Cain wants the women to keep quiet

[Trajan]

Ahhh...so you're NOT interesting in getting to the TRUTH of this matter...are you?

Neither are you, you're only interested in demonizing a black man........

You are aware that I AM a black man...right?

you are aware that asking that question makes you look like someone how has spent his life under a rock ...right?

 

[BDBoop]

Ahhh...so you're NOT interesting in getting to the TRUTH of this matter...are you?

Neither are you, you're only interested in demonizing a black man........

You are aware that I AM a black man...right?

They don't need no stinkin FACTS!

 

[driveby]

Ahhh...so you're NOT interesting in getting to the TRUTH of this matter...are you?

Neither are you, you're only interested in demonizing a black man........

You are aware that I AM a black man...right?

Has your dumb ass never heard of "black on black crime" ? .....

 

[Mustang]

Anyone know the stated reason he left? It'd be good to see his personnel records.

I wouldn't expect either Cain or the NRA to admit that Cain left under a cloud, especially since there was a nondisclosure clause in the settlement.

Neither would have anything to gain by stating the real reason for his departure, and it may have been mutually understood that it would be best if he moved on if he had a history or hitting on these younger women when drinking at company functions. Frankly, it seems like enough people new about these incidents because it looks like some of them happened in public with witnesses around. At any rate, the NRA wouldn't have paid out $35,000 (I just read one settlement was for $45,000) if there was no evidence of sexual harassment.

You are aware that it was the women who left NRA as part of their agreement, not Cain, right?

Of course. However, Cain's employment as CEO of the NRA ended the very same year. Coincidence? Probably not.

Keep something in mind. The NRA almost certainly wouldn't have paid out a full year's salary to a woman (or more than one woman) unless they believed that there was merit to their claims. And during the course of the investigation, the lawyers would have talked to both Cain and the women, AND to any witnesses who may have been present at those public functions. If they came to believe the women's claims while also concluding Cain was lying about what happened (and let's face it, he's lied several times about it this week), why would they want him to continue to lead their trade organization?

 

[Ravi]

Harassment is not tame.

the sky is not green....and? are we free versing now?

I didn't post fast enough.

Si Modo said it was tame. I totally disagree.

 

[Si modo]

I wouldn't expect either Cain or the NRA to admit that Cain left under a cloud, especially since there was a nondisclosure clause in the settlement.

Neither would have anything to gain by stating the real reason for his departure, and it may have been mutually understood that it would be best if he moved on if he had a history or hitting on these younger women when drinking at company functions. Frankly, it seems like enough people new about these incidents because it looks like some of them happened in public with witnesses around. At any rate, the NRA wouldn't have paid out $35,000 (I just read one settlement was for $45,000) if there was no evidence of sexual harassment.

You are aware that it was the women who left NRA as part of their agreement, not Cain, right?

Of course. However, Cain's employment as CEO of the NRA ended the very same year. Coincidence? Probably not.

Keep something in mind. The NRA almost certainly wouldn't have paid out a full year's salary to a woman (or more than one woman) unless they believed that there was merit to their claims. And during the course of the investigation, the lawyers would have talked to both Cain and the women, AND to any witnesses who may have been present at those public functions. If they came to believe the women's claims while also concluding Cain was lying about what happened (and let's face it, he's lied several times about it this week), why would they want him to continue to lead their trade organization?

The only thing I know about settlements is that if they make sense to a business, they will do it.

And, after finding myself in civil court more times than I would like to be and when my side is clearly in the right, 35K and 45K is a good deal to avoid those legal costs.

 

[Trajan]

So that the details of an event or settlement don't hit the public record.

welllllllllllllllll?????????

The details have, for the most part, hit the public record - in large part because Cain has told us.

The person on the other side might want the option to share her details as well.

