How did Politico get Cain story???

[rightwinger]

This may very well be what really happened.

Just as John Edwards, Gary Harts and Anthony Wieners initial claims may have been true. But the free press has a way of digging at a story until more facts come out. They will keep at it until Cain confesses what happened or it turns out to be a non-story. That is the way these things usually play out

Right now, we just don't know

If Cains version of events are true, this will be an old story by next week. But if there is more there and Cain has been lying......it will be much worse for him

It doesn't matter if the story is true or not. What matters is whether the DNC demagogues of the MSM can convince the public that they MIGHT have some truth. The little Goebbels at MSNBC and the NY Times want to plant FUD, "fear, uncertainty and doubt" to torpedo the threat to their candidate.

All side know that there is virtually no chance that the story is true, the question is how effective the smear by the democrats press will be?

I doubt if the smear is coming from the democrats

Firstly, they would like to see Cain as the GOP nominee
Secondly, they would wait until he was the nominee before they jumped on the story

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I wasn't there so I cannot say exactly what transpired. Back in the 90s, sexual harassment charges were commonplace. It was also commonplace for companies to pay frivolous lawsuits out of court rather than pay lawyers hundreds of thousands of dollar to defend frivolous lawsuits. It did not matter that the suit had no basis. All it took then (and still now) to file a law suit was a filing fee and a statement of the claim. Anyone could (and still can) accuse anyone else of anything with or without cause. Many did it for no reason other than to protect their own job and/or to extort money from the company.

The fact that Cain's employer paid off the accuser's lawyers for a frivolous lawsuit has no proof in it that the accusations were valid.

It is said that Billy Graham refused to ride in an elevator with women he did not know for fear of being accused of saying or doing something he had not done.

Other than Cains claim of we paid her off so now she can't speak and insinuating that payoff means he gets to claim the charges are baseless.....we just don't know

She was paid $35k to go away. If she talks, she may have to give back the $35k. That is not too much money and I imagine many will line up to pay the $35k just to hear her side

Cain has to be careful, he is digging a hole that will cave in on him if he is lying

Could be.. but
1) You didn't answer as an expert... how can that lawyer accuse Cain of breaking the agreement ... if Politico wrote a story based on someone breaking the agreement...
2) As a result, if the woman then claims she can now talk she can tell her side... BUT it will be suspect as it MAY (I don't know for sure) MAY be a "he said, she said" and I would be more inclined to believe him!

.....'Cause you "conservatives" are soooooooooooooooooooooo desperate to own your OWN Obama!!!!!

.

.

.

 

[Liability]

This may very well be what really happened.

Just as John Edwards, Gary Harts and Anthony Wieners initial claims may have been true. But the free press has a way of digging at a story until more facts come out. They will keep at it until Cain confesses what happened or it turns out to be a non-story. That is the way these things usually play out

Right now, we just don't know

If Cains version of events are true, this will be an old story by next week. But if there is more there and Cain has been lying......it will be much worse for him

It doesn't matter if the story is true or not. What matters is whether the DNC demagogues of the MSM can convince the public that they MIGHT have some truth. The little Goebbels at MSNBC and the NY Times want to plant FUD, "fear, uncertainty and doubt" to torpedo the threat to their candidate.

All side know that there is virtually no chance that the story is true, the question is how effective the smear by the democrats press will be?

I doubt if the smear is coming from the democrats

Firstly, they would like to see Cain as the GOP nominee
Secondly, they would wait until he was the nominee before they jumped on the story

No. They would not want to see Mr. Cain as the opposition candidate against President Obama.

But yeah: it would be smarter to hold off on this story until Mr. Cain gets nominated (if he does get the nod).

So, I also agree that it is possible that it wasn't the Dims who undertook this smear campaign. But, still, it's possible that they did, too, for tactical reasons that you might not comprehend or agree with.

 

[rightwinger]

Let's offer an explanation entirely as well founded as the liberal media's speculation that Mr. Cain "must have done something."

Let's say that when he was President of the Restaurant Association, some employees were involved in perfectly civil and polite and non-sexist non-harassing conversations with Mr. Cain. Then, let's say that either because they were dishonest and manipulative OR because they are idiots, they misconstrued some non-sexual gesture and non-sexual banter as some kind of sex-based employer/employee harassment. And let's say that for any number of reasons, they pursued this fantasy-based "claim."

