Should we trust Cain?

[InTheLight]

Let's speculate, shall we?

Let's say that the allegations against Cain are all true, however, the women involved have been paid to be quiet. OK, so if what Cain allegedly did was so horrendous and intimidating why don't the women simply break the non-disclosure agreement? I suppose there is a financial penalty clause in the ND agreement, but so what? I'm sure some anti-Cain group or person would step in and pay the fine or otherwise contest the agreement.

Lawsuits ensue, and there is a big snarl in Cain's campaign, likely damaging it to oblivion. Isn't this what the women would want to have happen if they decide to come forward? Won't they get everything they want and get off scot-free? Maybe get a book deal out of it to boot.

Or maybe there really isn't much to these allegations at all, and Cain decided to make a settlement to avoid the uncertainty and expense of a lawsuit, not to mention the negative public relations. I suspect that is the likely scenario here.

 

[Mexdeaf]

I have never read his biography, I did read Obama's for a theological inquiry. These are put out by political experts who write novels to make money and to get you to trust him. Is he the kind of person who would slander people in the media, calling them racists just because this information is released? Is one to slander the Perry campaign with little or no evidence? Is he the kind of person who is trying to make sure the women who accused him can never say anything about this event? This is his character.

Sorry, I don't trust someone's own biographical work as telling the entire story, or even a part of the story. Nor do I trust all the story in this issue has been told. However, I know there are five witnesses to separate events, there have been a number of others who collaborate stories of the five, and this is not a recent "new finding" but an issue that was around for a long time.

The question is, do you trust him over five different people who do not have political operatives around then to try to make them look good, to write their life story, and the like? These should be taken seriously. We may not know the entire story, but by the witness of five people, I cannot trust Cain at this point. I agree with Richard Land, the only way to get around this is to have full disclosure. That is something, though, the Cain camp says they do not want to happen.

I will stand by him until there is EVIDENCE to the contrary.

That is all.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Let's speculate, shall we?

Let's say that the allegations against Cain are all true, however, the women involved have been paid to be quiet. OK, so if what Cain allegedly did was so horrendous and intimidating why don't the women simply break the non-disclosure agreement? I suppose there is a financial penalty clause in the ND agreement, but so what? I'm sure some anti-Cain group or person would step and pay the fine or otherwise contest the agreement.

Lawsuits ensue, and there is a big snarl in Cain's campaign, likely damaging it to oblivion. Isn't this what the women would want to have happen if they decide to come forward? Won't they get everything they want and get off scot-free? Maybe get a book deal out of it to boot.

Or maybe there really isn't much to these allegations at all, and Cain decided to make a settlement to avoid the uncertainty and expense of a lawsuit, not to mention the negative public relations. I suspect that is the likely scenario here.

I like the way you speculate. I think it is just people looking for their 15 minutes of fame- or infamy, if you please.

 

[Ruiz]

Let's speculate, shall we?

Let's say that the allegations against Cain are all true, however, the women involved have been paid to be quiet. OK, so if what Cain allegedly did was so horrendous and intimidating why don't the women simply break the non-disclosure agreement? I suppose there is a financial penalty clause in the ND agreement, but so what? I'm sure some anti-Cain group or person would step in and pay the fine or otherwise contest the agreement.

Lawsuits ensue, and there is a big snarl in Cain's campaign, likely damaging it to oblivion. Isn't this what the women would want to have happen if they decide to come forward? Won't they get everything they want and get off scot-free? Maybe get a book deal out of it to boot.

Or maybe there really isn't much to these allegations at all, and Cain decided to make a settlement to avoid the uncertainty and expense of a lawsuit, not to mention the negative public relations. I suspect that is the likely scenario here.

It is a felony to pay someone to break such a contract. The person(s) could enjoy jail time if they went against the non-disclosure. This is also called bribery.

The latter scenario is good if the people listed were making these claims recently, are able to reveal who they are, and there is evidence of collaboration. In fact, they have more to lose over this situation than they have to gain. First, the two women cannot say anything for fear of lawsuit, the fact that they reported this over 12 years ago shows they were not trying to make it an issue today. They were brought into this after an investigation, but they have not denied it either. The third lady has had her testimony verified by employees of the NRA who said she complained to them at the time. She wishes to remain anonymous but her story has been collaborated by others she worked with. Thus, the three ladies had stated things back then because they saw it as an issue. The news reports is what made it an issue today.

