nor is this the "liberal media". First, to conservatives it's the liberal media, to the rest of the world it's facts. Sorry if they don't add up to what you want to believe in, but thems the breaks. Look at all the white guys, both liberal and conservative, the media has brought down due to crap like this... Weiner, Ensign, Gingrich, Clinton, Edwards, Condet, Frank... But when it's about Thomas or Cain all of a sudden race, which conservatives claim never plays a part in anything else, is the motivating factor??? Get real.

Bottomline, not only is Cain assi-nine-nine-nine, he's also smarmy-smarmy-smarmy.

Tom:

In reality, that would be called an "Assault"; as you say not Sexual Harassment--.

Glenn Davis:

Why haven't we heard OMG-OMG?

Because, it is an everyday occurrence with Politicians from both sides---the shock factor is gone.

So......Not defending anyone but.........How does a single Mom with a history of financial trouble with no intentions of getting paid, afford a lawyer the caliber of Gloria Allred?

That being said, Gloria would probably do it just for the publicity!

" Here is a woman who says she was embarrased to come forward until now...but look how she is dressed on NATIONAL TV...AN EXTREMELY LOW CUT DRESS THAT EXPOSES OVER HALF OF HER huge BREASTS ...she was not too embarrased to expose that pair to the entire world and she wants someone to believe she was too modest to come forward...."

Seriously? You're making judgments about her character because you don't like the way she's dressed? Come on......

Cain has not called her a liar.............basically an opportunist.......why is that?

With all these different women and their allegations and filings of sexual harassment.....well, where there is smoke there is fire.........and why will not Cain let them out of their confidentiality agreements and have a face off and be done with this if indeed there is nothing to any of these accusations?

Oh, yeah, it is easier to say NO I DIDN'T when there is no one to say otherwise.

And for those of you who condemned President Clinton..his was a consensual affair with no animosity involved and Cain has women alleging they were forced, made uncomfortable, threatened and some who actually filed lawsuits against the man...............they are very different.

A man like Cain for President is ludicrous................he seems to think he can do anything.....he is arrogant....and I already feel he is corrupted to the highest level. Not Presidential material.

He should just go away and enjoy his immense wealth....he has no business in seeking such a serious office as the President.

Hard to believe anyone would vote for this man with even one allegation let alone two law suits settled with confidentiality agreements........and why the agreements............what the heck does this man need hidden when he so loudly professes to be innocent of all wrong doing....does not make sense.

Sarah and Debbie - great posts! Thanks!

If this is how the left reacts to 4 out dated & unsubstantiated stories about harassment, then it's probably a good thing Cain didn't drive a car off the road, land in some water and leave the woman to drown. Or would that be okay? Just when I think I've got the liberals figured out... <sigh> I give up.

where there is smoke there is fire.......

Yeah, there was smoke 4 years ago that smelled like associations with domestic terrorists and Black liberation theologists, but nobody in the media was smelling it.

... for those of you who condemned President Clinton..his was a consensual affair

Really?? Paula Jones, Wanita Broderick, Jennifer Flowers, Kathleen Whiley? "Consensual"?? ............Really????

I've heard people on here scream about how we should all believe Cain because it's nothing but a woman telling her story and there's no evidence. Ahem, that's why we shouldn't convict him, however he has no more to back up his side than the women do.

Bottomline, not only is Cain assi-nine-nine-nine, he's also smarmy-smarmy-smarmy.

So Sarah, you call for "no rush to judgement", then you make a judgement all in the same post. As for me, I will wait until facts are brought to light one way or the other about this as, of this time, it is all his word agains theirs. Show me actual proof (other than an ambulance chasing, disgruntled employee searching lawyer) not speculation/accusation. Allred would have been more believable if she hadn't done this just last year in the California election. She has shown a pattern here for a propensity to effect elections with her actions.

Debbie, the reason people bring up wild Bill is because he was the President. He lied under oath with zero penalty and he was a married man playing patty cake in the oval office.

It is about character or lack there off. Thus the comparison. At least, that is the way I see it.

At this point, I wouldn't vote for either one!

Toxic,

No, I call for no hypocrasy. You can't say automatically they're lying because all they have is there word, when that's all he has too. I'm not the one saying all they have is there word. I'm saying they have, in addition to their word, numerous complaints, male witnesses who aren't even associated with the women backing up their claims, the fact that the only one we know to have lied about this is CAIN himself, the fact that they were paid money, the fact that they aren't receiving money now, the fact that this woman's story is detailed... That to me, shifts this from being his word against hers, to his word against numerous hers along with substantial circumstantial evidence. Rushing to judgment would be after the first story came out, proclaiming him guilty, but not looking at the circumstances and his actions of the last week coupled with sociological/legal truths behind similar cases. That's making an educated decision.

Furthermore, Allred has nothing to do with whether or not this happened, anymore than Cochran, Dershowitz and Kardashian had anything to do with whether or not OJ was guilty, or Baez had anything to do with Anthony's guilt. I'm sure she loves having her face out there, and that might have been why she decided to represent this woman in the first place, but it has no bearing on what Cain has done over the last week, the credibility of the alledged victims, the other witnesses who've come forward, the money paid out, yada, yada, yada... Allred's not the one making the claim.

Yeah, there was smoke 4 years ago that smelled like associations with domestic terrorists and Black liberation theologists, but nobody in the media was smelling it.

Normally, this statement would disqualify you from even receiving an answer from me, but seriously???? Perhaps because anyone with an IQ over 20, or anyone who isn't in the grip of paranoid schizophrenia knows this to be absolutley, unequivacally, ridiculous. Please, provide your "evidence" as to Obama's terroristic tendencies. If nothing else, do you really think Hilary Clinton and Jon Mcain (the two with the most to lose) wouldn't have been all over this had there been a grain of truth in it?

Tell me, how do you sleep at night believing the boogieman is coming to get you?

Everyone knows lawyers don't lie and they take most of their cases pro bono. The rest of you are just ignorant nincompoops who want to discredit this most noble of professions. dupes one and all. We don't have prostitutes either we just have men who pay honest hard working females for their favors. What we need to do is get rid of the men and then we won't have any prostitutes. How does that picture sound to all of the women who KNOW, Mr. Cain is guilty.

Toxic,

Furthermore, please tell me, if Cain has nothing to hide and all of this is totally made up, why the gag orders? Wouldn't he have wanted it out there so he could dispell it?

Also, these women brought this claim before leaving the job. Why would they go through the whole process of making up a story, hiring attorneys, filing complaints, dealing with the negative consequences, for one year's salary, when they could've just continued to work and earn money?

NC,

The only person who's been caught in a lie so far is Cain. But of course, we all know politicians never lie, right? This isn't about the lawyers, to use Mr. Cain's words, you're comparing apples to oranges. It's about the women and Cain. So replace the word "lawyers" in your post with "women".

Are you calling these women prostitutes? Because women who sell sex don't tend to be working in careers, and have educations. Why would they resort to prostitution if they had a descent job. You sound like a mysoginist.

These women are just now coming out with sexual harrassment charges? How much money are these women getting? Anyone who's been in that situation before knows that if you want to keep your job, you keep you're mouth shut until you can look for other employment. Case Closed! Most people would also avoid the person who's harrassing them at all costs. If these allegations did happen, it happened it the 90"s. These women are not scarred by this. Otherwise they would have reported it a long time ago.

I'm tired of the left thinking this should disqualify Cain from Presidency. They didn't get rid of Bill Clinton when he started harrassing his interns in the White House. This is another ploy by the liberal left that thinks only them, who's correct and what their morality is is the only one that's right. And for all of you remembering who Monica Lewinsky is - she was a 21 year old intern. Just 3 years older than his daughter. Remember parents were afraid to let their daughters become interns at the White House during that time.

OK, it's obvious to me that you will believe only what you want to believe.

I didn't say Obama had "terroristic tendencies", only that he had an association with one. That would/should have raised questions in this same media that has already condemned Cain. ...And, that church he attended with reverend Wright/Flagher, I personally, would have walked out after hearing some of that B.L.T. racist B.S. coming from the pulpit. But he didn't...not in 20 years.

Allred does have something to do with this as she has injected herself in at least 2 political elections in the last year. I think that is relevant. Especially, when there is a potential for book deals/guest apearances on the Today show and such.

From what I had heard as of this morning, this last person to make a claim was not even an employee.

Why would they go through the whole process of making up a story, hiring attorneys, filing complaints, dealing with the negative consequences, for one year's salary, when they could've just continued to work and earn money

I'm sure Allred is going to do this for a cut of the eventual profits of the book deal, she has witten what these claments would say publicly, and for this last one, there was no continue to work as from what I have heard, she hasn't worked much in recent years.

So, you go ahead and call me "ridiculous, and Low IQ'ed" that is your M.O. .....I can see you are just too smart for me.

This is all BS over 14 years ago, Gloria Alred, cut me a break! People like to be in the spot light. No credibitlity here at all. She had a boyfriend, who cares...if it happened, he should of reported it. Lies if you ask me.

Most companies settle with complaints, FACT. Much cheaper to pay them off than go to court. So none of these women are really credible, nor do they seem believable so far.

Happened many years ago, if it really happened the way they said it did. So mute case.

Hopefully people will get on with the important things here, fixing the mess our country is in over the past 3 years.

I'm just saying...there are two sides to every story....and then there is the truth.

Gloria Allred does everything for publicity--she represents the worst of the worst, claiming their innocence. Just in one case that I remember, she got Scott Petersen, the murderer of his wife, and baby by having a woman, named Amber Frey who said she had a relationship with Scott; the timeline did not match. He was "cooked".

Allred's daughter is also on Cable as an Attorney. Her daughter is a far better representative of the Legal System.

Toxic,

From what I had heard as of this morning, this last person to make a claim was not even an employee.

Ergo, she has not a single thing to gain. She can't even sue. So please, why would she make it up.

Allred does have something to do with this as she has injected herself in at least 2 political elections in the last year. I think that is relevant. Especially, when there is a potential for book deals/guest apearances on the Today show and such.

How does this explain how Allred being involved either decreases the credibility of the alledged victims, or proves they're lying. How does what Allred's done effect what happened? You didn't explain anything, you just restated it.

I didn't say Obama had "terroristic tendencies", only that he had an association with one. That would/should have raised questions in this same media that has already condemned Cain. ...And, that church he attended with reverend Wright/Flagher, I personally, would have walked out after hearing some of that B.L.T. racist B.S. coming from the pulpit. But he didn't...not in 20 years.

Oh, so you don't outright accuse, you just subtley imply. Again, what does Wright's actions have to do with Obama? Why does Obama not walking out mean anything? How was Obama to know? Furthermore, how do you know?

I can see you are just too smart for me.

Well, at least you're smart enough to get that part right.

If all the Politicians who said or did something inappropriate would have to resign we would not have any politics to speak of.

she has not a single thing to gain.

Is she not receiving a check for appearing on the Today Show? other TV/Radio appearances? Future book deal?

How does this explain how Allred being involved either decreases the credibility of the alledged victims, or proves they're lying.

You don't think that Allred didn't send her aides to check the lists of all of Cain's prior employees to see if there were any who left on "less than friendly" terms ?

what does Wright's actions have to do with Obama?

The fact that he remained a member of a church that preached Black Liberation Theology condones such viewpoints.

How was Obama to know?

He has EARS doesn't he, I'm hoping during those 20 yrs he was listening to the sermons.

Well, at least you're smart enough to get that part right.

That statement was made Tongue in cheek....But, you are a legend in your own mind aren't you.

"Cain Accuser Sharon Bialek Lived In Same Building As David Axelrod"

"Martha MacCallum, FOX News: "One of the things is that you lived at a 505 North Lake Shore Drive apartment, right? This is the same building, it happens to be the same building David Axelrod lives in. Do you know David Axelrod? Ever have any interaction with him at all?

Sharon Bialek, Cain accuser: "I saw him in the gym. I mean -- everybody nods to each other. It is friendly building but I never had any interaction with him."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/11/08/cain_accuser_lives_in_same_building_as_david_axelrod.html

And you expect us to believe that too ????

