Unnamed Cain abuser WORKS IN BARRY's admin!

[JoeB131]

For a lot of people claiming they read the article, how did you miss this little chesnut?

"Following a request from Bennett (her lawyer), the restaurant association waived the confidentiality terms of its agreement with Kraushaar last Friday so that she would be allowed to speak publicly."

So what?

Well, right now, she still isn't giving details. And the only reason why she came forward with her name is because someone on the internet already leaked it.

 

[JoeB131]

Cain accuser & her lawyer may be habitual extortionist sexual harassment complainers.

Cain Accuser filed another complaint in next job

A woman who settled a sexual harassment complaint against GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain in 1999 complained three years later at her next job about unfair treatment, saying she should be allowed to work from home after a serious car accident and accusing a manager of circulating a sexually charged email, The Associated Press has learned.

Karen Kraushaar, 55, filed the complaint while working as a spokeswoman at the Immigration and Naturalization Service in the Justice Department in late 2002 or early 2003, with the assistance of her lawyer, Joel Bennett, who also handled her earlier sexual harassment complaint against Cain in 1999. Three former supervisors familiar with Kraushaar's complaint, which did not include a claim of sexual harassment, described it for the AP under condition of anonymity because the matter was handled internally by the agency and was not public.

To settle the complaint at the immigration service, Kraushaar initially demanded thousands of dollars in payment, a reinstatement of leave she used after the accident earlier in 2002, promotion on the federal pay scale and a one-year fellowship to Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, according to a former supervisor familiar with the complaint. The promotion itself would have increased her annual salary between $12,000 and $16,000, according to salary tables in 2002 from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

So?

Some people sue to resolve their problem. Fact is, as much as we all complain about too many lawyers and too many lawsuits, the fact is, most of us could sue and don't.

The fact she still works for the Government tells me her complaint has some merit.

 

[Flaylo]

So now we have a 2nd HAG who has accused Mr. Cain that just so happens to work in Obama's Administration.. you liberals are a bunch of low life fuckers! This shit is going to hit the fan! LYNCHING of an innocent black man.. UNFUCKINGREAL.. sickos!

And Herman cain out right admits he's funded and influenced by the Koch Brothers.

 

[Flaylo]

If LadyBullshitSlinger ever files a sexual harassment claim I'll be sure to dismiss it as an attempt to lynch the man she filed it against. She is a serious partisan hack and sorry POS.

 

[Flaylo]

As if Obama would want to get involved in this mess. Hilarious!

Obama wants Cain to run against him, duh, cain isn't scaring anyone, the only ones who would support him are the fringe right, all of these polls are based on Republican voters.

 

[mudwhistle]

I'm trying to figure out who is the victim here.

Seems this Buylick woman tried to put a move on Cain last month. Witnesses saw her grab him and whisper something to him before storming off, apparently because he didn't focus his attention her exclusively. This is not the act of a woman that has been the victim of sexual-assault as she claims.

Seems like another accuser wants to get all of the women together and go on an anti-Cain campaign.
This latest accuser not only accused Cain of SH but the boss at the next job she worked, so she's not reliable in the least.

Fact is this is only intended to chase away women voters. Most women have gotten unwanted sexual advances from men so they can relate to this. In their minds this is very plausible. It doesn't matter if it's true. A stain has been placed on Herman Cain now.

Whenever a woman in the workplace is nice to a man it doesn't mean she automatically wants to jump in the sack with him. Women may show admiration for somebody but it doesn't mean sexual admiration. Guys always relate everything to sex. Women relate it more on an emotional level. This is the primary reason many times men in positions of power get into this mess. They are of a mindset and the women are of a totally different one. Powerful men tend to get what they want. They don't usually react well when they get rejected.

The victim in all of this just doesn't want reminders of an uncomfortable situation.

This is why I feel that Sharon Bielick is lying. Most victims feel uncomfortable being in the same room with their attackers, but Bielick literally pushed her way to the front to grab him a month ago as stated by an eye witness.....who says she is a victim of sexual-harassment herself I might add.

 

[pete]

yeah...I love it..

"she is a good person"...and "she just wants to do the right thing"

Yet, she accepted a monetary settlement to "not do the right thing"

Dont these people hear what they are saying? I mean...really? She was wiling to accept money in exchange of NOT doing the right thing but she is a good person who NOW wants to do the right thing.