Thirdly, the political consultant could only lose clout and be lampooned for not staying quiet. The unwritten rule is that you do not out a previous candidate. While he was not a candidate at the time, this may not have been a great move. Some want to link him to the Perry campaign. This is a stretch.

Fourthly, the radio broadcaster has nothing to lose or gain. He is a conservative and while ratings may be an issue, I doubt it.

Fifthly, the Cain campaign accused Perry's campaign of this leak due to another person in their campaign that they thought leaked the information. This seems to bring another person into the fray. He has not said one way or the other anything about this, but it appears there could be more people with knowledge.

On the other hand, Cain could release his birth certificate... oops, I mean all the documents. He could release the women who are making the accusations to tell their side of the story. Yet, he doesn't and his campaign says they do not want to release all the information. To me, it does not appear that the five people have as much to hide as Cain. When his own staff is saying they are against release of all the information,

 

[Ruiz]

I will stand by him until there is EVIDENCE to the contrary.

That is all.

In the presence of two or three witnesses... that is the evidence plus Cain's slander in slandering people as racists. I think there is other evidence, but the personal testimony is overwhelming.

 

[Ruiz]

I like the way you speculate. I think it is just people looking for their 15 minutes of fame- or infamy, if you please.

Really, the three women did not come forward until after the report, and they had complained 12 years ago about this issue. They also did not say anything during Cain's Senate run. This only came about through factual reporting of the problems. One complainer is a radio broadcaster, does not need fame. Another is a political consultant, he doesn't want the fame.

 

[Ruiz]

Let us also note, I believe only one person accusing him needs to be telling the truth. Four out of the five could be lying, but if one person is truthful then I think Cain has some serious problems. Do I think all five are lying? No! Could one? Yes! Two? Yes! Three? Probably not. Four? I seriously doubt it. Five? Highly unlikely.

Do I think Cain could be lying? Yes! He is one person.

BTW, Cain says there is a report coming out that will vindicate him. I am interested in knowing what that report is. To me, it will have to be big.

 

[Arbo]

BTW, Cain says there is a report coming out that will vindicate him. I am interested in knowing what that report is.

If something does come to light, will you accept his innocence? Given your determined position (out of 47 posts in this thread so far, 22 are yours) that he is guilty of nonspecific accusations alleged by unnamed individuals based on unknown evidence, it seems doubtful.

 

[targus]

I have noted those in other posts here. He said that he observed Cain, for instance, engaged in innappropriate behavior with females in a hotel in Northern Virginia. The nature this was inappropriate sexual conduct. He did not specify the nature of this contact, however, he is collaborating the other accusations and he believes Cain's behavior was not good at all, supporting allegations from the other women.

I am looking for his specific accusation.

Can you provide a link to what he actually said?

Why do you suppose that it is that he is being so general?

Doesn't he have the confidence of his convictions here?

 

[righteousdude2]

I Didn't Then, and Still Don't.....

....trust Cain. I think trading Obama for Herman Cain is not going to be an improvement, just more of the same. A charismatic personality, with little knowledge in world affairs and very little leading ability when it comes to leading a nation. :tear:

 

[Alcott]

It seems every time a politican is accused of sexual harassment, there are quickly more 'victims' who come forward with similar allegations. What are those 2nd, 3rd... thinking all the time?-- "If somebody else accuses him, then I will, too"? Or are they just disgruntled former associates who suddenly see a chance to crack him for.. whatever... reason?

 

[Mexdeaf]

It seems every time a politican is accused of sexual harassment, there are quickly more 'victims' who come forward with similar allegations. What are those 2nd, 3rd... thinking all the time?-- "If somebody else accuses him, then I will, too"? Or are they just disgruntled former associates who suddenly see a chance to crack him for.. whatever... reason?

It's called "15 minutes of fame syndrome".

 

[Ruiz]

I am looking for his specific accusation.

Can you provide a link to what he actually said?

Why do you suppose that it is that he is being so general?

Doesn't he have the confidence of his convictions here?

I would not be specific, but if it were inappropriate I would say it was. Discretion is key here.

