Aside from pictures, I'd say nothing at all.
Of course you wouldn't because you want to pretend mere ACCUSATIONS amount to PROOF HE DID IT!
Gee, why don't we change our justice system to that I wonder? Clearly we never have any false accusations of rape or theft, etc. and the mere accusation is enough to condemn someone and we can just move right on to sentencing.
Here is the difference. In this day and age people are WELL AWARE of the fact that settlements are given out even in the case of false accusations because it is still cheaper than going to court and winning! Until the day those making false claims are forced to pay a penalty for it -its a no-lose situation and an easy money-making scheme. Which is why you see it with medical malpractice as well.
Claiming that anyone who is innocent would never settle is just dead wrong and ignorant about the real world where this is standard practice anymore. First of all the individual probably doesn't have any choice since it is the decision of those who will actually be paying the settlement -and not the person the claim is made against. Doctors who get sued for malpractice can insist they want to go to court -and are told by their insurance companies that if they do that, the insurance company will NOT pay anything if a jury rules against them and they must pay it themselves and they are forced to accept a settlement. It does not require the signature of the individual accused either -it only takes the signature of the person making the claim. Cain never signed any settlement agreement. It is unlikely Cain had any choice in whether there would be a small settlement given to the ONE woman to go away. The other woman didn't receive a settlement at all, she was in the process of being let go when she made her claim and undoubtedly did so to boost the amount of severance pay. Which it did. She didn't sign any confidentiality agreement and could public if she wanted -but she won't. Even the newspaper first reporting on this accurately reported it as "severance pay" and not a settlement. There is only ONE settlement made and since Cain wasn't the party who paid it, he would have had no choice if the decision to settle and avoid the greater costs of going to trial was made.
"Sexual harassment" in this day and age is so loosely defined as to mean nothing more than whatever someone thinks makes them uncomfortable -even if nothing sexual is attached to it WHATSOEVER. Simply being of the opposite sex when a comment is made is NOT sexual harassment -but that is often the grounds for false claims. It needs to be returned LEGALLY mean threats or perceived pressure that one will lose their job or suffer financial penalty unless they agree to have sex or an incident or pattern of such EGREGIOUS sexualized behavior has occurred that any reasonable person would be unable to work there either. AND NOTHING LESS THAN THIS! If others don't find the same situation to be sexual harassment that would make it impossible for them to work there as well, then it isn't sexual harassment and should be labeled exactly what it is -a false accusation.
We all heard about the one woman who claimed sexual harassment for NOTHING but the fact he commented to the woman -and within earshot of his secretary who was just outside the open door - that she was the same height as his wife and then raised his hand to his chin to indicate her height. She acknowledged AT THE TIME this hand gesture was not a sexual one -but it made her uncomfortable anyway. One can only imagine she made a leap that he mentioned her in the same sentence as the woman he sleeps with -and GASP, that must mean he wants to sleep with her too? Are you kidding? This is not sexual harassment at all. Another woman who refuses to reveal her name, claims Cain invited her into his hotel room when they were both attending a seminar -she ASSUMED it was for sex and therefore felt uncomfortable about it. My married boss and I attended an out of town seminar together, I was in his hotel room several times to help lay out his presentation scheduled for the next day and gee, never once assumed he asked me in there to have sex! NOT ONCE did it even cross my mind! Even though wow, he's a man and I"m a woman -doesn't that mean he is automatically assuming he is halfway into bed with me? ROFL Sorry, her assumptions about why he invited her to his room are not evidence of guilt! This is NOT sexual harassment either!
If these incidents are "sexual harassment" that should cost someone the Presidency -then you explain how the hell Clinton got elected with one woman after another coming forward PUBLICLY -Democrat women by the way -releasing their names and not presenting it as "anonymous" and not being repeated as unsubstantiated -and insisting the man was a serial sexual offender and even a rapist? In the case of Juanita Broderick, a Democrat campaign worker and nursing home administrator, she even had witnesses who saw her with injuries shortly after, people she told what had happened at that time and not something she just claimed years later. Paula Jones was approached by the Arkansas State Highway Patrol and asked if she wanted to meet Governor Clinton and when she entered the hotel room, Clinton dropped his drawers and wanted her to give him oral sex -indicating a highly likely pattern of using the Arkansas Highway Patrol as his personal whore procurement program! (Which is exactly what some of them later claimed!) Kathleen Willey, a Democrat White House Aide claimed Clinton groped her in the Oval Office and others admitted they saw her emerge in a hurry, looking upset and disheveled. When it REALLY happens, women are NOT afraid to put their name to it and go public and we've seen that is true over and over again. (Democrats acted like because Clinton found a woman who was willing -Lewinsky -it somehow nullified the significance of what all the others had to say!) Yet not a single woman has gone public here. Just an anonymous smear campaign throwing smoke up, insinuations and pretending false accusations amount to the proof needed to destroy a man's reputation and career. That must be one of those liberal values, huh.
You know what the response was by Democrats and leftwing extremist female groups pretending they represent women had to say about all this? One claimed there were so many going public it actually indicated it couldn't be true! How's that for leftwing logic? But all essentially said the same thing -they didn't care. In the case of the leftwing radical female organizations, they even said as long as he stopped groping AFTER they objected to it, then it was ok. In other words, a Democrat gets to grab a woman's breasts first, and ask permission after the fact.
This is the difference between Weiner and Cain. One of them did it, the undeniable proof he did it was right there and he admitted he did it. Cain denied he did it, the stories about what this "sexual harassment" were was not only found to be unsubstantiated by an independent investigation, but downright silly -in addition to which Cain denied he did it at all.
Can YOU tell the difference now?