*shrugs* I do agree as I said yesterday that we are now going to have to hear the whole magilla. Cain is horribly managed, and I would say that he really may not have known they had a settlement in place because he felt so free to give 'detail' not just a yea there was one nothing found move on which I think he in entitled to say but the detail of the 'joke' etc....so hes shot himself in the foot, I cannot see him doing that knowing he has to keep his mouth shut, and if he did then hes not what IO am looking for in a Pres. *shrugs*

 

[Si modo]

Harassment is not tame.

the sky is not green....and? are we free versing now?

I didn't post fast enough.

Si Modo said it was tame. I totally disagree.

Where did I say harassment is tame?

I didn't. I said, "this, so far, is tame [in comparison to sex in powerful political circles]".

See that "so far"?

You really should pay attention more when you read.

 

[Trajan]

I wouldn't expect either Cain or the NRA to admit that Cain left under a cloud, especially since there was a nondisclosure clause in the settlement.

Neither would have anything to gain by stating the real reason for his departure, and it may have been mutually understood that it would be best if he moved on if he had a history or hitting on these younger women when drinking at company functions. Frankly, it seems like enough people new about these incidents because it looks like some of them happened in public with witnesses around. At any rate, the NRA wouldn't have paid out $35,000 (I just read one settlement was for $45,000) if there was no evidence of sexual harassment.

You are aware that it was the women who left NRA as part of their agreement, not Cain, right?

Of course. However, Cain's employment as CEO of the NRA ended the very same year. Coincidence? Probably not.

herrrre we go....

Keep something in mind. The NRA almost certainly wouldn't have paid out a full year's salary to a woman (or more than one woman) unless they believed that there was merit to their claims. And during the course of the investigation, the lawyers would have talked to both Cain and the women, AND to any witnesses who may have been present at those public functions. If they came to believe the women's claims while also concluding Cain was lying about what happened (and let's face it, he's lied several times about it this week), why would they want him to continue to lead their trade organization?

of course you put the worse face on it as possible....tell em, whats the hourly rate for a law firm using say just 3 full time lawyers working a case like this for oh 6 months? once they are out of the boiler plate their retainer is no longer valid and they are in the billable hours territory........ 45K? peanuts....

 

[Si modo]

Exactly. 45K is peanuts.

 

[Trajan]

Harassment is not tame.

the sky is not green....and? are we free versing now?

I didn't post fast enough.

Si Modo said it was tame. I totally disagree.

I don't think we are in a position to make any judgments on the 'harassment', but there can be tame harassment, even flattering 'harassment', remembering that in ones own eyes doesn't mean in everyone's eyes....

 

[Vaard]

You are aware that it was the women who left NRA as part of their agreement, not Cain, right?

herrrre we go....

Keep something in mind. The NRA almost certainly wouldn't have paid out a full year's salary to a woman (or more than one woman) unless they believed that there was merit to their claims. And during the course of the investigation, the lawyers would have talked to both Cain and the women, AND to any witnesses who may have been present at those public functions. If they came to believe the women's claims while also concluding Cain was lying about what happened (and let's face it, he's lied several times about it this week), why would they want him to continue to lead their trade organization?

of course you put the worse face on it as possible....tell em, whats the hourly rate for a law firm using say just 3 full time lawyers working a case like this for oh 6 months? once they are out of the boiler plate their retainer is no longer valid and they are in the billable hours territory........ 45K? peanuts....

and thats why cain refuses to release them from their nda, because he is innocent and nothing happened.........

 

[Mustang]

You are aware that it was the women who left NRA as part of their agreement, not Cain, right?

Of course. However, Cain's employment as CEO of the NRA ended the very same year. Coincidence? Probably not.

Keep something in mind. The NRA almost certainly wouldn't have paid out a full year's salary to a woman (or more than one woman) unless they believed that there was merit to their claims. And during the course of the investigation, the lawyers would have talked to both Cain and the women, AND to any witnesses who may have been present at those public functions. If they came to believe the women's claims while also concluding Cain was lying about what happened (and let's face it, he's lied several times about it this week), why would they want him to continue to lead their trade organization?

The only thing I know about settlements is that if they make sense to a business, they will do it.