Pathetic.

What would the right thing be? It's civil law, not criminal.

you are missing the point...

Re-read the article.

Her friends and family are saying she simply wants to do the right thing and let people know about Cain.

They continue to talk about her attrinbutes...reliable, honest, etc.

Yet...in the article....

she accepted a monetary settlement to not say anything.....

Which means that her personal greed trumped her desire to "do the right thing"

Now....I am not saying I wouldnt have done the same....but then people would not be able to say that I am the type that would want to do the "right thing"

Not to mention a couple paid appearances coming up and lets not forget the BOOK!

 

[mudwhistle]

DES MOINES, Iowa — A conservative Iowa radio host, who on Wednesday became the latest person to accuse Herman Cain of acting inappropriately toward women, declined to offer specifics about the presidential candidate’s behavior but suggested that Cain was “compromised in his private life.”

Steve Deace, who hosts a syndicated two-hour radio program in Iowa, said that two of his female staff members were subjected to “inappropriate and awkward” comments by Cain. But he refused to identify them or elaborate on the seriousness of the allegations.

After his show on Wednesday night, Deace held an impromptu press conference outside his Des Moines studio while his two female staff members rushed out of the building, escorted by two men who attempted to keep reporters away.

One of the women was identified to ABC News by an independent source as a victim of the behavior Deace mentioned. Both of the women repeatedly refused to comment on anything related to the controversy.

Deace, an influential conservative figure in the state, declined to say whether he had the women’s consent before going public with the allegations, but added, “As a staff we are very tight and we are very close and we share everything with one another.”

Iowa Radio Host Steve Deace Calls Herman Cain ‘Compromised In His Private Life’ - ABC News

While watching Cain give his statement yesterday I felt sexually-harassed too.

 

[JoeB131]

I'm trying to figure out who is the victim here.

Seems this Buylick woman tried to put a move on Cain last month. Witnesses saw her grab him and whisper something to him before storming off, apparently because he didn't focus his attention her exclusively. This is not the act of a woman that has been the victim of sexual-assault as she claims.

Or she encountered her harrasser at her current job and lost it, which most sensible people would do.

Seems like another accuser wants to get all of the women together and go on an anti-Cain campaign.
This latest accuser not only accused Cain of SH but the boss at the next job she worked, so she's not reliable in the least.

She requested to work at home and complained about an e-mail that was inappropriate. But the thing was, she worked for a government agency and still works for the government, so they must have found in her favor.

Fact is this is only intended to chase away women voters. Most women have gotten unwanted sexual advances from men so they can relate to this. In their minds this is very plausible. To many of them it doesn't matter if it true.

Or maybe these are just women who came forward because when he was at 5% at the polls, it wasn't a big deal to them, but when he popped to the front, they felt the need to speak out.

Whenever a woman in the workplace is nice to a man it doesn't mean she automatically wants to jump in the sack with him. Women may show admiration for somebody but it doesn't mean sexual admiration. Guys always relate everything to sex. Women relate it more on an emotional level. This is the primary reason many times men in positions of power get into this mess. They are of a mindset and the women are of a totally different one. Powerful men tend to get what they want. They don't usually react well when they get rejected. The victim in all of this just doesn't want reminders of an uncomfortable situation. This is why I feel that Sharon Bielick is lying. Most victims feel uncomfortable being in the same room with their attackers. She literally pushed her way to the front to grab him.

I think her actions are open to interpretation. What isn't open to interpretation is that Cain has changed his story multiple times and is now hiding behind a lawyer... which is really, dare I say it, "Clintonesque".

One woman might be a misunderstanding, but five to seven, no, this is a guy with a problem.

You know what, though. This is the LEAST of my problems with Cain.

His incredible ignorance of matters of state are a lot more important. The fact he doesn't know China has nukes. The fact he doesn't know important things about the Middle East, like what the implications of the Right of Return would be. That he says mean spirited things like wanting to put an electrified fence with Mexico. Those should have killed this fool off long before he got this far.

What the hell has happened to the Republican Party where we've become the party of the ignoramus- Cain, Palin, Trump. we used to be a serious party of serious ideas.