The Association COULD have chosen to fight it in some EEOC hearing or in Court, perhaps. But that would involve lots of money for lawyers even if they were to prevail AND lots of time of numerous employees doing very non job related things on the time of the Association. So, they did the bean counter thing and elected a path of less resistance and greater cost efficiency. They worked out a "settlement" by which neither side admitted any 'guilt" and both sides got bound by confidentiality.

MAYBE Mr. Cain was made aware of all of this back at the time or maybe he wasn't required to know the details of such bullshit. IF he had been advised, maybe he never paid it very much attention (knowing that it was horse shit from day one). And then, over time, he forgot the few details he may have known over this inconsequential crap.

Now, lo and behold, he has the audacity to run for President. And SOMEBODY who was knowledgeable about the settlements and the sordid allegations of so many years ago "leaked" it to either a GOP opposition candidate OR to a couple of highly impressionable and gullible would-be "REPORTERS." Either way, the "story" gets smeared all over the news JUST around the time that Mr. Cain has charged into the most recent polling leads in the GOP field.

Could that be what happened? I dunno. But that speculation is JUST as well-founded as the rampant speculation I see from the Cain detractors and the "objective" main stream "news" reports.

This may very well be what really happened.

Just as John Edwards, Gary Harts and Anthony Wieners initial claims may have been true. But the free press has a way of digging at a story until more facts come out. They will keep at it until Cain confesses what happened or it turns out to be a non-story. That is the way these things usually play out

Right now, we just don't know

If Cains version of events are true, this will be an old story by next week. But if there is more there and Cain has been lying......it will be much worse for him

It might also be the hope of those perpetrating this smear campaign that BY THE TIME the truth comes out (i.e., if the truth exonerates Mr. Cain entirely), the damage will already have been done.

That's the problem with a dishonest smear campaign that gets such "coverage." Relying on the old saw that "the truth will out" might end up being true, but perhaps too late to save teh victim of the smear from the damage inflicted.

A responsible news reporter wouldn't have run this story without verification of the details. But that's ok. We know the "public figures" doctrine make the newsies virtually bullet proof.

If it turns out to be a non-story, there will be little damage to Cains reputation and it will be quickly forgotten

If it turns out Cain has been lying.......he is in deep trouble

 

[Truthmatters]

You presume, shithead, that there ever was any "conflict" for anybody to BE aware of.

A claim made by a woman or two is not the same thing as there ever having BEEN any actual "conflict," you simpleton.

Why not just acknowledge that YOU presume that there "must be" some "truth" to the allegations?

Obviously, that's what you presume. And it is (whether you are smart enough to realize it or not) a suppressed premise in almost all of your churlish dopey posts on this "topic."

I presumed NOTHING, there was a case and it was settled.

I claimed NO SIDE but merely stated the fact that other employees were aware of something going on.


They could have been who told the news.


There is not one letter in that statement that lays blame on ANYONE.

You are insane

Wrong. There was a claim. That much we know. Two claims, in fact.

We know they got "settled." Another given.

But you had not spoken about a "case" or a "settlement," you lying maggot.

You spoke of a "conflict." Thus, you did presume (your present dishonest denial notwithstanding) that there was something solid underlying the "case" that got settled.

You PRESUMED that there HAD BEEN anything "going on" for anybody TO BE aware of.

Your cheap-ass transparent dishonest effort to spin what you, yourself, already posted doesn't erase it, stupid.

You are a fraud and valueless. You lie like a rug. Putting the word "truth" in your username is the height of cynicism.

It was a conflict of some kind wasnt it.

wether there is proof or not a conflict exsisted.

The resolution to the conflict was a settlement agreement huh?


Nothing I said included a claim of guilt.

You are insane

 

[NYcarbineer]

Politico gave the Cain campaign TEN DAYS NOTICE that they were going to run this story.

 

[blastoff]

It actually doesn't work like that. You don't take the money and sign an NDA then 20 years later decide you don't want to stick to the agreement, give the money back and make $100k from going on talk shows.

Idiot.

Whether she gives the money back or not, she signed the NDA and that means she cannot talk. Ever. End of. And, FYI, it is unlikely that the agreement is with Cain. It is more likely that the company dealt with it. Not him as an individual.

All we have is 'he says', 'she says'... anyone who sees one side or the other as 'right' is an idiot.

Hey thanks for your clarity. As I don't have any legal expertise it appears your comment at the minimum has logic if not legal, appropriateness.