It bothers you that he's arrogant about this and thinks he can run for president?

We have an arrogant on in there now. What's the difference?

Arrogance may mean Innocence---time will tell.

What a lyin arrogant sob, he is history the perv

Again...

1. These women are not just coming out now. They came out then. They didn't initiate this, or bring this up.

2. The first two woman made complaints prior to leaving their jobs. Why would they go to the trouble of making up a story, hiring attorneys, filing complaints, yada, yada, yada, all the while working in a healthy environment? What was their motive? One years salary? Then why not stay and earn many years salary? This would be different if they had left, then made the claim. They made the claim, then left.

3. These women could not have been "biding their time" so as to be able to profit, unless they were able to see the future. I mean really, could anyone really have fathomed someone as ridiculous as Cain making a run for president?

4. The statute of limitations is up, so there's really no way to profit off this now. If she was looking for a book deal, why not go to an agent first? Why hasn't she taken money for interviews?

5. If Cain had nothing to hide, why the gag orders? A completely innocent man, with as much money and power as Cain had, wouldn't have settled. Wouldn't you want to prove that none of this happened, take it, not even to trial, but to summary judgment, and get it dismissed? Yet, he didn't even take it that far, they made them shut their mouths, legally bound them not to talk about it, and they left there jobs. Hmmmm.....

6. If Cain wants to confront his accusers, have the evidence presented, get his day in court, and has nothing to hide, why doesn't he file a defamation case? That would be the quickest way to end this, and he could stop complaining about "anonymous" accusers and "not getting to see the evidence".

7. If he's never even seen this woman, or knows who these people are, then who is behind this and why? And can I just say, anyone who starts out a sentence with, "Now I don't have any facts to back this up, but..." is pretty much admitting to the fact that he's pulling crap out of his behind.

8. These women all seem to match a physical pattern, and at least this one was able to provide intricate details. There was nothing vague or wishy-washy about what she recounted. And, again, this is not he said/she said, this is he said/she said, she said, she said, she said, and a couple witnesses said too.

9. Whoever these women retain as lawyers has zero correlation with whether or not he did this. How does hiring Gloria Allred, somehow alter the past??? Makes zero sense.

10. Mr. Cain, now is about that time when you wanna take that lie detector you agreed to.

The statute of limitations is up, so there's really no way to profit off this now. If she was looking for a book deal, why not go to an agent first?

When asked during a TV interview yesterday, the woman said unequivocally that "she was not getting paid to appear on all the shows." When asked further about a potential book deal, she refused to answer that specific question, hmmmmm......

These women are not just coming out now. They came out then.

Well, then why was this not dealt with back then? If the guy was proven to be guilty, throw the book at him. There was nothing to gain for these women back then. He was just a buisnessman back then, now he's leading the polls in a presidential primary....much more interesting book reading.

with as much money and power as Cain had, wouldn't have settled.

Sometimes it is less expensive to settle out of court than to have to have to prove ones innocence. Many times it is he said vs. she said. How would he be able to prove his innocence?

What was their motive? One years salary? Then why not stay and earn many years salary?

Some people look for ways of extorting money from their employer rather than actually work for that year.

If Cain wants to confront his accusers, have the evidence presented, get his day in court, and has nothing to hide, why doesn't he file a defamation case? That would be the quickest way to end this, and he could stop complaining about "anonymous" accusers and "not getting to see the evidence".

Well, in his press conference yesterday basically said, "show me the proof". One woman's claim was supposedly found not to be substantiated. If he's lying, I'm sure that Allred's clients will debunk his claims of innocence. Then I will join you in calling for him to step down.

If he's never even seen this woman, or knows who these people are, then who is behind this and why?

I would imagine it would be somebody who see's this man as a threat. I hope to at some point as the story develops, to connect the dotted lines to find who it is...

These women all seem to match a physical pattern, and at least this one was able to provide intricate details. There was nothing vague or wishy-washy about what she recounted.

That is because they were coached by Allred as to what to say. Of this I am sure. Again, why would this woman stay in the cab with a man that had just sexually assaulted her?

Whoever these women retain as lawyers has zero correlation with whether or not he did this. How does hiring Gloria Allred somehow alter the past???

This is what Allred does. I would speculate that Allred found these women, not that these women found Allred.

Sarah, the problem I have with this/your argument is that, I believe that a person is considered to be innocent until proven guilty. You have already convicted him based on his political ideology, as I believe Allred (a heavy democratic supporter) planned many people would do. This is the kind of thing she does. The story is still developing, I will wait until it has developed before I make my judgement on the man.

Well, then why was this not dealt with back then?

It was, for some of them. This lady who came out first didn't work for him, so there was no real recourse except to file a police report, which wouldn't have done anything, seeing as what the circumstances were.

Some people look for ways of extorting money from their employer rather than actually work for that year.

In this situation, that explanation is completely illogical. If you're looking to extort money, why settle for such a small sum? You could stay in a position to earn much more, or look for a better job. You're completely discounting the difficulty and money it takes to file a complaint like this. It's an exhausting, expensive, stressful process, where the accuser often loses and/or is torn to shreds. It then follows you around like a monkey on your back.

Further, you don't take into account the number of accusations, even prior to his compaign. Why would numerous women file claims, while still working there, and settle for small money? You said yourself, he was just a business man back then, so what made him have a sign on his back saying "Extort money from me please." The typical business man never has one accusation made against him, let alone numerous ones.

Also, what about the witnesses who aren't accusers???

Well, in his press conference yesterday basically said, "show me the proof"

Then why the gag orders? Why didn't he want these women talking back then??? Why not have them lifted now? Why not sue them for defamation? That would be the ultimate way to have all that proof shown to him.

I would imagine it would be somebody who see's this man as a threat. I hope to at some point as the story develops, to connect the dotted lines to find who it is...

This says nothing. It explains nothing. Anyone can go around, presenting theories that they have "no facts to back up". Weigh this against the preponderance of evidence.

Some shady unknown entity out to get Cain, who we all know wasn't going to be the nominee anyway, and who the "evil democratic machine" would actually LOVE to see win the nomination...

Against -

Numerous acusations, gag orders, settlements paid out, descriptive details by witnesses who are lacking motive to make it up, Cain's flip flopping on what he remembers, the fact that these women DIDN'T come forward after he began running, but that the press brought this out...

Furthermore, someone may have leaked it, but considering it's been substantiated that all these women told their stories to someone 10-14 years ago, the conspiracy ends at who leaked it.

One woman's claim was supposedly found not to be substantiated.

Really? How so? Which one?

That is because they were coached by Allred as to what to say. Of this I am sure. Again, why would this woman stay in the cab with a man that had just sexually assaulted her?

She said he did stop and take her immediately back. Also, many women who have occurances like this are in a sort of daze after. There've been numerous case studies of women who oftentimes apologize to the perpetrator, or remain friends, yada yada yada... Again, do some research here. That isn't uncommon at all. Also, for Allred to have coached her on this, the woman must have been able to tell Allred what clothes she owned 14 years ago.

Sometimes it is less expensive to settle out of court than to have to have to prove ones innocence. Many times it is he said vs. she said. How would he be able to prove his innocence?

I said take it to summary judgment not trial. Summary judgment comes immediately after discovery closes, and no defendant is going to settle before discovery closes unless they're really trying to cover something up. If these were baseless claims, the entire suit would have been dismissed in summary judgment and the women would have had to cover Cain's attorney's fees. They could've been reembursed, and had his name cleared.

Finally, the only one who's been caught in a lie during any of this is Cain himself. He's flip flopped, changed his story, backtracked...

If he is an innocent man he needs to first, remove the gag orders, then take a polygraph, and finally sue them for defamation.

And trust me, I was disgusted by Cain long before this. It had to do with his absolute ignorance and gross arogance. This was just the icing on the cake.

Oh... and keep in mind that every time they settle something like this, they can look at their insurance getting raised.

Then why the gag orders? Why didn't he want these women talking back then???

I would imagine the gag orders were part of the settlement deal. I know that when I was laid off last year, in order to receive my severance, I had to sign an order saying I would not say anything bad/inaccurate about my former employer.

When Companies have thousands of employees, a small percentage are not going to be happy employees. Even if there are 99.9% happy (no legal beefs), if you had 10,000 employees, you would still have a handful of employees that are disgruntled - leaving on less than good terms. It is a statistical inevitability. Companies tend to come to agreements rather than litigate. Yes their insurance will go up, but when they calculate the costs of going to court, it still ends up cheaper to settle.

Either this guy broke the law or he didn't, those who claim wrongdoing should have gone to the police and filed charges. If the charges were serious enough, he should have been arrested for assault.

I was disgusted by Cain long before this.

Well, no wonder you have convicted this guy before all of the facts about this have been revealed. If you were on jury duty, you would have been rejected based on your pre-disposition to the case.

If he is an innocent man he needs to first, remove the gag orders, then take a polygraph, and finally sue them for defamation.

I would agree with you on this. Although, I would want the polygraph to be performed by an independent third party. I would also like to see proof from these women regarding their acusations. ( such as e-mails, letters, multiple witnesses colaborating stories etc...) A person should not be convicted of anything without proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sarah.. this says it all: 'And trust me, I was disgusted by Cain long before this. It had to do with his absolute ignorance and gross arogance. This was just the icing on the cake."

Kind of like viewing the situation from left field if you ask me.

I am for Cain having his polygraph.. .as well as each of his accusers. Lets get to the bottom of all this and stop you 'experts' on harassment and what ACTUALLY happened from spewing any more of your gunk.

I would imagine the gag orders were part of the settlement deal.

Pretty standard fare in cases of legal out-of-court settlements. Very routine.

Companies tend to come to agreements rather than litigate. Yes their insurance will go up, but when they calculate the costs of going to court, it still ends up cheaper to settle.

The insurance premiums a business will pay absolutely are going to go up one way or the other. However, settling for a relatively minor amount (tens of thousands of dollars) is a valid means of mitigating the damages. Waiting until it gets to court where legal fees accrue at an alarming rate plus the risk of having to pay out a judgement of potentially hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars, is essentially reckless in comparison. Unless, of course, the aggrieved party refuses to take a settlement. If a company in this situation doesn't attempt to settle out of court, their insurance carrier will have a big problem with that.

Then why the gag orders? Why didn't he want these women talking back then??? Why not have them lifted now? Why not sue them for defamation?

Herman Cain probably had little to no say in any of that. It was the National Restaurant Association, not Cain as a private individual. If anything, the Association's legal department probably more or less kicked Cain out of the picture altogether in dealing with this, despite the fact that he was it's president. Any involvement on his part would be a definite conflict of interest. Mr. Cain also probably can't call for a lifting of the gag order...he didn't enact it, wasn't a part of it, and has no standing in it now. As far as suing for defamation, I think Cain is now enough of a public figure that he can't sue for defamation anymore. Par for the course!

I'm already tired of his act. By the time election time comes around i'm gonna be so damn tired of these jerks i won't vote for any of them. The teabaggers have really screwed up the pube party. Way to go Palin.

Cue & Tig,

Again, not one of you has put forth an answer to the fact that the only person to be caught in a lie here has been Cain. He can definitly still sue for defamation, he need only prove the added element of actual malice, which in this case he would show, as these women would have both known this to be false.

It doesn't matter if it had been Cain or the NRA, the situation would have been the same. If they had nothing to cover up, they would've gone to summary judgment or they could've filed a motion to dismiss. And, I'm fairly sure, that under the circumstances, Cain has the power to lift those gag orders, if not then the NRA should do so, unless of course they're hiding something. And why such a gigantic penalty if those women talked???

Bottomline, lie detector, lift the gag order, sue for defamation. That would clear his name, give him his chance to confront his accusers/evidence (as he claims he wants to), and put this to rest.

Again, not one of you has put forth an answer to the fact that the only person to be caught in a lie here has been Cain.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I have no intent to nor do I feel there is any need to put forth any kind of an answer for that.