 

[Jarhead]

I'm trying to figure out who is the victim here.

Seems this Buylick woman tried to put a move on Cain last month. Witnesses saw her grab him and whisper something to him before storming off, apparently because he didn't focus his attention her exclusively. This is not the act of a woman that has been the victim of sexual-assault as she claims.

Seems like another accuser wants to get all of the women together and go on an anti-Cain campaign.
This latest accuser not only accused Cain of SH but the boss at the next job she worked, so she's not reliable in the least.

Fact is this is only intended to chase away women voters. Most women have gotten unwanted sexual advances from men so they can relate to this. In their minds this is very plausible. It doesn't matter if it"s true. A stain has been placed on Herman Cain now.

Whenever a woman in the workplace is nice to a man it doesn't mean she automatically wants to jump in the sack with him. Women may show admiration for somebody but it doesn't mean sexual admiration. Guys always relate everything to sex. Women relate it more on an emotional level. This is the primary reason many times men in positions of power get into this mess. They are of a mindset and the women are of a totally different one. Powerful men tend to get what they want. They don't usually react well when they get rejected.

The victim in all of this just doesn't want reminders of an uncomfortable situation.

This is why I feel that Sharon Bielick is lying. Most victims feel uncomfortable being in the same room with their attackers, but Bielick literally pushed her way to the front to grab him a month ago as stated by an eye witness.....who says she is a victim of sexual-harassment herself I might add.

I just listened to her statement to realize she is full of shit.

A man puts his hand up her skirt as he pushes her head to his crotch....and all she can think of saying to him is "what are you doing, you know I have a boyfriend"....

Whatever happened to "stop it" or "get away from me".

And then, of course, there is the timing of the whol;e thing.

Her fiance claims she did not mention the Cain harrasmment thing until this past friday.

So let me get this straight...she and her finace hear Cains name a thousand times over the course of several months, and she never ONCE mentioned it to him?

She is full of shit and if the allegations are true from the OTHER women, then she is guilty of minimizing the importance of their claim.

 

[Jarhead]

I'm trying to figure out who is the victim here.

Seems this Buylick woman tried to put a move on Cain last month. Witnesses saw her grab him and whisper something to him before storming off, apparently because he didn't focus his attention her exclusively. This is not the act of a woman that has been the victim of sexual-assault as she claims.

Or she encountered her harrasser at her current job and lost it, which most sensible people would do.

Seems like another accuser wants to get all of the women together and go on an anti-Cain campaign.
This latest accuser not only accused Cain of SH but the boss at the next job she worked, so she's not reliable in the least.

She requested to work at home and complained about an e-mail that was inappropriate. But the thing was, she worked for a government agency and still works for the government, so they must have found in her favor.

Fact is this is only intended to chase away women voters. Most women have gotten unwanted sexual advances from men so they can relate to this. In their minds this is very plausible. To many of them it doesn't matter if it true.

Or maybe these are just women who came forward because when he was at 5% at the polls, it wasn't a big deal to them, but when he popped to the front, they felt the need to speak out.

Whenever a woman in the workplace is nice to a man it doesn't mean she automatically wants to jump in the sack with him. Women may show admiration for somebody but it doesn't mean sexual admiration. Guys always relate everything to sex. Women relate it more on an emotional level. This is the primary reason many times men in positions of power get into this mess. They are of a mindset and the women are of a totally different one. Powerful men tend to get what they want. They don't usually react well when they get rejected. The victim in all of this just doesn't want reminders of an uncomfortable situation. This is why I feel that Sharon Bielick is lying. Most victims feel uncomfortable being in the same room with their attackers. She literally pushed her way to the front to grab him.

I think her actions are open to interpretation. What isn't open to interpretation is that Cain has changed his story multiple times and is now hiding behind a lawyer... which is really, dare I say it, "Clintonesque".

One woman might be a misunderstanding, but five to seven, no, this is a guy with a problem.

You know what, though. This is the LEAST of my problems with Cain.

His incredible ignorance of matters of state are a lot more important. The fact he doesn't know China has nukes. The fact he doesn't know important things about the Middle East, like what the implications of the Right of Return would be. That he says mean spirited things like wanting to put an electrified fence with Mexico. Those should have killed this fool off long before he got this far.