 

[Ruiz]

If something does come to light, will you accept his innocence? Given your determined position (out of 47 posts in this thread so far, 22 are yours) that he is guilty of nonspecific accusations alleged by unnamed individuals based on unknown evidence, it seems doubtful.

First, he is not going to be proven innocent. If he is, I will recant. However, considering the allegation originally made was on the same night she was sexually harassed by Cain. That is not someone looking for a lawsuit, that is someone who goes directly to the board immediately to complain despite being in fear of her job. When Clinton had less evidence against him, I was on the fence but believed him guilty. Thus, when the evidence did come out I was justified. We have 10 times more evidence than we had against Clinton before the dress and yet no Republican was supporting Clinton.

As well, as noted, I only have to have one accurate person. You have to discount five people now. As well, I already contend that he has slandered people for this. That alone is enough to reject him. We don't need another Clinton.

 

[Ruiz]

From a practical basis, does anyone actually think that he has any chance of beating Obama after all this?

Personally, most people I have talked to around here who normally vote for Republicans, would not vote for him now.

Does anyone think he will actually win? I doubted it before this scandal, I seriously doubt it now.

 

[HankD]

From a practical basis, does anyone actually think that he has any chance of beating Obama after all this?

Personally, most people I have talked to around here who normally vote for Republicans, would not vote for him now.

Does anyone think he will actually win? I doubted it before this scandal, I seriously doubt it now.

Knowing what evil there is in this world when it comes to slandering a man, yes, it's possible.

In actuality it's "she said, he said".

Why? Because you and I were not there.

To be sure someone is lying.

Herman says it is baseless.

We will each have to choose who we will believe.

Obviously you have made your choice.

Myself, I am going to wait this out a little more.
I want to see the people bear public witness as to the charges.

They allowed it to be know publicly therefore they must come forth and publicly bear witness against him.

Until such time as they do so and Herman can publicly face his accusers I will still vote for him should he survive this.

HankD

 

[Ruiz]

Knowing what evil there is in this world when it comes to slandering a man, yes, it's possible.

In actuality it's "she said, he said".

Why? Because you and I were not there.

To be sure someone is lying.

Herman says it is baseless.

We will each have to choose who we will believe.

Obviously you have made your choice.

Myself, I am going to wait this out a little more.
I want to see the people bear public witness as to the charges.

They allowed it to be know publicly therefore they must come forth and publicly bear witness against him.

Until such time as they do so and Herman can publicly face his accusers I will still vote for him should he survive this.

HankD

It is five, now six people against Cain. So it is more than "he said, she said." It is "she said, she said, she said, she said, he said, he said against he said."

Secondly, would you agree that he slandered the Perry Campaign, those who reported this, and many of us by calling us racists? Isn't this slander by Cain?

 

[Salty]

Does anyone think he (HERMAN CAIN) will actually win? I doubted it before this scandal, I seriously doubt it now.

He has no more of a chance to win the White House than Nixon did in 1972 after the Watergate story broke.

 

[Ruiz]

He has no more of a chance to win the White House than Nixon did in 1972 after the Watergate story broke.

Huge difference, Nixon would not be able to win in this political climate. And, as an incumbent Nixon had name recognition, Cain does not. The first thing people will know about Cain are these allegations.

 

[HankD]

It is five, now six people against Cain. So it is more than "he said, she said." It is "she said, she said, she said, she said, he said, he said against he said."

Secondly, would you agree that he slandered the Perry Campaign, those who reported this, and many of us by calling us racists? Isn't this slander by Cain?

No, I don't believe he slandered Perry.

And a few hours ago the Huffington Post said these people are still anonymous.

Herman Cain's Accusers Remain Anonymous Despite Media Frenzy

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/03/hermain-cain-accusers-anonymous_n_1074512.html

When and if they identify themselves and face Herman (every man has the right to face his accusers and defend hinself) then I will listen and make my decision and not rush to judgment passed upon anonymous testimonies.

You spoke about two or three witnesses.

How about this?

"Well Moses we have a man who has been accused by several people who want to remain anonymous, may we stone him to death now?"

I am going to make the presumption of innocence until they come forth and face him with their accusations, then I will decide.

Until such time I still trust him.

HankD