He can definitly still sue for defamation

Anybody can sue anybody for anything, provided they can find an attorney willing to take the case. Unless, of course, you happen to be an attorney, in which case you really can file any suit you want on anyone's behalf, at very little or (usually) no cost whatsoever. Mr. Cain isn't an attorney, however, so he has to hire one in order to pursue or defend anything in the legal system. Only the most naive, optimistic, or desperate attorney would agree to file a suit for Mr. Cain alleging defamation, for the odds of prevailing in that get smaller by the day. No one forced him to seek the Republican nomination; he chose that route. A court would most certainly find that a reasonable person declaring themselves a candidate for the presidency of the United States would know, or should know, the risks involved in doing so and therefore accept those risks, one of which is having a lot of mud slung at them.

It doesn't matter if it had been Cain or the NRA, the situation would have been the same.

Not in the business world! If someone was suing Mr. Cain but not the NRA, that would be one thing. If someone was pressing charges against Mr. Cain, the NRA most likely would be insulated from that. They'd probably remove him 'PDQ' and go one with a new president, leaving Cain to fend for himself. What happened is that the complaint was filed against the NRA regarding the actions of Cain. This would be a valid course of action because the NRA is much larger than its president. Any attorney will tell you that you aim for the deep pockets, and you sue who's got the money. What good is a judgement if you can't collect?

If they had nothing to cover up

Almost always, when a business or organization is sued for the actions of one of its employees or officers, they don't know if there's anything they'd want to cover up or not. The thing is, they don't want to have to pay in order to find out there was something they'd prefer not be public knowledge. Taking any opportunity to end the claim ASAP without it going to court is considered a sound risk management tactic by virtually all business professionals.

they would've gone to summary judgment or they could've filed a motion to dismiss.

Yes, they could have done that. It certainly wouldn't be their first choice, though. First choice is to end the claim before it ever gets that far, and that's done by offering a cash settlement. No, it's not cheap, but anything that gets before a court could end up costing far more in the long run, depending on how damaging it turns out to be. That'd be a very expensive way to find out what was going wrong, and businesses and large organizations do employee people whose very jobs it is to prevent things like that from happening. Now, they would have HAD to ask for a summary judgement or filed a motion to dismiss if those making the claims declined to settle with them. At that point, there is also an excellent possibility that a request for a summary judgement or moving that the case be dismissed could be denied, too. In that case, life would get very interesting for the National Restaurant Association, indeed.

And, I'm fairly sure, that under the circumstances, Cain has the power to lift those gag orders

If he was in fact a party to the settlement, he would have some standing in the matter. I highly doubt that he has the 'power' to do anything, however, since he was probably intentionally pushed 'out of the loop' by the NRA's legal department. More than likely, the settlement was between the NRA and the women making the complaint, unless Mr. Cain himself had to pay them with his own money, and that's less than likely.

if not then the NRA should do so, unless of course they're hiding something.

They're probably not hiding anything, per se. To them, it'd be more a question of 'Why should we?'. Remember, a 'gag order' comes from a judge. No such thing here, as far as I can tell. The confidentiality agreement in play here is part of the consideration in the settlement contract the NRA and the women arrived at. They didn't just give the women the money, there were strings attached. You could say they were bought off. The deal was that in exchange for no longer pursuing their claims against the NRA for its president's alleged actions, including not publicly talking about the issue, the NRA would pay $35,000 or whatever it was. Literally, they were buying the women's silence. This happens in virtually every settlement agreement made between a business or organization and an individual. If you slipped and fell on the floor at any retail store this afternoon and they paid your medical expenses, you'd find that it was on the condition you not tell the world about the incident.

Do not forget that the NRA and Mr. Cain parted company long ago. They have no responsibility to him whatsoever, and he holds no obligation to them, either. Unless the NRA sees some benefit in taking action now, they're not going to. Maybe if enough people scream loudly enough about this, they'll decide it's in their best interest to do something. That hasn't happened yet!

And why such a gigantic penalty if those women talked???

The other alternative would be to sue the women for breach of contract, for not holding up their end of the bargain. However, it is much more legally sound if the complainant agrees up front in the settlement to repay three times the amount they received or however it is the terms read should they decide not to honor the terms of the agreement, in this case the confidentiality clause.

Remember, NO ONE forced these women to accept the settlement. They may have been advised to, or felt it less risky to do so, but they had every right to pursue the claims in a court of law in hopes of receiving a large judgement instead of waiving that right in exchange for an immediate cash payment.

I'm not trying to state what's right and what's wrong here, just what probably 'is' and probably 'isn't'. These are the 'norms' that businesses adhere to in legal situations, for better or for worse. Anything is possible, but some things are much more likely to happen than many others.

The first two woman made complaints prior to leaving their jobs. Why would they go to the trouble of making up a story, hiring attorneys, filing complaints, yada, yada, yada, all the while working in a healthy environment? What was their motive? One years salary? Then why not stay and earn many years salary? This would be different if they had left, then made the claim. They made the claim, then left.

You said yourself, he was just a business man back then, so what made him have a sign on his back saying "Extort money from me please." The typical business man never has one accusation made against him, let alone numerous ones.

Those are from some of my posts above. To me, common sense dictates that, something had to have happened. We're playing in a whole new ball park now, and the position in which Cain finds himself should, if he has nothing to hide, have already lead to him and the NRA calling for the release of these women from those orders. We're not dealing, anymore, in terms of "business".

Fact: Cain, either alone or with the NRA, has enough money/power to litigate at least through a motion. This was true, back then and now, if he were to pursue a defamation claim. The women might not have wanted that, due to the extreme stress, negative emotion, yada, yada, yada, involved. The women had a much more logical reason, which I stated above, to NOT want to go all the way through to a motion, then a completely innocent Cain would've had.

To me, common sense dictates that, something had to have happened.

That's pretty much the same way I've always felt about ghosts, aliens, Sasquatch, or anything else paranormal or extraterrestrial in nature. With all those people claiming to have experienced them, there has to be something to it! But I have not seen or experienced anything myself. All I can do is describe what other people have described, make some observations as to patterns apparent in sightings and experiences, and speculate. Likewise, not being Herman Cain, or even just knowing him personally, or any of the complainants, none of us can really know for sure just what happened. All we can do is relay third party stories, make observations, and conjecture.

We're playing in a whole new ball park now

That much is true.

the position in which Cain finds himself should, if he has nothing to hide, have already lead to him and the NRA calling for the release of these women from those orders

Cain could call for that all he wants to. Unless he was actually a party to the settlement, he has no legal standing in it whatsoever. For him to have legal standing in it, either he would have had to cough up the money with which the settlement was fulfilled, or else he was somehow bound by terms of the settlement, which is less than likely to be the case. The NRA's legal department most likely told him 'we'll take care of this' and that was the end of Cain's involvement.

The NRA could most certainly seek to have the terms of the settlement contract altered or nullified if it wanted to, but that's not something that gets done on a lark and it's not going to happen this afternoon. The truth is, Cain is long gone from the NRA and they couldn't care less about him at this point. Probably the only thing that will make the NRA want to take action on this is if they start to feel like they're getting dragged through the mud enough that their ability to do whatever it is they think the NRA exists to do is being threatened. Since most of us have never even heard of the National Restaurant Association before this hit the news, I'm guessing they're not going to get too shook about this...yet.

We're not dealing, anymore, in terms of "business".

The key word is 'anymore'. It was ALL business back then, however. I doubt very highly that Cain or anyone in the NRA ever gave any thought to the idea of Mr. Cain someday running for president of the United States.

Although many try to revise it, there is no changing the past.

Cain, either alone or with the NRA, has enough money/power to litigate at least through a motion.

Sure, if they wanted to. I've got enough power and money to do all kinds of things, if I wanted to. But it doesn't mean those things would necessarily be a wise use of my time or money, and in many cases the expenditure of either wouldn't return anything of value.

In accepting the terms of the settlement contract, both parties, through their actions, agreed that the issue was effectively resolved at that point. That's what settlements are for! Basically, they're a legal cease-fire or truce.

This was true, back then and now, if he were to pursue a defamation claim.

Why would he want to do that? After the NRA legal department would have told Mr. Cain, 'we'll take care of it', he probably heard little or nothing about it again after that. That's part of what corporate and organizational legal departments are for. They deal with the messy stuff so the company officials can concentrate on the job they were hired to do, which is running the company.

The women might not have wanted that, due to the extreme stress, negative emotion, yada, yada, yada, involved.

That's fine. No one ever said they had to sue the NRA, either. They could basically handle the situation however they saw fit, including doing nothing at all. That's often how I handle things even though I have the right to take legal action. Sometimes, it just isn't worth it. BUT, if a person does make a legally binding agreement with a party in order to resolve a claim, they are expected to keep their end of the bargain. If the terms of the agreement aren't acceptable, then a person either needs to find a way to live with them or else not enter into that agreement! They chose to enter into the agreement with the NRA. Now, if a court of law were to declare the confidentiality agreement to be 'unreasonable' or 'unconscionable' it would probably be ruled as unenforceable and figuratively thrown out the window. Again, unless the NRA decides they've got a good reason to devote some of their resources to amending that agreement, they're not going to. Barring public outrage endangering the NRA's purpose or existence, I don't see why they would.

The women had a much more logical reason, which I stated above, to NOT want to go all the way through to a motion, then a completely innocent Cain would've had.

Of course. But their motivations behind what they did does not change the fact that they did what they did. The 'how' and 'why' is purely academic after the fact. If you're swindled by a con-man, whatever it was that made you trust him and want to spend the money is rather a moot point. It's the fact that he stole your money and disappeared that matters. No matter how he did it, it's still gone! In this case, no matter why they agreed to waive their rights in exchange for money, they did in fact sign on the dotted line and accepted the money. That was their choice, and that's okay. They could have refused the settlement and sued, or refused the settlement and not sued. Apparently, the settlement and the provisions that went with it were okay with them.

And whether Cain was guilty or innocent, if he thought it was a done deal and a non-issue, he would've just moved on and not worried much about it. People who get anywhere in life are like that. Those of us who get all tripped up by various happenings along the way stumble through life and never manage to achieve much.

Three of Cain's accusers do not exist until they come forward.

The one who came forward never contacted authorities and waited a decade and a half.

She has no credibility.

Gloria Allred is a bottom-feeder.

Don't be surprised to find out she was contacted by Carl Rove or one of his people.

The problem with all four women coming together is that two of them are under settlement agreements. Their settlement agreements say that if they disclose the reasons for, or the conditions of, the settlement that they have to pay the NRA four times the amount of the settlement as liquidated damages.

The NRA probably cannot collect the liquidated damages from the women because Her-man has already breached the settlement conditions by denying the accusations. But that would not keep them from suing the women anyway and causing them to run up hundreds of thousands of legal bills in order to win the right to talk openly about it.

If someone would step forward and say that they would pay the women's legal bills and any resulting payments to the NRA, I think there is a good chance that they would talk openly. All four say that, like Tiger Wood's women, the denials make them feel "raped" because they cannot defend themselves.

A lot of GOP people will continue to believe Cain. After all, about 25% of all people self-identified as "solid Republican" believe that the contrails from airliners are actually an Obama government program to spray mind control drugs in the air to keep people compliant. I have heard that twice in the last week --- in the context of " If a jet flies over and you see a contrail, you should go indoors, and stay there for at least four hours." (And people really get pissed when you start laughing.)

Anyone standing by Gloria is totally about money. "I was embarrassed", yeah sure. What did you do to be embarrassed about lady? You said no, and he moved on, that's not "harrassment" it's called real world reality. This is pathetic, maybe as pathetic as a him being a serious candidate, which he never was, only in the pathetic media was he truly taken seriously. Think Palin, Bachmann and Trump, not serious, but the media sure likes to push them on all of us.