What the hell has happened to the Republican Party where we've become the party of the ignoramus- Cain, Palin, Trump. we used to be a serious party of serious ideas.

why would they feel the need to speak out when he jumped in the polls?

They didnt feel the need to speak out when they were offered a measly 35K to keep quiet.

Sorry, that doesnt add up.

 

[mudwhistle]

I'm trying to figure out who is the victim here.

Seems this Buylick woman tried to put a move on Cain last month. Witnesses saw her grab him and whisper something to him before storming off, apparently because he didn't focus his attention her exclusively. This is not the act of a woman that has been the victim of sexual-assault as she claims.

Or she encountered her harrasser at her current job and lost it, which most sensible people would do.

Seems like another accuser wants to get all of the women together and go on an anti-Cain campaign.
This latest accuser not only accused Cain of SH but the boss at the next job she worked, so she's not reliable in the least.

She requested to work at home and complained about an e-mail that was inappropriate. But the thing was, she worked for a government agency and still works for the government, so they must have found in her favor.

Fact is this is only intended to chase away women voters. Most women have gotten unwanted sexual advances from men so they can relate to this. In their minds this is very plausible. To many of them it doesn't matter if it true.

Or maybe these are just women who came forward because when he was at 5% at the polls, it wasn't a big deal to them, but when he popped to the front, they felt the need to speak out.

Whenever a woman in the workplace is nice to a man it doesn't mean she automatically wants to jump in the sack with him. Women may show admiration for somebody but it doesn't mean sexual admiration. Guys always relate everything to sex. Women relate it more on an emotional level. This is the primary reason many times men in positions of power get into this mess. They are of a mindset and the women are of a totally different one. Powerful men tend to get what they want. They don't usually react well when they get rejected. The victim in all of this just doesn't want reminders of an uncomfortable situation. This is why I feel that Sharon Bielick is lying. Most victims feel uncomfortable being in the same room with their attackers. She literally pushed her way to the front to grab him.

I think her actions are open to interpretation. What isn't open to interpretation is that Cain has changed his story multiple times and is now hiding behind a lawyer... which is really, dare I say it, "Clintonesque".

One woman might be a misunderstanding, but five to seven, no, this is a guy with a problem.

You know what, though. This is the LEAST of my problems with Cain.

His incredible ignorance of matters of state are a lot more important. The fact he doesn't know China has nukes. The fact he doesn't know important things about the Middle East, like what the implications of the Right of Return would be. That he says mean spirited things like wanting to put an electrified fence with Mexico. Those should have killed this fool off long before he got this far.

What the hell has happened to the Republican Party where we've become the party of the ignoramus- Cain, Palin, Trump. we used to be a serious party of serious ideas.

Well, because you hate this guy, which is obvious, you think the worst of him.

Every bit of evidence you presented was the result of pure gossip and not at all based in reality.

Yes, Bielick's actions are open to interpretation.....if you have an open mind.

Your mind is already made up so that excludes you.

 

[JoeB131]

Well, because you hate this guy, which is obvious, you think the worst of him.

Every bit of evidence you presented was the result of pure gossip and not at all based in reality.

Yes, Bielick's actions are open to interpretation.....if you have an open mind.

Your mind is already made up so that excludes you.

What I am is a pragmatist.

Pragmatically, the goal is to beat Obama with a real conservative who will stand up for real conservative values.

Cain can't beat Obama. Not with this stuff swirling around him. Even if it is totally untrue and wrong, women - particularly WHITE women- won't vote for him. Not unless he can present rock solid proof ALL of these women are lying.

My position is pretty consistant, actually. I thought Clinton was wrong for doing this kind of thing, and I think Cain is wrong.

 

[JoeB131]

why would they feel the need to speak out when he jumped in the polls?

They didnt feel the need to speak out when they were offered a measly 35K to keep quiet.

Sorry, that doesnt add up.

Well, maybe they thought the payouts settled the matter, but when he jumps up in the polls, this is back in their lives.

Maybe they didn't relish the thought of having to watch someone who abused them on television for the next 9 years.