I am not a lawyer.......but I do watch Judge Judy every day

That qualifies me to offer unsolicited legal advice on the inter web

LOL...at least you're honest.

Similar things sometimes happen to mean when I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express the night before.

 

[NYcarbineer]

His campaign donations have gone up notably

...because of RACECARD fundraising like this:

“Don’t let the left ‘lynch’ another black conservative."


Cain PAC accuses left of 'high-tech lynching' in fundraising letter - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

So a PAC of his supporters noting that the left is once again engaged in a high tech lynching of a black conservative constitutes, in your dishonest view of the world, the same thing as Mr. Cain, himself, "playing the race card."

You have no more integrity than truthdon'tmattertoheratall."

And I guess Cain saying outright to Charles Krauthammer that yes he thought this was about race was an illusion to us all, right?

 

[Liability]

I presumed NOTHING, there was a case and it was settled.

I claimed NO SIDE but merely stated the fact that other employees were aware of something going on.


They could have been who told the news.


There is not one letter in that statement that lays blame on ANYONE.

You are insane

Wrong. There was a claim. That much we know. Two claims, in fact.

We know they got "settled." Another given.

But you had not spoken about a "case" or a "settlement," you lying maggot.

You spoke of a "conflict." Thus, you did presume (your present dishonest denial notwithstanding) that there was something solid underlying the "case" that got settled.

You PRESUMED that there HAD BEEN anything "going on" for anybody TO BE aware of.

Your cheap-ass transparent dishonest effort to spin what you, yourself, already posted doesn't erase it, stupid.

You are a fraud and valueless. You lie like a rug. Putting the word "truth" in your username is the height of cynicism.

It was a conflict of some kind wasnt it.

wether there is proof or not a conflict exsisted.

The resolution to the conflict was a settlement agreement huh?


Nothing I said included a claim of guilt.

You are insane

No. You're wrong.

The EEOC type CLAIM or the lawsuit (or threatened lawsuit) presented a conflicting set of stories, perhaps.

But that doesn't mean that there ever was a real conflict in the first place.

And the unstated premise of everything you've posted, you partisan hack lying twit, is that there was something underlying the original claim.

If an asshole (let's choose you as the most obvious example of such a critter) were to file a lawsuit against me for having driven my car through a red light at the intersection of Main and Elm at noon yesterday in YOUR TOWN, State of Confusion, USA and thereby striking you as you walked (with the green in the marked pedestrian crosswalk), causing you serious bodily injury, that would constitute a claim.

Are you following along, dimwit?

Now let's say that I wasn't anywhere NEAR YOUR TOWN or even in your State of CONFUSION yesterday.

There is no true underlying conflict, you dishonest rodent. It's always been nothing but a stupid and false accusation by a liar, like you.

You can pretend that there is a "conflict" since you brought a lawsuit. But there isn't any true conflict at all. For it sometimes happens that a claim is just purely bogus. There is NOTHING -- no actual conflict -- for ANYBODY else to "be aware of," you dipshit.

No. I'm not insane. You are just dishonest and tragically stupid and ignorant.

Ho hum. Another day at USMB.

 

[Liability]

...because of RACECARD fundraising like this:

“Don’t let the left ‘lynch’ another black conservative."


Cain PAC accuses left of 'high-tech lynching' in fundraising letter - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

So a PAC of his supporters noting that the left is once again engaged in a high tech lynching of a black conservative constitutes, in your dishonest view of the world, the same thing as Mr. Cain, himself, "playing the race card."

You have no more integrity than truthdon'tmattertoheratall."

And I guess Cain saying outright to Charles Krauthammer that yes he thought this was about race was an illusion to us all, right?

No, you lying idiot.

I already answered that one.

IF Mr. Cain assumes that racial motivation underlies a false claim against him, he is perfectly free to answer honestly the question put to him and that does NOT constitute "playing the race card."

 

[Uncensored2008]

It might also be the hope of those perpetrating this smear campaign that BY THE TIME the truth comes out (i.e., if the truth exonerates Mr. Cain entirely), the damage will already have been done.

That's the problem with a dishonest smear campaign that gets such "coverage." Relying on the old saw that "the truth will out" might end up being true, but perhaps too late to save teh victim of the smear from the damage inflicted.

A responsible news reporter wouldn't have run this story without verification of the details. But that's ok. We know the "public figures" doctrine make the newsies virtually bullet proof.

The goal is FUD. If they can create doubt, it matters not that the story has no merit.