Embarrassed, my a$$! Embarrassed people don't get on national television when all they had to do was not go on national television to avoid being publicly embarrassed. Where is the boyfriend/pimp? Now that would really be a situation for embarrassment, wouldn't it. How does a single mom exist for fourteen years without a job, her living expenses came from somewhere. My guess is she will never go any further with this, and will quietly resume her real career, with a new home, new car,jewelry, etc. See, I can make all kinds of unproveable assumptions, just like the liberals can.

Read her statement - She was embarrassed at the time. She had no reason to come forward after that because Cain was not in the news denying he harassed other women. Her story is as believable as is his. However there are at least two women who's claims were credible enough at that same time to be paid off by his employer.

these women coming forward is reminiscent of the Bill Clinton years. Many of you thought him to have been a good and honest president. Does the fact that clinton lied and shook his finger at the American public cause you to beleive the woman who claimed he groped them? His arrogance still astounds as he used the oval office for his brothel.

'it's not for the money"

Riiiiiggggghhhttttt! Suuuuurrrrreeee!! We believe you....really. That's why you have the idiot lawyer with you. ROTFLMAO!

Dasvet, it is sentiments such as yours that (purposefully) keep so many girls and women from coming forward when they are harassed, groped or raped. When you see one woman standing up to the machine - and how else is that done, other than in front of national tv cameras, with or without a lawyer - there are more behind her in the shadows who can't bear to be further embarrassed, humiliated and attacked ... by most men and, sadly, a lot of women who know better.

Bring them forward. Gold-diggers have always been a problem, especially in the last few decades of believing anything a woman says. This woman looks like and acts like a gold digger, and I believe she is being paid. Just watch her living style change for the better.

Remniscent of Clinton, but not the same thing. Keep in mind, Clinton had affairs, but they were consentual, with the exception of Paula Jones, who said she was assaulted but did profit from her accusations. Jones was far less credible than Bailek.
Clinton was already president when this all came out and it was a witch hunt by the conservatives surrounding the WhiteWater investigation. In Clinton's case, the issue WAS between Hillary and Bill, because the venue the charges were levelled had nothing to do with his activities ralating to WhiteWater.
The current charges against Mr Cain have to do with disclosure and how honest he is being with the people he is tryint to persuade to elect him. Sexual Harrassment is illegal and IF Mr Cain is guilty, he could be due some jail time.

There will be more allegations. More women have been given gifts to smear Cain. Coming down from the grapevine. FOX news is set to destroy Cain. You turn to their station and that is all they talk about. Its not going to work. Cain is the best man for the job. He will be our first black President. If you dont like it. Learn to love it.

Average American-473069, it's time to wake up.

Paula Jones was a paid minion of Richard Mellon-Scaipe. One of the many players involved in the "Arkansas Project". Hence, David Brock (formerly of the American Spectator) started Media Matters to make amends for his part in this charade.

AA your tin-foil hat is on crooked...again.

In watching the video, two curious things:

1) Note the frequency with which Ms. Bialek looks away from the interviewer, breaking eye contact with her.

2) Note that both Ms. Bialek and her attorney, Ms. Allred, without fail answer every direct question with Absolutely not... then elaborate with a deflection. Ms. Bialek smiles throughout the entire interview. At no time did I notice a more subtle, natural response of a slight headshaking and a plaintiff 'no'.

Now, human behavior is much more an art than an exact science, and there aren't any real 'laws' to it but rather general rules of thumb because everyone is different. We could be witnessing a very wholehearted attempt to keep stage fright in check here. However, an experienced investigator and interrogator would definitely be making a note of the two characteristics I pointed out and would be much inclined to do further independent investigating instead of taking these two interviewees solely at their word.

Take it for what it's worth, folks.

Steven B - Two of the three that you alluded to not existing until they come forward actually do exist. They have already come forward and been paid to not come forward again. There had to be enough validity to their claims to be paid off or the association would not have wasted money on them.

You are correct, though, about gloria allred being a borrom feeder. But that does not necessarily negate the validity of the fourth woman's claim.

I predict there will be more women to address Herm's womanizing.

thinker, it doesn't prove the gold digger's claim either.

....there's no hearing or judicial review of any of the harrassment claims made against Cain; and to settle for $35,000 (with the anonymous accuser) is chicken scratch in comparison to costs involved with going to trial...so attorneys and businesses 'settle' because it's the least expensive thing to do with same ...this person is no more believable than the man-in-the-moon as she sets herself up with an attorney whom is known for being a publicity-seeking type of person who doesn't do anything beyond efforting to do just that...Scott Peterson's girlfriend...book, movie and $$...let's witness the dollars flow to this woman and Allred again after all is said and done...but; claiming harrassment, is and was since it's inception in the early 1980's, a very popular funding tool for so many ambulance-chasing attorneys...

@ Sarah above...any woman can claim harrassment and win as long as she has witnesses and folks whom will support her claim...but, unless there are tapes; either video or such...no claim like this needs support with reality..and harrassment claims are very easy to cause deep pockets to fork over dollars as defending the suit to follow is always more expensive...generally a business decision that causes both the accuser and the accused their immediate lively-hood as well as their reputations..all without so much as a day in court...but then Gloria Allred could rightly give a hoot about anyone but her own self now anyways...

All that being said I still think Cain should just leave the national stage...his past is checkered and that's that...

@ Steven B Normally I agree with your posts, but in this case, I would offer to you that she has a lot of credibility:

1. The statute of limitations has expired, she cannot charge him and this damages any lawsuit irreparably, so I see little financial gain here.
2. Most importantly, she told two other people separately about the acts, at the time same time frame in which they occurred. This is actually an accepted standard of proof in legal sexual harassment cases.
3. She was not the subject of sexual harassment UNTIL he uttered the words "you want a job, don't you", until then it was a pass to be rebuffed. After that utterance, he committed sexual harassment by demanding the quid pro quo.
4. The facts of her statement can, and I am sure will be, checked. Hotel receipts, upgraded rooms, reservations, credit card statements, dinner receipts, its all available for the digging. Other explanations on the room upgrade are simply not credible.
5. She has a pro bono attorney in Gloria Alred, who has a long history of working pro bono for feminist issues, which she spends her own money on and is known for carefully vetting. One may not care for her personality, but she is extremely competent.
6. The other women cannot speak, due to legal agreements that the NRA is unwilling to release them from. That casts doubt in Mr. Cain's direction for me, if he were innocent, then the light of day would be his best friend right now. I had discounted those reports until this news conference, however, since they could speak and were therefore unconfirmed.
7. She spoke in a credible manner and has much to loose here in terms of public humiliation (bankruptcy twice??). She spoke intelligently and with clarity.
8. The pattern of behavior she describes is very familiar to most women of a certain age - this was not at all unusual when one reaches a certain level in business. It seems to be more prevalent among those with position and standing (power) perhaps because they believe they are entitled or perhaps because some women actually do go along with it. It is, however, sadly normal for many, many executives. I believe the word is hubris.

At the end of the day, people have to make up their own minds since this is not a criminal complaint or lawsuit. For me, with 30 years experience in business, it has the clear ring of truth. It fits so much of what I have seen with my own eyes and heard said out loud. For the record, I am a Republican, I supported Herman Cain until yesterday's news conference, I made contributions to his campaign. I have withdrawn all my support for him based on the news conference.

Bentbrass.....

So, there is a time limit on this sort of behavior?

Like a pedifile, this sort of behavior is engrained....it is always there....and having someone like this in a position of power such as the President of the United States is obscene......this man would have the ability to destroy lives and use and abuse people at his will on a much higher level than he has ever known.........

oh, yeah, the fact that these things happened at all and that there is a pattern of behavior here means it will continue........ask any behavioral professional.

Cain has a problem, much like a drug addict, and because of this he has no business running for President.............his behavior is bad enough and if you add that it is tainted with a forceful tone (Clinton never had to force anything...the women he had affairs with were consensual).....

No thanks, Cain, there are better men than you running for the most powerful office on earth.

You folks had no problem believing Clinton's accusers but refuse to believe this woman. Why?

Clinton's accuser, for the most part did prove it.

It was proven that nearly all the accusations stemmed from consentual sex. Add to that the fact that the charges were levelled during an investigation that had NOTHING to do with his sexual behavior.
Linda Tripp was the one who threw Monika to the sharks, Monika had no intention of making an issue out of it.

Someone sticking their hand up your skirt is not sexual harrassment? Hmmm how should that be classified?

hmmm... it became sexual harassment the moment he said "you want a job". She went to him in the hopes he would help her gain employment and his reaction is to stick his hand up her dress to grab her genitals and try to push her head down to his crotch. In my mind that is sexual harassment bordering on rape. He is a disgusting piece of work. I won't even call him a man because his actions are that of a Neanderthal more closely related to an ape.

I agree with you, 100%, joy, IF he did as his accuser says.

Bear in mind, who this accuser is being coached by ... and please don't think she's not being coached.

It may have happened, it may not have happened. That's the problem with 15 year old charges ... impossible to prove.

So, with no possibility of proof, the outcome for Cain can only be bad. Proof is not necessary. Truth is not necessary. The allegation is all that matters. Allegations without proof, true or not true, are extremely unfair to the one being accused as they have no way to defend themselves other than to say "That's not true."

I only hope that in my future no past acquaintances try to "help me" the way this person is helping Cain.

My gut feeling, which isn't worth a dime, is that he has probably been inappropriate to several women, in their eyes, in his lifetime. But my gut feeling has no value. It isn't proof of anything.

I can assure you this is getting Cain's name out more. After the 3% dip, give it two weeks and he will be polling 35-40% for the GOP Primary.

Jerry, in denial much? What was to report, and to whom? It was, allegedly, an inappropriate sexual advance by Cain, not rape, and it's doubtful the police would consider it any crime whatsoever, except assault but that's really pushing it. You think the police want to hear every time some fellow puts his hands up a woman's thigh? If Bialek's story were the only one out there, we'd have to give Cain the benefit of the doubt. But given that there are three other stories, two of which are indisputably real stories (in the sense that claims were made and recorded at the time and legal settlements were reached), I think it is unreasonable not to think that Cain is likely guilty of all these claims being made against him.

Whatever political spectrum you fall into will determine if you believe Cain or the women.

However it DOES seem suspicious that these women waited until Cain was ahead in the polls to come forward. Oh wait a minute, only 1 woman has actually come forward and she has filed for bankruptcy twice and has Gloria Allred as her attorney.

Come on, common sense people.

Let's get back to the REAL problems in this country. Like National Debt, no jobs, too much government, this no good Congress, our southern border, our solders spread too thin, Iran, ect.

This lady said, in an interview, that at the time of the alleged occurrence she never told her boyfriend and her other friend the actual specifics of the harassment because she was too embarrassed to disclose those details. So why, NOW, isn't she embarrassed to go on national TV and read from a written script the details of him putting his hand up her skirt and pushing her head toward his crotch! She has zero credibility.

It really amazes me that people are suspicious that these women waited until Cain seemed like a real contender for the nomination. Seriously, why would they bring it up before that? They want to stay anonymous, but then realize that this person could possibly be the POTUS and decide that now is the time to say something before it is too late. Just think of the power trip this guy would be on he managed to get in the white house. He'd think it was OK to come on to any woman who came near him. I do wish this latest person would have chosen someone other than Glora Allred, but it doesn't make her claim any less credible. It just means that Gloria Allred was probably quick to take her on so she could get her name in the media!

How quickly we forget no woman came forward this story was "leaked" to Politico who then investigated the story found it more than credible (or there's a lawsuit) and still these women remain anonymous. These women who we still don't know were placed into this spotlight without their consent. Stop blaming these women ask Politico whats their evidence one would have to believe its more then credible as the rest of the media has had time to confirm the allegations.

If this is what people do then where are all the women accusing Obama of harrasment? Or the other candidates? Or anyone else in a position of power? I would rather know now if a candidtae for POTUS is a low life then AFTER we voted for him....do alot of men in power think they're the sh$t? Alot do...

Still not taking either side in this because there just isn't enough to go on to reach an objective conclusion one or the other, I do wonder one thing.