The fact is- The NRA settled. And shortly after it settled, Cain stepped down. And it was someone at the NRA that leaked this stuff to the Politico to start with. that puts the onus back on Cain to prove there was no substance to this.

 

[Jarhead]

Well, because you hate this guy, which is obvious, you think the worst of him.

Every bit of evidence you presented was the result of pure gossip and not at all based in reality.

Yes, Bielick's actions are open to interpretation.....if you have an open mind.

Your mind is already made up so that excludes you.

What I am is a pragmatist.

Pragmatically, the goal is to beat Obama with a real conservative who will stand up for real conservative values.

Cain can't beat Obama. Not with this stuff swirling around him. Even if it is totally untrue and wrong, women - particularly WHITE women- won't vote for him. Not unless he can present rock solid proof ALL of these women are lying.

My position is pretty consistant, actually. I thought Clinton was wrong for doing this kind of thing, and I think Cain is wrong.

Clinton did it and there was proof.

IF Cain did it, then yes, he is wrong.

But there is no proof yet that Cain did it and you have already labelled him as guilty of doing it.

In essence, you made up your mind despite lack of evidence, lack of witnesses...and only based on "hearsay".

I do not believe Cain is the man to represent the GOP based on his lack of experience in Washington.

But that does not mean I support him being labelled as guilty. This is not about who can beat Obama. This is abour the media ensuring a man is considered guilty by the public ONLY becuase they want him to be guilty.

And it is working. And to you that may be OK becuase you want a better candidate....but to me, I shudder to think of how narrow minded we have become and how willing we are to believe what the media tells us.

 

[8537]

Well, because you hate this guy, which is obvious, you think the worst of him.

Every bit of evidence you presented was the result of pure gossip and not at all based in reality.

Yes, Bielick's actions are open to interpretation.....if you have an open mind.

Your mind is already made up so that excludes you.

What I am is a pragmatist.

Pragmatically, the goal is to beat Obama with a real conservative who will stand up for real conservative values.

Cain can't beat Obama. Not with this stuff swirling around him. Even if it is totally untrue and wrong, women - particularly WHITE women- won't vote for him. Not unless he can present rock solid proof ALL of these women are lying.

My position is pretty consistant, actually. I thought Clinton was wrong for doing this kind of thing, and I think Cain is wrong.

Clinton did it and there was proof.

IF Cain did it, then yes, he is wrong.

But there is no proof yet that Cain did it and you have already labelled him as guilty of doing it.

In essence, you made up your mind despite lack of evidence, lack of witnesses...and only based on "hearsay".

I do not believe Cain is the man to represent the GOP based on his lack of experience in Washington.

But that does not mean I support him being labelled as guilty. This is not about who can beat Obama. This is abour the media ensuring a man is considered guilty by the public ONLY becuase they want him to be guilty.

And it is working. And to you that may be OK becuase you want a better candidate....but to me, I shudder to think of how narrow minded we have become and how willing we are to believe what the media tells us.

What was Clinton found guilty of?

 

[mudwhistle]

Well, because you hate this guy, which is obvious, you think the worst of him.

Every bit of evidence you presented was the result of pure gossip and not at all based in reality.

Yes, Bielick's actions are open to interpretation.....if you have an open mind.

Your mind is already made up so that excludes you.

What I am is a pragmatist.

Pragmatically, the goal is to beat Obama with a real conservative who will stand up for real conservative values.

Cain can't beat Obama. Not with this stuff swirling around him. Even if it is totally untrue and wrong, women - particularly WHITE women- won't vote for him. Not unless he can present rock solid proof ALL of these women are lying.

My position is pretty consistant, actually. I thought Clinton was wrong for doing this kind of thing, and I think Cain is wrong.

Yes. Wrong if it were true.

You seem to want a polished politician. I don't think you are a very good judge of what we need in a leader in my opinion, primarily because you give in to gossip campaigns.

If the press rips one of our candidates a new asshole it doesn't mean they are a substandard candidate. It usually means the press and thus the political establishment in the DC beltway sees them as a threat to the monopoly they hold on government. You seem to be easy prey to their stereotypical nonsense.

 

[Jarhead]

why would they feel the need to speak out when he jumped in the polls?

They didnt feel the need to speak out when they were offered a measly 35K to keep quiet.