 

[Uncensored2008]

...because of RACECARD fundraising like this:

“Don’t let the left ‘lynch’ another black conservative."


Cain PAC accuses left of 'high-tech lynching' in fundraising letter - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

Sounds right.

This sort of backfired on you demagogues, then?

 

[Uncensored2008]

I doubt if the smear is coming from the democrats

ROFL

You know full well it is.

Firstly, they would like to see Cain as the GOP nominee

Whistling past the graveyard might play well to morons like TM and Jillian, but we all know the left is terrified of Cain, as well you should be.

Secondly, they would wait until he was the nominee before they jumped on the story

And risk payback with Obama? No, that would be a stupid tactic. Remember, the democrats are evil, not stupid.

 

[bripat9643]

commonplace?
I was never accused of any sexual harrasment.

I know plenty of people who were. I had a colleague who was accused of sexual harassment. A company competing for a contract was responsible. They did it solely to damage our chances of getting the bid. In fact, my co-worker at my last job accused my boss of sexual harassment.

 

[rightwinger]

I doubt if the smear is coming from the democrats

ROFL

You know full well it is.

Firstly, they would like to see Cain as the GOP nominee

Whistling past the graveyard might play well to morons like TM and Jillian, but we all know the left is terrified of Cain, as well you should be.

Secondly, they would wait until he was the nominee before they jumped on the story

And risk payback with Obama? No, that would be a stupid tactic. Remember, the democrats are evil, not stupid.

The Democrats have nothing to gain by attacking Cain at this time. His Republican opponents have much to gain......primarily Romney and Perry

The Democrats have repeatedly indicated that they consider Romney to be their biggest threat. Weakening Cain at this time does them no good

 

[Uncensored2008]

The Democrats have nothing to gain by attacking Cain at this time. His Republican opponents have much to gain......primarily Romney and Perry

Not true, which Cain as the candidate, the dims lose white guilt and some black votes. A campaign based on "Vote for Obama or you're a racist" will fail against Cain.

The Democrats have repeatedly indicated that they consider Romney to be their biggest threat. Weakening Cain at this time does them no good

No doubt they are tipping their hand...

The dims fear Cain - he neutralized the race option.

 

[bripat9643]

Why then can Cain talk about them and call them liars?

He can say whatever he wants if he didn't sign the NDA.

 

[rightwinger]

The Democrats have nothing to gain by attacking Cain at this time. His Republican opponents have much to gain......primarily Romney and Perry

Not true, which Cain as the candidate, the dims lose white guilt and some black votes. A campaign based on "Vote for Obama or you're a racist" will fail against Cain.

The Democrats have repeatedly indicated that they consider Romney to be their biggest threat. Weakening Cain at this time does them no good

No doubt they are tipping their hand...

The dims fear Cain - he neutralized the race option.

In most cases, Republicans running a black candidate would split the black vote and dilute Obamas base

Cain is not one of those cases. He polls very poorly with black voters and would draw poorly. He is a bigger threat to Republicans who would not come out to support such an ethnically black candidate.....or any black candidate for that matter

 

[bripat9643]

The goal is FUD. If they can create doubt, it matters not that the story has no merit.

When did Democrats ever care about the merits of an accusation against a conservative?

 

[healthmyths]

There are no criminal charges that can be filed for violating an NDA. Other than Cain crying..."but you promised not to tell" there is little he can do but seek monetary damages.

Since Cain is the one doing the speaking about it, I even doubt he could sue for that. As soon as Cain claims the charges are frivolous, he is violating the terms and she has a right to defend herself.

Did Cain give the story to Politico?
Because that's why I asked how did Politico get the story if someone hadn't violated the confidentiality agreement.
The public news says Politico ADVISED Cain's campaign several weeks ago they were going to run the story... THEY advised FIRST!
So again.. Cain notified them according to you?

Who cares how Politico got the story? They did and it turned out to be true.

If someone was there when Cain did his dirty deed or if someone worked in the office and had the woman spill her guts on what happened......they are not subject to a confidentiality agreement. If you didn't sign it, it doesn't apply to you

If Cain goes in public and says "the claim had no merit" he is commenting on the case. The claim very well may have had merit. It is Cain who is now violating confidentiality. We have heard nothing from the woman

So who ever told Politico HAD knowledge that was suppose to be confidential. They are the ones that broke the agreement.
So the woman's lawyer was wrong to accuse Cain that's my point!

What would you have done if you were Cain claim "I signed a NDA"???