Will we ever get a clarification on what Ms. Bialek claimed Mr. Cain did to her?

What I've gathered so far is that they had wined and dined together, they were in a car, presumably his car, returning from dinner, and he reaches up under her skirt and tries to pull her head down towards his lap.

I've got to admit, I'm a bit fuzzy on this. Did they pull over and stop along the side of the road, or was he still driving? Did he first, um, 'reach low' and then 'reach high', using one hand, or did he try to do both at the same time. If that was the case, how was he steering the car, with his knees? His car had better have had perfect alignment and it better have been a straight road or else kneed in the face while he was attempting to steer with his knees. Was there perhaps a little too much alcohol consumed just before this happened?

Maybe I've just lived a very boring, unadventuresome life. But does anyone see why what's been shared so far isn't making complete sense? A few more concise details of precisely how this was supposed to have happened would make it much easier for us newshounds to comprehend the allegations!

Amazing. When I was younger putting your hand on a woman's leg was called "making a pass". Now people are characterizing it as "sexual assaut". What a joke of a PC world we really live in now. I'm glad I'm too old to get in trouble now because I have committed "sexual assault" countless times when I was younger! And I wasn't turned down very often either.

They were in a cab. Not a car he was driving.

Hoops - there is a pretty big difference between "putting your hand on a woman's leg" and trying to put his hand up her skirt, then grabbing her head and trying to pull it down. And, I'll bet when you were trying to make a pass at a girl, it was probably someone you were on a date with, not someone who had come to you for help in trying to find a job. And I'll bet you were not in a position of power to hold said job over a woman's head in exchange for sexual favors.

I should have read your post first.... I just said pretty much the same thing.

The woman is a profitting Liar! Why was she fired from the NRA in the first place? She was only there a few months before being let go. She went to beg Mr. Cain for a job and he didnt help her and her Boyfriend had to foot the bill for the hotel. How come he didnt come with her? Too many questions here of why she waited till now to come out 14 years give me a break.

it doesnt mean she is lying but it does say something abouther character and its fair game. If someone has filed bankruptcy twice it says a great deal about their personal character.

Mervin, you are a serious creep! Disgusting pig!

Brought to you by Gloria Allred, the same woman that was friends with Brown (Calif. governor) and brought down Meg Whitman. I'm sure the woman is a democrat. It is all about politics...dirty politics. It is not about who will bring this country back to working. By the way, I worked with a girl that did the accusing of a boss--it was all a lie, but she got money to go away. She told people in the office she was going to do it and nobody believed her.

lost, I know you know all about the "love" you liberals have for 'slick willie' clinton, you remember the guy that while in the oval office "diddled" an intern with a cigar. The guy you all belived when on national TV he proclaimed, "i did not have sexual relations with that woman." You might recall the blue dress with the "stain", the final ADMISSION of his lies in the face of fact.

But you still think he's a "great human being" and was a "great president". Yet some tramps claim Herman Cain made some COMMENTS that were 'offensive', and you think he's a monster.

Morals elude you, don't they.

Cain has not called her a liar.............basically an opportunist.......why is that?

With all these different women and their allegations and filings of sexual harassment.....well, where there is smoke there is fire.........and why will not Cain let their out of their confidentiality agreements and have a face off and be done with this if indeed there is nothing to any of these accusations?

Oh, yeah, it is easier to say NO I DIDN'T when there is no one to say otherwise.

And for those of you who condemned President Clinton..his was a consensual affair with no animosity involved and Cain has women alleging they were forced, made uncomfortable, threatened and some who actually filed lawsuits against the man...............they are very different.

A man like Cain for President is ludicrous................he seems to think he can do anything.....he is arrogant....and I already feel he is corrupted to the highest level. Not Presidential material.

He should just go away and enjoy his immense wealth....he has no business in seeking such a serious office as the President.

Hard to believe anyone would vote for this man with even one allegation let alone two law suits settled with confidentiality agreements........and why the agreements............what the heck does this man need hidden when he so loudly professes to be innocent of all wrong doing....does not make sense.

Clinton had charges brought against him for lying to a Grand Jury ny the republicans for impeachment and they failed to convict him. Where's the charges by the gopers for lying?

Oh, never mind, he's a republican, it's ok for a republican to lie. Just ask King Georgie and Divk (deficits don't matter) Cheney about the lying.

I like Clinton and I do have issues with his lies re: his sexual escxapades. However the right wingers are ignoring something that I, at least, feel is extremely important. Clinton, disgusting as you may find his actions and denials, engaged in consensual sex. Lewinski was planning how to engage him sexually. Sexual harassment and, in this case, sexual assault is very different.

As for why the other three women haven't come forward, look at what the Cain camp is doing to the one who did. I don't blame them. They did complain, they received settlements but those who protest that this woman didn't forget that, until they shift their sights. Sorry, four women, four similar complaints, one creep.

If this, and Perry and Bachmann, is the best the GOP can do, it's sad times. I'm not a big Obama fan. I'm somewhat disappointed in him. But this is like a comedy routine. Catch that Perry speech last week? Do you want this guy, whether he was drunk, taking drugs, or just decided to come out of the closet as your president?

It doesn't bother you lefties that Clinton was also accused of RAPE? What Cain did will not be considered sexual harrassment. Afterall Clinton had a patrol officer escort Paula Jones to his room, He dropped his pants and asked for sexual favors. She said no, the court siad no harrassment. Were Cain's actions anywhere comparable?

starbuck49 - Study up on your history. Clinton was convicted of perjury. He just wasn't removed from office.

Was also disbarred if I remember correctly. Who cares? "It's about the economy stupid." :)

He was found guilty of perjury for lying about Monica. yes, but the gopers wanted him out, that didn't;t work.

Afterall Clinton had a patrol officer escort Paula Jones to his room, He dropped his pants and asked for sexual favors. She said no, the court siad no harrassment. Were Cain's actions anywhere comparable?

He had his day in court on that charge and was found not guilty.

I get a real kick out of the "liberal media" nonsense. It is really stupid in that EVERY major news outlet is owned by a company or group which primarily supports right-wing causes and candidates.

MSNBC/NBC is owned by Comcast. Comcast primarily supports right-wing candidates by an 80:20 ratio. If there is a "liberal" media, it is because their right wing Republican owners are such out-of-touch incompetents that they allow it.

Or could it be that they just go for sensationalist stories that rouse up the public in order to sell ads, newspapers, magazines, etc? You have to remember that once W.R. Hearst had just built a new mansion and his newspaper business was slumping to the point that he was having trouble paying for it. So he whipped up the whole "Remember the Maine!" thing and roused public opinion to get the U.S. involved in the Spanish-American War. All on false information and jingoism. So you can never say it has never been done.

Another example, closer to home: The McCain/Obama 2008 race was portrayed as "knife-edge close" and "nose to nose" and in similar terms. But if you go back and look at the aggregated national polls, from the time that the race was narrowed down to two candidates, McCain led for exactly four days (the four just after he named Palin, but before anyone knew anything about her.) The rest of the time Obama led. But races where one candidate has a huge lead do not sell newspapers or TV ads. So the media portrayed the race as extremely close.

The International Federation of Journalists ( www.ifj.org ) has long monitored the media and public reactions to the media. Their primary interest is in protecting the rights and lives of journalists, especially ones working in countries where the government actively tries to gag the press. But they collect a lot of sophisticated data on how right or left wing (or moderate) media are because this often indicates the extent of government control in places such as Syria. The IFJ says of American media, " (they) are the most right-oriented of any press and general media of any country in the world that does not legally constrain the media." (The term "legally constrain" means censor.)

So if you think the media is too "liberal", I would suggest that you determine the owners of the one you find the most offensive and boycott their products. For example, if you hate MSNBC, turn off your Comcast cable.

Steve you and your-- brain dead teatards buddies are a predictable bunch. Whenever a sex story about a Republican like this comes out they always make to the same two points.

Above all else, respect others. Address issues and arguments and refrain from making personal attacks.

http://www.newsvine.com/_nv/cms/info/codeOfHonor

Wow; a politician or wanna be politico tell the truth? Never in a million years; and that is the truth about politics.

Charlie191, this is NOT a sex story. This is accusations of a man "wanting to have sex". That's a whole lot of difference, and you know it. I think Cain is not a serious candidate, but asking for sex is not a crime my friend. Sell your stupidity somewhere else pal.

JCB, good point. If only Bialek had known he was going to be a candidate for president, she would have agreed to whatever a presidential candidate asked? She is a gold-digger, and it bs that she isn't being paid for this. Afterall she is unemployed and is dressed very, very well for an unemployed person along with expensive hairdo, and makeup. Just a girl making money anyway she can.

And for the younger people who do not remember, Clinton was charged in the House with four charges --- two of perjury, one of obstruction of justice, and one of misprison. These charges were brought virtually completely along party lines and the GOP had a majority. Two of the charges failed in the House --- one count of perjury and the one of misprison. The perjury charge failed because there was no material proof or single incident --- the charge cited a "pattern of activities" that did not meet the standards of a crime, even a misdemeanor. The charge of misprison was quietly dropped since it is a) not written law and b) no one has been successfully charged with misprison since around 1820.

The House certified the remaining charges perjury and obstruction of justice and sent the proceedings to the Senate. There the charge of perjury failed because perjury can only take place when a crime of equal or greater magnitude was involved and someone stood to gain. There was no crime and hence no perjury. The obstruction of just charge was likewise very thin and rested primarily on the infamous "meaning of is" question. Clinton was asked if there is anything going on between Lewinsky and Clinton. The question was poorly worded since it referred to the present time. What should have been asked was if there was ever anything going on. Clinton, the lawyer, even tried to help the questioner get his question worded correctly, pointing out that "is" refers to the present time and would only be answered the way that the questioner wanted if "is" meant "was." But this was too lame to pass muster and the impeachment failed in the Senate with a number of Republicans voting against the articles.

But to this day, no one has ever come up with a "crime" that is anything except a dislike. His sex with Lewinsky was improper, but sex between consenting adults is not a crime. Perjury requires that a) the person be under oath and b) that it has to be related to the coverup of a crime. There was no crime and thus no related perjury. The obstruction of justice charge failed for the same reason. There was no crime. The issue of misprison failed simply because less than 1% of Americans had ever heard of the crime and no one had been charged with it since the War of 1812.

A lot of the current historial controversy concerns the prosecutor in the case, Ken Starr. He was originally named a special prosecurot to investigate the suicide of Vince Foster because of Republican contentions that Foster was murdered by the Clinton White House to keep him silent. When they proved bogus, Starr included the "Arkansas Project" anso known as Whitewater and tried to prove that the Clintons improperly profited from a land deal. When it turned out that all the investors, including the Clintons had lost their shirt on the deal, Star re-focused the investigation on Hillary Clinton, alledging that she improperly billed her time as a lawyer in connection with Whitewater. When it was determined that all her work was properly billed, Star then refocused on the Monica Lewinsky/Paula Jones affairs despite knowing that while improper, there was no crime there. He spent over $70 million on the investigation and continuously leaked lurid details, photographs, and rumors that were completely irrelevant to any legal case. This led many people to the conclusion that it was a politically motivated vendetts aimed at getting even for Nixon.

JCB but sticking you hand on a woman's crotch and demanding sex if you want a job....is a crime

Heck simply placing your hand in her crotch unless use invited you to is a crime, it is called Assualt

Don't bother trying to hold the lefties to any sort of consistency. For them, it OK for their white male politicians to sexaully assault and harass women. It's not OK for Republican black males to engage in that behavior.

Apparently, it's not even just about consistency. Obviously they are RACISTS as well.

JPSOTW
I am not going to stoop to a personal attack, partly because I am not a liberal, but your point is baseless and completely inaccurate.
The conservatives have been the ones to take the continual "pie to the face" when trying to hold others to their consideration of "Family Values" and as Chris pointed out above, the morality they tried to tar-paper Clinton with, rebounded.
Newt Gingrich was a part of the group who were involved in shalacking Clinton. If you recall he dumped his wife while she was in cancer recovery and it was proven he had an affair that was going on WHILE he was pointing fingers at Clinton's marrital issues.