And, after finding myself in civil court more times than I would like to be and when my side is clearly in the right, 35K and 45K is a good deal to avoid those legal costs.

It would have made business sense to settle if evidence (provable evidence) existed of the harassment. Just like it doesn't make business sense to settle if there is NO evidence. Otherwise, it just invites more lawsuits.

And once the NRA made one or more financial settlements after claims of harassment, Cain became a liability (and a potential future financial liability) to the company. At that point, it would only be prudent to end his employment, probably very quietly. My guess is that they just let him know that it would be best for all concerned if he "sought career opportunities elsewhere."

 

[Si modo]

Of course. However, Cain's employment as CEO of the NRA ended the very same year. Coincidence? Probably not.

Keep something in mind. The NRA almost certainly wouldn't have paid out a full year's salary to a woman (or more than one woman) unless they believed that there was merit to their claims. And during the course of the investigation, the lawyers would have talked to both Cain and the women, AND to any witnesses who may have been present at those public functions. If they came to believe the women's claims while also concluding Cain was lying about what happened (and let's face it, he's lied several times about it this week), why would they want him to continue to lead their trade organization?

The only thing I know about settlements is that if they make sense to a business, they will do it.

And, after finding myself in civil court more times than I would like to be and when my side is clearly in the right, 35K and 45K is a good deal to avoid those legal costs.

It would have made business sense to settle if evidence (provable evidence) existed of the harassment. Just like it doesn't make business sense to settle if there is NO evidence. Otherwise, it just invites more lawsuits.

And once the NRA made one or more financial settlements after claims of harassment, Cain became a liability (and a potential future financial liability) to the company. At that point, it would only be prudent to end his employment, probably very quietly. My guess is that they just let him know that it would be best for all concerned if he "sought career opportunities elsewhere."

Au contraire. It DOES make business sense to settle for exactly the reason I stated.

They paid a maximum amount of 45K to settle. If they are right and choose to fight, 45K is about what it would cost them, likely more.

So, fight and spend 45K to win (or lose), or settle for 45K and no more time spent on it.

Good business decision to settle in that case.

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

I am leaning toward 'a NDA is a NDA' and shall always remain a NDA. I've tried to think the other way, but my gut disagrees.

Cain's handlers are not impressive; this issue is a snowball out of control.

 

[Trajan]

Of course. However, Cain's employment as CEO of the NRA ended the very same year. Coincidence? Probably not.

Keep something in mind. The NRA almost certainly wouldn't have paid out a full year's salary to a woman (or more than one woman) unless they believed that there was merit to their claims. And during the course of the investigation, the lawyers would have talked to both Cain and the women, AND to any witnesses who may have been present at those public functions. If they came to believe the women's claims while also concluding Cain was lying about what happened (and let's face it, he's lied several times about it this week), why would they want him to continue to lead their trade organization?

The only thing I know about settlements is that if they make sense to a business, they will do it.

And, after finding myself in civil court more times than I would like to be and when my side is clearly in the right, 35K and 45K is a good deal to avoid those legal costs.

It would have made business sense to settle if evidence (provable evidence) existed of the harassment. Just like it doesn't make business sense to settle if there is NO evidence. Otherwise, it just invites more lawsuits.

And once the NRA made one or more financial settlements after claims of harassment, Cain became a liability (and a potential future financial liability) to the company. At that point, it would only be prudent to end his employment, probably very quietly. My guess is that they just let him know that it would be best for all concerned if he "sought career opportunities elsewhere."

do you know what a false dilemma is? go check it out, see you oh, in a while....

 

[Mustang]

The only thing I know about settlements is that if they make sense to a business, they will do it.

And, after finding myself in civil court more times than I would like to be and when my side is clearly in the right, 35K and 45K is a good deal to avoid those legal costs.

It would have made business sense to settle if evidence (provable evidence) existed of the harassment. Just like it doesn't make business sense to settle if there is NO evidence. Otherwise, it just invites more lawsuits.