Sorry, that doesnt add up.

Well, maybe they thought the payouts settled the matter, but when he jumps up in the polls, this is back in their lives.

Maybe they didn't relish the thought of having to watch someone who abused them on television for the next 9 years.

The fact is- The NRA settled. And shortly after it settled, Cain stepped down. And it was someone at the NRA that leaked this stuff to the Politico to start with. that puts the onus back on Cain to prove there was no substance to this.

so you have taken circumstantial evidence and labelled him as guilty.

So what about this scenario.....

A woman did not appreciate being called "honey" bt Cain. He meant no harm by it for he calls the cashier at the supermarket honey, his wife honey, the girl at the 7-11 honey and no one has ever complained to him about it.

But this woman did not like it and complains to HR.

HR takes it to the next level and meets with counsel who says "it willnever stand up in a court of law, but it will cost us well over 100K to defend it....so lets offer her 35K to make it go away...."

Her attorney tells her "look, honey, you have very little to stand on here. You will likely lose in court. They are offering you a nice severance package to go on your merry way and I suggest you take it".

Sher takes it and word gets out that she got 35K for an empty complaint.

So another woman says "I hate this job......for 35K I can take a nice vacation and get a new job when I return.....so she makes the same claim.

The scnario above happens all the time in the business world.

And I again say.....if she was truly troubled by whatever Cain did, why would she settle for 35K?

If she was SO distraught over it and thus felt the need to go public about it 15 years later, why did she accept a mere 35K RIGHT AFTER IT HAPPENED AND IT DEVASTATED HER?

Sorry...it does not add up enough for me to say "the circumstantial evidence is enough to label him as guilty of wrongdoing."

 

[Jarhead]

What I am is a pragmatist.

Pragmatically, the goal is to beat Obama with a real conservative who will stand up for real conservative values.

Cain can't beat Obama. Not with this stuff swirling around him. Even if it is totally untrue and wrong, women - particularly WHITE women- won't vote for him. Not unless he can present rock solid proof ALL of these women are lying.

My position is pretty consistant, actually. I thought Clinton was wrong for doing this kind of thing, and I think Cain is wrong.

Clinton did it and there was proof.

IF Cain did it, then yes, he is wrong.

But there is no proof yet that Cain did it and you have already labelled him as guilty of doing it.

In essence, you made up your mind despite lack of evidence, lack of witnesses...and only based on "hearsay".

I do not believe Cain is the man to represent the GOP based on his lack of experience in Washington.

But that does not mean I support him being labelled as guilty. This is not about who can beat Obama. This is abour the media ensuring a man is considered guilty by the public ONLY becuase they want him to be guilty.

And it is working. And to you that may be OK becuase you want a better candidate....but to me, I shudder to think of how narrow minded we have become and how willing we are to believe what the media tells us.

What was Clinton found guilty of?

Nothing.
Never said he was found guilty of anything.

 

[JoeB131]

Clinton did it and there was proof.

IF Cain did it, then yes, he is wrong.

But there is no proof yet that Cain did it and you have already labelled him as guilty of doing it.

In essence, you made up your mind despite lack of evidence, lack of witnesses...and only based on "hearsay".

I do not believe Cain is the man to represent the GOP based on his lack of experience in Washington.

But that does not mean I support him being labelled as guilty. This is not about who can beat Obama. This is abour the media ensuring a man is considered guilty by the public ONLY becuase they want him to be guilty.

And it is working. And to you that may be OK becuase you want a better candidate....but to me, I shudder to think of how narrow minded we have become and how willing we are to believe what the media tells us.

The only thing "proven" about Clinton was that he had consensual sex with Monica, who wasn't complaining. everything else was their word against his word. I still believe the women because of the sheer number of them.

I can't work up a lot of sympathy for Cain because I think that he never should have been considered a serious candidate to start with. he should have been swatted down like a fly about 20 ignorant statements back. But he hasn't because the professional politicians that are running are so awful, and we are all kind of sick of professional politicians.

Now, is it unfair he's getting pilloried? Only if they are untrue claims. And frankly, he's acting like he's hiding something. So at best, he's bad at playing a game he went into with eyes open. At worst, he's really a narcissist who thought he could get away with this and still thinks he can.