Gingrich is only one example, Robertson, Limbough, amoung others, dealt with personal issues that didn't fall in line with the GOP values. That was when I was A Republican. There were a number of Senators and Congressmen from both parties who were found to have had affiars, liaisons with same sex relationships with aids, corruption, and the list goes on.

Military-

I calls 'em as I sees 'em. And everyone else sees it too. The lefties' lip service to tolerance is clearly on display here.

As for being inaccurate, you need to do a little research. The left (Progressives) have always been RACISTS all the way back to the beginnings of their movement and Woodrow Wilson himself.

Frankly True, your quote "JCB but sticking you hand on a woman's crotch and demanding sex if you want a job....is a crime. Heck simply placing your hand in her crotch unless use invited you to is a crime, it is called Assualt"

FT, is called "nothing" because it's her word versus his, no one else saw what she 2 decades later reports. I do not like Cain, he's a phony, but putting men in jail for putting a hand on a females leg is ridiculous, just like your post is. "in her crotch" was not said by her by the way, "near her crotch" is far away from "in her crotch" FT. "demanding" also, was never said. You like to play the word game don't you? The fact is he's just another jerk, trying to get some, and if we were to put everyone in jail for that we'd be a flat broke country, more than we already are. How about a nice slap across his face? My wife would have slapped him silly, as this woman should have done. I don't believe her in the least, but Cain isn't Presidential material, and the only ones who are pushing him are evangelical nutcases and the media, end of story.

ok all you guys that think that putting your uninvited had on a woman no matter where you put that hand is not sexual harrasment... just picture (if your not gay) some guy putting his hand on your thigh or reaching for your crotch. Then what do you call it? I am waiting for your answers...... still waiting..... thats what I thought.

@Joy. . .OUTSTANDING! As a victim of ritual sexual harassment in the 80s & 90s, I know all too well the shame, humiliation and FEAR that goes along with the abuse, and back then there were no solid laws against such behavior against female subordinates by supervising males. I don't care if Gloria Alred is involved. . .she's not the one on the spot here. I DO care that there are, quite apparently, MEN in this country who don't understand the boundaries that define sexual harrassment and, further, don't see the problem with placing their paws on a women in the most Holy of places! If anyone tried to do that to me, they'd get a face full of my fist! Sigh. . .I am so blessed to have met and married a man with morals and integrity. I'm so blessed to have worked with honorable men who didn't try to perpetrate this sort of caveman behavior on the women they supervised. I so WISH I could go back and tell MY story about the men who man-handled me every day of my life during those years. The Law has gotten on and with the time. . .why don't a few of you cavemen on here TRY to get a clue! Good LORD! How DO you walk upright without dragging your knuckles?

chris, get your facts straight....there were smoking guns but went "unproven" like hillary's profit of 100k on less than 10k investment and Herman Cain's supposed harrassment. Bill did perjure himself and he was disbarred. The old axiom of power corrupting absolutely has never been disproven but these same old people end up in the white house and senate. Hillary even stayed with the bast==d for a senate seat she'd have never won without him. Obviously you have it in for Starr.

Joy57's quote "ok all you guys that think that putting your uninvited had on a woman no matter where you put that hand is not sexual harrasment... just picture (if your not gay) some guy putting his hand on your thigh or reaching for your crotch. Then what do you call it? I am waiting for your answers...... still waiting..... thats what I thought."

OK Joy, here's your answer. I would tell that person "get your hand off my leg unless you want it broken". OK? Case closed. Sexual harrassment, BS. It's called "living in the real world Joy". And I don't need to file charges against someone for that, but you obviously are very litigious, so you are the problem in this lawyer based society where frivilous lawsuits are the norm. You'd be laughed out of court in Europe, they'd never let it get that far, and if I ever sat on a trial based on what this woman said, she'd get nothing, but a good laugh from me.

Being broke is a crime according to Herman Cain and an opportunity to exploit.

The woman has zero credibility. The left is terrified of Cain, so they resort to their default tactic of character assassination.

Clinton actually DID something (while married) to an intern, lied about it, both on national TV and under oath; and the liberals sing his praises.

What blatant hypocrisy.

"Innocent until PROVEN guilty"

Sound familiar???

The left is terrified of Cain,

No Steve – the left is NOT terrified of Cain just like we were NOT terrified of Palin, NOT terrified of Huckabee, NOT terrified of Pawelnty, NOT terrified of Trump, NOT terrified of Bachmann, and NOT terrified of Perry. Cain is just the latest in a long line of flavors of the month you teatards roll out. Like the rest of the crazies, he's had his 15 minuets of fame and will soon disappear like a fart in the wind. The only question is who’s next --- Newt, Santorun, who??

We HOPE Cain gets the nomination. The debate between "know nothing" Cain and Obama would be awesome. Obama would hand him his A$$ and send him back home to the pizza parlor like he did Trump.

Itcommander72...you just hit it on the nailhead... If that is what or how he treats those in bad financial straights just how do you think he will treat most of the Americans? We don't matter.

The man needs his own theme music, he's so sleazy. His double-speak is getting old and, apparently, will be his undoing along with his past conduct. Where's the outrage, TeaPublicans? We KNOW how much you like to tout yourselves as being the "moral" ones. If Obama had even ONE of these events on his record, you would have eaten him alive like Piranha. Ironies of ironies. . .you pull the RACE card on this one when it has absolutely nothing to do with race. Why? Because that's all you THINK you've got and, besides, it worked so well FOR you when you used it against Obama, right? I smell HYPOCRISY!

why not later? why not later durintg a one on one debate with the President??

Check your upper lip.

What good would it have done to say something before? Think it through man, think it through.

Cain has run for public office before, and this woman was nowhere to be found.

No police report, no record of events. Fourteen years past.

This wouldn't even make it to Judge Judy.

why now coming forward

Why did it take Paula Jones 7 years to come forward? That didn't seem to bother conservatives at all.

Good thing American's don't rely on judges who can be bought and can judge for themselves......my judgment... I find Herman Cain guilty and sentence him to a lifetime of living with what he is and does behind closed doors.

Let's see him escape that with his money.

Why did it take Paula Jones 7 years to come forward? That didn't seem to bother conservatives at all.

I became upset when I learned that Clinton lied to my face (on TV) when he denied having 'any sexual relations' with Lewinsky.

Steven B,

You must be upset a lot then - you get lied to by both sides every day. Show me a politician that isn't lying and I'll show you a corpse.

#8.7

Yes, they lie a lot. Both parties are awful, and the concept of a 'career politician' has the Founding Fathers rolling in their graves.

Founding fathers rolling in their graves?? You mean the same founding father like Thomas Jefferson who had a long-time (and evidently consentual) affair with one of his slaves, Sally? LBJ, Kennedy, who else, for pete's sake? I'm not condoning any of their behaviors, but for pete's sake, folks, powerful men have been doing this for centuries! Carter, Bush & Obama have all been probably faithful husbands, and three of the most ineffective presidents in the last half-century. Clinton, on the other hand, while a very randy guy, was effective. And Eisenhower..... In any event, I'd leave the founding fathers out of this discussion....

So are you saying that a president has to committ adultery to be effective as president?

I understand why Clinton lied about Monica.

However, he should have just refused to answer that question or told them to f*ck off because it's was his personal business(only between Bill, Monica, Hilary, and God).

Clinton was a good POTUS(not great).

Obama is a decent POTUS, considering the situation our economy was in when he entered the WH. It's a safe bet that we'd be worse off now with McCain/Palin in the WH.

Steven B, Cain has never run for any public office before, he has no political expirience and it has been pointed out by the media on numerous occasions. If you want to make a logical point, please try to be factual.

Yes something smells fishy and it's coming from Cain's fingers.

I watched this whole interview live, on FOX, this morning and if it were not so pathetical it would have been funny. I have to say that someone is not telling the truth. This woman would not know naievity or embarrassmenti f she were run over by a truck load of it and to top it all off - - Gloria Allred, for once, just sat there and listened. It was extremely well rehearsed.

Waited 14 years? Why? You don't have to be Einstein to figure this out although she says that money is not involved in any way - she is just fulfilling her civic duty.

The thing that impressed me most was her poise, quick response to questions and not groping for an answer to any question. This woman was polished and extremely well prepared for any question thrown at her - - she was professional to say the least.

Why come forward now?

...because the story came out, Cain denied it, the first woman reiterated the facts that she filed a complaint and was paid a settlement, Cain denied knowing about it, then a second and third woman came forward, and then Cain denied harassing anyone...and he blamed the media and then opposing candidates for the issue.

If you were harassed by someone seeking public office and knew that others were too, and that the candidate was lying (and calling you and the other women a liar) in his denials, you would want to come forward too - assuming you are a reasonable person with reasonable sensibilities.

If you rationalize Cain's actions by saying silly things like "why come forward now with these allegations", then Cain is toast...along with your thought process.

You need to ask yourself who has anything to gain or lose here. The women have nothing to gain by coming forward but their dignity. In fact, they have a lot to lose but some are doing it anyway...for their dignity and for standing up for what they believe is right and true. Cain, on the other hand, has a lot to gain by denying and everything to lose. In fact, he BLEW IT by issuing blanket denials, because now that the facts are coming out he can't backtrack. He has to stick with blanket denials. Someone that dumb is totally unfit to be president.

Steven B, Cain has never run for any public office before, he has no political expirience [sic] and it has been pointed out by the media on numerous occasions.

Whoops!!

Cain ran for public office several times, including a campaign in 2000 for President and 2004 for Senator, neither of which were successful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Cain

Lobo, incorrect, with McCain/Palin we wouldn't have had Pelosi and Reid getting their fill of liberal futures. They rushed the healthcare bill through to beat teabager 2010 elections as well as without reading the bill. Never ever vote for one party across the board. You will be the loser as you are now with deficits and pending deficits further than the mind can comprehend.

Exactly. I am reminded of someone who has been married six times. 'All of my ex's were messed up in the head!'

Yeah, it couldn't be YOU, could it????

We need morals back in the race, do we want to justify Cains activity's? Might as well become Democrats! Vote clean Mitt Romney 2012

But Mitt's a Mormon and the Evangelicals CANNOT have a Mormon in office. No, he must be converted to Christianity to appease the Religulous Evangelicals before he can be nominated, or he will not stand a chance against those in his own party. Gee! I'm actually starting to see how ridiculous Religulous really is! COOL!

vote for any republican and you will be better off.....the argument on Mitt is a leftist myth. As myths go it only gets real traction with the left who are already in BHS's camp.

Nico, you go ahead and vote for "any" Republican. I'm considerably more discerning than that and rarely commit to party loyalty in deference to voting for the best possible candidate. But, HEY! DO YO' THANG, DAWG!

k dawg...and you keep yo thang goin..tell me though are you really that discerning?

Yeah, its known as a six-figure payout when the book shows up....any day now.

Martha,

I have no idea if this woman is telling the truth and I prefer to think Cain innocent until proven guilty...but,

You posted :Sitting next to her in a car Cain put his hand up her skirt while pushing her head towards his lap.

and claim this as almost impossible as evidence.

The story reads :Cain put his hand up her skirt, reached for her genitals and then grabbed her head and pulled it toward his crotch.

Defend the man all you want but please try to do it without blatantly misrepresenting the information. It's insulting to those of us who read the article.

JTM, the left doesn't have any brake on their wild made up gossip here on newsvine. Why must anyone else be reticent about doing the same thing? Sleep with dogs gets everyone fleas.

JTM, this article isn't the only source for information about this matter. I watched her statement yesterday. She clearly said he reached up her skirt towards her genitals and pulled her head towards her crotch. The clear implication was that the two actions were coincidental, not sequential. Perhaps she misspoke and meant to say he reached for her genitals, failed, withdrew his hand and then reached for her head and pulled it towards his crotch... but that isn't what she said... see the Youtube of her statement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wodA1JoIEvc

Martha-2024651, come sit next to me. I'll prove to you how it's done.