And once the NRA made one or more financial settlements after claims of harassment, Cain became a liability (and a potential future financial liability) to the company. At that point, it would only be prudent to end his employment, probably very quietly. My guess is that they just let him know that it would be best for all concerned if he "sought career opportunities elsewhere."

Au contraire. It DOES make business sense to settle for exactly the reason I stated.

They paid a maximum amount of 45K to settle. If they are right and choose to fight, 45K is about what it would cost them, likely more.

So, fight and spend 45K to win (or lose), or settle for 45K and no more time spent on it.

Good business decision to settle in that case.

It's not good business sense to settle if there is absolutely no validity to the claim. It would simply invite more lawsuits. At what point should the NRA say no? In addition, once the company settled with the women, Cain automatically became a target for any woman looking to make a quick buck even if nothing happened at subsequent events. And since I believe that up until the settlement was actually signed, and the nondisclosure agreement was in effect, plenty of people in and out of the company knew what was going on. Why would they want him around after that if they're so willing to settle in the first few cases?

 

[Rocko]

There are a lot of people screaming for transparency, when it comes to Obama's grades, but Cain allegedly commits sexual harassment, and two women were paid off, and some conservatives don't think the public should know more about this. That seems like hypocrisy to me.

 

[Si modo]

It would have made business sense to settle if evidence (provable evidence) existed of the harassment. Just like it doesn't make business sense to settle if there is NO evidence. Otherwise, it just invites more lawsuits.

And once the NRA made one or more financial settlements after claims of harassment, Cain became a liability (and a potential future financial liability) to the company. At that point, it would only be prudent to end his employment, probably very quietly. My guess is that they just let him know that it would be best for all concerned if he "sought career opportunities elsewhere."

Au contraire. It DOES make business sense to settle for exactly the reason I stated.

They paid a maximum amount of 45K to settle. If they are right and choose to fight, 45K is about what it would cost them, likely more.

So, fight and spend 45K to win (or lose), or settle for 45K and no more time spent on it.

Good business decision to settle in that case.

It's not good business sense to settle if there is absolutely no validity to the claim. It would simply invite more lawsuits. At what point should the NRA say no? In addition, once the company settled with the women, Cain automatically became a target for any woman looking to make a quick buck even if nothing happened at subsequent events. And since I believe that up until the settlement was actually signed, and the nondisclosure agreement was in effect, plenty of people in and out of the company knew what was going on. Why would they want him around after that if they're so willing to settle in the first few cases?

No, it would not invite more lawsuits.

And, it is good business sense often.

You don't want to see that and that is fine.

 

[Trajan]

It would have made business sense to settle if evidence (provable evidence) existed of the harassment. Just like it doesn't make business sense to settle if there is NO evidence. Otherwise, it just invites more lawsuits.

And once the NRA made one or more financial settlements after claims of harassment, Cain became a liability (and a potential future financial liability) to the company. At that point, it would only be prudent to end his employment, probably very quietly. My guess is that they just let him know that it would be best for all concerned if he "sought career opportunities elsewhere."

Au contraire. It DOES make business sense to settle for exactly the reason I stated.

They paid a maximum amount of 45K to settle. If they are right and choose to fight, 45K is about what it would cost them, likely more.

So, fight and spend 45K to win (or lose), or settle for 45K and no more time spent on it.

Good business decision to settle in that case.

It's not good business sense to settle if there is absolutely no validity to the claim. It would simply invite more lawsuits. At what point should the NRA say no? In addition, once the company settled with the women, Cain automatically became a target for any woman looking to make a quick buck even if nothing happened at subsequent events. And since I believe that up until the settlement was actually signed, and the nondisclosure agreement was in effect, plenty of people in and out of the company knew what was going on. Why would they want him around after that if they're so willing to settle in the first few cases?

It's not good business sense to settle if there is absolutely no validity to the claim

sadly, yes there is.

you are simply not reading what people are writing, or you are digesting what you want to digest....