I guess you are right. Sigh. I admit it. They are both sexual predators.

She didn't file a police report, and she's waited 14 years.

Did it bother you when Paula Jones didn't file a police report, and she's waited 7 years?

They are both sexual predators.

They're men. As Chris Rock says "A man is basically as faithful as his options."

I wasn't upset with Clinton's indiscretions. I was upset with his lying about it. He should've said "I did it, and it's between me and my wife". I would've respected that.

Police report for what? He didn't rape her...he came on to her and failed. That's not against the law. While Im not a Cain fan and this is a bit sleazy it not as bad as sexual harrasment AT WORK. This was a come on gone wrong.

I also get the feeling that she didnt stop him right away from the way she explained. She probably let him touch her for a few seconds and when he moved to get her head lower she stopped him.

Police report for what? He didn't rape her...he came on to her and failed. That's not against the law.

Then this is a non-issue, isn't it?

Unless making a pass is an automatic disqualification for public office...

It's about abuse of power. It's about offering a job and job security in exchange for sex.

If Cain did what is alleged, he should come clean.

"abuse of power" is an interesting tack. Was she an employee of his?

Steven, That is why she waited fourteen years because this has nothing to do with legal, it is all about being free to disparage Cain without worry about repercussions.And money may not be the main reason, just the amount of money the accusser can obtain secretly. I guarantee, she will be living in much more luxury shortly...count on it.

Of course she didn't file a police report! She isn't saying he raped her. He didn't commit a crime. It's an abuse of power and certainly against the NRA's rules. If she would have filed a complaint, she would have been paid off like the other women. She could have received a hefty sum, but chose to keep quiet, which to me, adds to her credibility.

No! She wasn't. She was looking for a job, you know, networking? It IS an abuse of power to offer someone help with obtaining a job for sexual favors. Some of your comments amaze me. You have a very low opinion of women. If you do not, you need to reconsider what you post. I have been sexually harassed MANY times in the work place. I am 46. I never filed any official reports because I chose to deal with it on my own. (Once I put a statement in my HR file for future leverage if needed when a client put me in a head lock to force me to kiss him. I am 5'1", he is 6'+....) When I was young, 15 working in a restaurant kitchen, I was too scared and embarrassed to know what to do. Think about that. A 15 year old girl in her first job is going to tell the owner of a successful restaurant that the head chef grabbed her breasts from behind while she was reaching for an item on the top shelf...in the basement storage area, with no witnesses??? As a confident and successful adult woman, I knew that most of the jerks who touched me, propositioned me or said creepy sexual things to me were idiots... I chose to ignore their offensive BS because I worked in male dominated fields and I had aspirations and goals for myself. I was also, thank God, never threatened or coerced to keep a job, find a job, or go after a promotion. Being labeled, like you have done so thouroughly here to this woman, would have made it harder for me. So I endure the BS, and believe me, I don't like it one bit. If one of these jerks in my past was on a platform to lead the free world, I too would speak out...without the benefit of a police report...31 years later!!!! Shame on you for not believing this stuff happens to women who are just trying to work and make their lives better!!! And double shame for thinking that money motivates everyone for everything! It doesn't. I know, because it doesn't motivate me to do anything in my life, not even to work for promotions. And I am in sales!!!

If someone really grabbed your crotch, wouldn't you consider it a crime of assault, if you didn't want that done? She is looking for money, and she will get it, one way or the other.

Dasvet, if women reported it as a crime every time a man makes an inappropriate pass or sexual advance toward her, we'd have an even more bogged down court system than we already have. Most women just rebuff the guy, feel outraged at the injustice of this type of thing, but don't do anything about it, because they know that if they do, they will get dragged through the mud. A lawsuit could go on their professional record, making it difficult to find future employement. Sometimes justice for the victim of sexual harrassment isn't what most of us would call justice.

The issue here is that Cain was in a position of power and made unwanted advances toward this woman, with the implication that he could get her a job and/or make her life easier. That is why this is so serious and why it is an ethical and professional breach.

Idiots, to report something as a crime there has to, acutually, be criminal intent. A horny guy making a move on a woman, hoping to get laid, is not a crime. Secondly, if you've ever reported something to the police, the first questions they ask are - were there any witnesses? and do you have any proof to back up your allegations? If your answer is NO they will tell you there is nothing they can do.

Sally, you have a low tolerance for the truth, which is you don't know if Cain is guilty or innocent , just what a bimbo tells you.

Yes, because Clinton was elected Presidient, and we were stuck with him at the time Lewinsky broke. Cain is trying to get elected, and the public has the right to know. If he were not a contender, it really would not be of interest. The key for all of those who can't figure out what was wrong with Cains approach is" You want a job don't you"?

In other words, it was just a business transaction, she had something he wanted, and she needed a job. Purient Capitalism at its finest.

People make mistakes, Cain made several mistakes apparently. The real problem is the disasterous manner in which he is trying to do damage control.

He is not Presidential material. Sorry.

Dasvet - you have a low view on women - so she is a bimbo right? But Cain must be telling the truth. What do you know about this woman? What do you know about Cain? Not much. But you're so sure that Cain is telling the truth and the woman is a bimbo. Sounds like you and Cain would be great friends - 2 slimeballs.

I have never said Cain is lying or telling the truth. I honestly don't know.I don't know much about Cain, other than what he says on tv, and some of the background letters. You don't know either, and you are willing to destroy a man with what a bimbo says? That is the truth, and you know it.

As for screening...are you talking about the clown who is bring these charges or Herman Cain???? And when did you become police, judge and jury...I guess you have never been wrongfully accused?

And who will review the Review Board? You? Mr. Pure, holy and mighty.

Climb down off your high horse.

Quit Now, Cain! while u stll hv some dignity.

That's the last thing he should do.

The Dems are terrified of Cain.

if the Democrats wanted to bring him down, why do it during the Republican primaries? I think your culprit is a little closer to home

Right Steve -- the Dems are "terrified" of Cain. After all, he only trailing Obama by 15 points. Yep -- we're just "shaking in our boots" over Pizza Man.

First, these are accusations. He may be guilty, or not, but you MORONS

That's when I stopped reading, and flagged.

You flagged, maybe you should read a bit more then

Sure, let's disregard this newest accuser; but what do we do with the others? Why was there a settlement if he was innocent?

Above all else, respect others. Address issues and arguments and refrain from making personal attacks.

http://www.newsvine.com/_nv/cms/info/codeOfHonor

Sure, let's disregard this newest accuser; but what do we do with the others?

What others? Name someone else.

Why was there a settlement if he was innocent?

Less expensive to pay a settlement. Try suing a doctor for something. You'll immediately be offered a settlement, whether or not your lawsuit has any merit.

Good point on the settlement question but I'm confused by your first point. Are you saying there are no other accusations? Even if it is anonymous it is still an accusation. If there was a settlement then there was an accusation.

If it's anonymous, then there can be no credibility. If we lower the standard to 'anonymous' then I can be 'anonymously' accused of anything.

That's why we have the right to face our accusers.

Yeah Charlie only 15 points and we haven't had a single primary yet. Might as well be dead even.

"Quit Now, Cain! while u stll hv some dignity"

Cain has no dignity.

The "others" are represented, but anonymous. You know, just like making a call to "Crime Stoppers".
Steven, just because they haven't released the names doesn't mean the complaints weren't made.

he had the right to face his accuser and declined the opportunity

Steven I doubt it was annonymous when he paid them off, there was an accuser but after the payoff the annonymous clause came into play. Annonymous is so both parties in this case drop the issue and so its not brought up again, which worked out really well for Hermie even right now, had Rich Perry not said anything, but back then I believe the annonymous clause came into play so his wife was spared the gory details and so the women couldn't go after him again buy threating to tell his wife about the gory sexual harrassments details.

Steven B,

The accusers are not anonymous to Cain, just to us, because of the confidentiality agreement tied to the settlements. You cannot disregard them merely because we don't know who they are.

The Dems are terrifed of Cain.

Nah, the Dems are watching in rapt fascination while the Republicans eat each other alive.

Politico (Karl Rove) broke the story, after giving Cain a chance to respond, which he refused. He blamed Perry instead. Perry's people turned around and blamed Romney, who denied anything to do with it all. And in the meantime, Bachmann is trumpeting to anyone who'll listen that 'God has called her to be president.'

It's a real train wreck and too horrifying/fascinating to look away from

She more than likely was just looking for an apology but it just shows you how Herman handled himself under pressure. Had he had anykind of character he would of handled it right there. Took her aside and asked her if he would be able to meet with her real soon to make amends with her, without the whole country knowing about it. Then met with her, apologized and maybe even gave her a little something to keep her silent and he would of been home free right now. But instead he figured he could lie his way out of this and maybe never even said anything to his managers about it. I bet he couldn't sleep. Ahhh, thats just for normal people, he didn't have a problem sleeping. Then I kind of see Herman as a little bit of a boozer too, so he probably just knocked off a bottle and went right to bed and slept like a baby.

Chicago, maybe she was stalking Cain. Is that a crime?

perhaps she was looking for at least an apology... and now he is practicing his lying technique, "I deny any wrong doing" He is a slime, He is a dope, and he is a vulture. Not someone whom at least the American women can put any trust into. Don't vote for this putz.

And the accuser is a gold digging bimbo, who hasn't worked in a decade and lives very near David Axelrod, Obama's spokesman and has met him. Sure that is just a coincident. Her story stinks to high heaven, fishy, and some one is paying for a luxurious pad. Where is that boyfriend? Is he a pimp?

Does 'everyone' consist of three unnamed accusers and one allegation from 14 years ago?

Steven, there are aligations as recently as 2009.

I believe "everyone" was meant as all his accusers up to now. Thats how I see it. I hardly think he means everyone as in the whole world everyone. Your going to have to keep looking for something else to give you reason to start insulting people and calling them names. This comment you made here is weak, but I"m sure in time you'll find yourself a reason. Good luck with that Steven.

That is a distinct possibility.

Phil....two words for you: Twanna Brawley. Google her....1987, she falsely accused and Al Sharpton railed against innocent people until they ruined the lives of half a dozen folks over an incident similar to this. None of us knows what actually happend...but, it seems the intent is to bring Cain down regardless.

Excellent point, #15.2

And, while we're at it, let's talk about the Duke University lacrosse players.

What's your point about Duke?

Grandfather, the Twanna Brawley case isn't even close to being similar to Herman Cain's

phil, it is very close to the Twanna Brawley case, it is a lie to destroy innocent people, set up by a radical left wing thug, Al Sharpton. This case is set up by a leftwing tv thuggette to destroy what very well could be an innocent man

Regarding your 2 topics: you yourself call evolution a "theory." Where are all of the "missing links?"

Regarding global warming:

The continual change of data and the position of the scientists who release it naturally leads the public to become skeptical at best or downright cynical at the worst. Regardless of politics, the truth is that the data, studies and computer models are inconclusive. Without a hard answer, it is foolish to re-direct the economies of the world to spend trillions of dollars to meet a challenge that might not exist.

The National Geographic Society has aired conflicting documentaries regarding climate change. The most telling was on the Sahara Desert which they showed by evidence changes like clockwork every 20,000 years from desert to rain forest. Furthermore, they concluded the change comes quickly at a "tipping point."

Columbia University released a recent study showing Africa's climate changes drastically and rapidly every 1500 years. Note the discrepancy between 20,000 and 1,500 years.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/1997-12/CU-CSFA-111297.php

The NASA climate investigation has revealed the same kind of flip-flop of position within its scientists corp as revealed in this research release:

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

A Nobel Prize winning physicist resigned from a professional organization after it stated officially that climate change is man-made.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/09/14/nobel-prize-winning-physicist-resigns-from-top-physics-group-over-global/print

Harper-Collins who publishes "The Times Atlas" recently apologized for its latest map release that shows ice-retreat in Greenland from climate-change scientists that is not supported by satellite images (from NASA).

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/09/20/times-atlas-apologizes-for-misleading-greenland-ice-melting-claim/

When I was in high school in the 1970's, the climate-speak was of a coming ice age such as was experienced for a couple of hundred years in the middle ages (known as the "Little Ice Age"). Then, data showed the world was heating up, so we were warned of a coming world wide heat wave. When the data could not support that stand, the term was changed to "climate change."

It is easy to see how the public is skeptical. If the scientists cannot be in agreement, how can the non-scientific world be any different? If we wait a few more years, the weather will change again and a new warning will arise.

The simple thing to do is follow the money trail and look at who is pushing the agenda and how they are profiting off of it. Al Gore is a great example. It has been revealed in recent documents that he is an investor in the electric car company that got millions in US government loans and has now moved their operation to Finland.

Can you spell "conflict of interest?" I can spell "educate self."

"Now about that global warming myth, and the evolution theory…"

In the 21st century Republican Party, stupid is considered a qualification for office.

It's just amazing that the southern Christian conservatives

They were Democrats.

2OldDude, you are pathetic. And your statements about "southern" and "Christian" prove just that. Turn the tv off and pay attention, you'll quit looking stupid and maybe become educated. Stone pretty much said what I'd say about most of your comments. You'll do the typical act...say "those" sources aren't valid...but somehow can't find the ability to READ that MSNBC has stated the same.

Regarding Republicans, educate yourself and quit looking stupid...You probably think Lincoln was a Democrat...LOL, that's the problem with Liberals, logic is irrelevant...

No Stevie, they were DIXIECRATS. They also jumped ship and went to the Republican party, where their ideas, bible thumping, and bigotry were tolerated.

Lincoln would be considered a liberal or "lefty" if he was in todays political arena.

By whom? Another lefty? Wow!

exactly. if the Democrats were behind this, it would happen in October 2012

Exactly. Then what do you expect from a shameless group of "name calling" people. Disgusting, the whole lot of them.

The womean (?lady?) is just an equal opportunity gold digger. All money is the same color.

What he did isn't criminal. It will get you fired or, in this case, probably be the nail in his campaign coffin.

yes what she described is criminal. It is called sexual assault.

So why did she get fired? Haven't heard her talk about that yet...or the bankrupties....not sure we're getting a full picture here....remember, she started all this.....

What does it matter why she got fired or why she had to file for bankruptcy. Those things have nothing to do with Cain making unwanted sexual advances toward her when she came to him for help. And, she didn't start this. Cain did when he decided that it was OK for him to treat a female subordinate in this way. Just like it isn't the media's fault for reporting this news item.

Sally the bankruptcies has a lot to do with her gold digging....she needed the money.

your point is foundless.. she isn't getting any money for this... as is stated in her interview. She isn't selling it as a book... so where is she supposedly getting paid for this? Try to stick with the story.

Cain "stated" he was innocent in his tv interviews. Why isn't he as believeable as the bimbo? Your point is foundless, just a regular left wing diatribe. She was too embarrassed to report a criminal act fourteen years age, and is now willing to stand naked before the world in her embarrassment? BS!

Yeah, I thought that was funny too. A guy who polls 15 points behind the president with his silly 999 plan. ROTFLMFHO

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 21% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Thirty-nine percent (39%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -18

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

And what about those that Slightly Approve or Don't Know?

How about the fact that most people love to scapegoat one single person or group, for ALL the problems they have.

McConnel, Cantor, and Boehner have been successful in stalling any forward progress by Obama.

I'd say they have an even higher Strongly Disapprove vote.

and yet he still easily beats every republican candidate. that's got to be disheartening...

Stop blaming these women for the "timing" of this story. It was leaked by somebody to Politico. Even Mr. Cain thinks it was another Republican that leaked it. If not for that, this story would still be buried in Mr. Cain's closet. Not one of these women came forward wanting their 15 minutes of fame. Technically, she didn't describe sexual assault either. He made a pass. She said no. He stopped. End of story.

I can think - I'm pretty sure that the media did not ignore any allegations made toward Clinton or more recently, John Edwards and Anthony Weiner. It so funny that when you see something a repub did, you automatically think, well a dem did that too and they got away with it. No, sorry, they didn't. Their messes were all over the news too. Two wrongs don't make a right.

O Contraire Sally - It took the national enquirer running chasing John Edwards into the bathroom at an LA hotel before the media noticed that turd. Until it kept coming out and out and out about Weiner - well the media would have been happy to eat his "hacked" crap sandwich politely with a knife and fork and go on with their lives.

And at the same point - Clinton DID all those things and dems had no problem with him at all so which is it - you're a womanizer and Democrat its okay but Womanizer Republican not? You can't have it both ways. All I'm saying is what she described is NOT sexual harassment - IT. IS. ASSAULT. You don't call Gloria Allred 14 years later - YOU CALL THE POLICE when it happens. And don't think for one nanosecond that she's not making any kind of money off this. Please!

What is driving me crazy is that you claim the "liberal media" ie MSNBC is behind this because he's a Republican, but ignore it when it's a Democrat. That is simply not true. I watch MSNBC and they were suggesting Weiner resign right off the bat. There is no bias.

Er Uh. RAINN.org, the largest charity organization for rape victims and is listed in the Forbes Top 100 Charities in America, states about sixty percent of rape victims don't reprt their assault due to embarrassment and humiliation.

Was she raped?

Who said anything about rape? Read her statement...SHE WAS EMBARRASSED.....but nothing criminal actually happened.

I see, a guy actually has to score in order to embarrass and humilitate a woman.

I guess that shows how some losers feel about women.

I'll bet you think it's all her fault for wearing a dress and showing some leg.

What she described is criminal. Unless she has more information like they were making out or petting.

.SHE WAS EMBARRASSED.....but nothing criminal actually happened.

Then it's a non-issue. Haven't you been embarrassed before?

Steven B - you should realize (if you are an adult) that it is not a "non-issue". When a person in power uses that power to intimidate a subordinate for favors - such a employement or money, then it is unethical and unprofessional, and certainly against NRA rules. You can sit on this board all day long and cry that she should have reported it back then, so it must not be true, then in the next post say that if she wasn't raped it's a non-issue and none of your ramblings will make any sense. Women deal with this sort of thing in their lives, sometimes from men in power, sometimes from a neighbor, and don't report it because it is embarassing and most likely there are other men like you who will say that is didn't happen, but if it did, she must have been asking for it. They just want the humiliation to go away. But when the abuser is suddenly in a position where he might be the POTUS, and also realized that there were others he did this to, she was right to warn us of the type of "man" Cain is. Stop trying to blame the victim.

Really interesting comment....this is a joke, right? Nobody actually writes like this. Alex, you're actually a Harvard student just trying to act like a stupid, bigoted, ignorant, country hill-billy a-hole. Right? Come on now...own up....oh, you need to work on it a little, but not too bad for a first try. Go have another beer.....

PS. It does not matter what her finaical situation does not have anything to do with him running for office the man is dishonest and by his actions he proves he wants to repersent Black people only of he would not have picked white women to harass.

Lets see, was Bush honest, how about Clinton, Obama? Are these the honest people you are comparing Cain to?

At least Clinton and Obama didn't slander their own party members when they were seeking the nomination. What amazes me is Gw went and said that McCain fathered a black child and still won the nomination for the repubs. McCain should of won that nomination and maybe even become president after Gw went and told the whole world that McCain fathered a black child. You knew right there what kind of person Gw was but yet somehow he still won the nomination. Whats that tell you about the voting repubs? If women, and any middle class to poor people vote for a repub, their cutting their own throat. Even voting repubs that make $250,000 or less, need to really make sure they want to vote for a repub. Your cutting your own throat big time. You have to see what the repubs and tp's stand for now. Vote them out and lets get this country started in the right direction again after Gw just destroyed the economy and everything else he had anything to do with.

James - seems to me that the "slop" belongs to all.

At least you get to claim Gloria Allred....this dried up pig will continue to show up every election cycle with a new unfounded harassment claim.

AMEN! She has NO credibility. Simply grandstands and was last seen ONLY during an election in 2010 when she sold out and put at risk of deportation,her recent client, in an attempt to derail Meg Whitman's run at California's governor's office.

It just never stops, must be how the repubs were brought up. When the truth surfaces even if it was 14 yrs. later it dosen't matter, the repubs and tp's try to totally dismiss the truth putting the blame on the other party. I guess she wore a dress so she must of been asking for it. Then the repubs and tp's in here start the name calling, "dried up pig". Now the repubs in here think they are the superior party, then why do they stoop down to this low, like Herman Cain. Why would anyone want to vote for a repub ever? Theres no debate in the comments here if your a democrat. The debate is your a "dried up pig". Well the repubs have showed me how they feel about the rest of the country and I'd bet my last dollar on the repubs not liking their own party members too. Maybe if a repub is making under a $100,000 a yr then they are nothing, but they do want their vote so they spare them how they really feel about them. How can you ever vote for a repub, especially if your a women or a minority or making under a $100,000 a yr. I know I'm not.

Class war. Somebody has done a number on you!

James316346. He knows it was the repubs that ousted him, he said himself that Rich Perry owes him an apology. He's just shameless. Maybe Rich Perry will take him to his camp and smooth it all up with him there. Sort of a mano el mano way between two guys that are on the square with each other and the country. Oh yeah, I'm sure its all going to work out in the end. I remember the election when Gw was looking for the nominaton and he came out and said that McCain fathered a black baby, a sure way to get the southern vote. Then the people didn't mind him saying that at all, they still voted him in. How insane is that? How could you vote for someone thats going to say something like that about their own party member. People need to make a stand when they go to vote and if someone is out there slandering, instead of debating their own party opponent, then they should know he's not going to be any good for the country either. Vote for the other guy, right. I think it makes sense.

It's people like you with your shallow, bigoted brains filled with mindless pap that wallow in slop. What outrageuos hypocrisy. These are accusations only. Anyone with a hint of intelligence would be able to see through this charade. And isn't it interesting that when Elizabeth Ward Gracen, Sally Perdue, Dolly Kyle Browning and Jennifer Flowers admitted to adulterous affairs with then Governor Bill Clinton that he was treated lightly by the press. And of course Paula Jones was just "trailer park trash." And of course he never had sex with Monica Lewinsky, she had sex with him. And of course Kathleen Willy and Juanita Brodrick were just delusional, vengeful, hateful blah..blah..blah. Grow up.

David, And others,

I don't care what Cain did or did not do. What I find interesting is that the GOP power brokers like Haley Barbour, McConnell, Boehner, and others, will rat out their own front runner in defiance of their own constituents. Cain was not supposed to be so successful, he was there as their token black guy. I guess Cain never got the memo, until now, when it is too late. As a conservative you should be mad as hell, not at me or Liberals, but at these power brokers who are manipulating you and all of Cains supporters. They are refusing Cain the nomination on the GOP ticket, why----because he's black, because they don't trust him, and because he isn't a team player. Come on guys you aren't that naive, Cain is toast because the GOP wants it that way, and they don't give a rats a$$ what you think about it. Pure unadulterated arrogance of the highest degree.

David - I really don't understand how you or anyone else can say that Clinton, or any other dem (John Edwards, Anthony Weiner, etc) were "treated lightly" by the press. Their dirt was presented for all to see, just like Cain. There isn't any unequal treatment by the press. You are just smarting about this one because he is a repub.

NBC/CBS sat on the story of John Edwards, until the Chicago rag revealed it.

A blonde headed white women and a white lawyer, going against a blackman. Could I call this a Racial motivated accusation. Liberals can not have it both ways, they accused the Tea Party as a racial group for not liking Obama's Marixst government. Well Liberals which way do you want it.

She's a republican and attends tea party rallies. Cain believes Perry's team, obviously republican, are the ones who leaked this to politico.

Where, exactly, do liberals fall into this issue? I doubt this has to do with race and party than with another candidate wanting to win the nomination. If liberals were going to leak this, they would do it during the primaries.

what this says to me is that the repubs don't trust each other so why would anyone put their trust in the repubs.