Should we trust Cain?

[Arbo]

I have to wonder what Ruiz's motivation for his fervent prejudgment, despite evidence and reason, of Herman Cain is.

 

[InTheLight]

A lot has been posted so rather than quote others and respond individually, I’ll try to address it all in one post.

As to paying the women to break the ND agreement being a felony, I was presuming the payer would not hold a press conference and hand over a gigantic prop check! Of course the money would be paid under the table.

As to the idea of Cain releasing the documents related to the case, it presumes that he has documents and anyway, releasing documents is not in Cain’s best interest EVEN IF IT SHOWS his innocence. The Cain campaign dearly wants this issue to go away and releasing documents is not the way to go about this.

The radio talk show host has only said Cain behavior, “was inappropriate and awkward” and it “crossed personal boundaries.” Notice that “sexual harassment” was not a term that was used.

Chris Wilson, the pollster for the NRA who says Cain sexually harassed a young woman at a Virginia restaurant is having his story contradicted by another source. Wilson claimed that “everybody at the restaurant was aware of it.“ The source says “I did not see a lech” and “did not see him do anything inappropriate” and added that he never heard anyone discuss anything that may have been inappropriate. He said there were six people at the Ruth Chris Steak House that night.

Ruiz said:
1. Cain admits there were sexual harassment allegations. Thus the allegations are confirmed.

Allegations were confirmed? Allegations by their very nature do not need to be confirmed!

2. Cain admits there were settlements. Thus, the charges were serious.

Faulty logic. Settlements do not indicate the seriousness of the charges only that the person(s) being charged don’t want to proceed with a legal fight.

3. The initial two women said they were harassed at the time, filed a complaint, and left.

Yes, left after they received the settlements.

4. A conservative talk show host says that Cain said some very inappropriate and sexual things towards his staff.

Could you provide me with a link that says the conservative talk show host said Cain said “sexual things”? Because I haven’t seen that.

5. A staff member of the NRA has come forward claiming he witnessed sexual harassment by Cain.

And another staff member has said that he didn’t witness anything inappropriate by Cain that night at Ruth Chris’.

6. A third woman has come forward and claimed she has been sexually harassed. An investigation reveals she complained at the time but never filed an official complaint.

Yes, she said that since one of her co-workers had already filed, she figured she didn’t need to do so. Makes you wonder how offended and uncomfortable she (allegedly) was.

7. There have been others who confirm they witnessed sexual harassment behavior.

And there are more and more witnesses that find the allegations incredulous. Meanwhile, another woman who worked with Cain at the restaurant association, said, “I found him to be a good boss.” Christina Howard, a former lobbyist for the association, said, “I felt no problem going into his office and asking for his advice.”
She said she didn’t recall allegations about Cain during his tenure and added, “I’d roll my eyes at anyone who would make that allegation.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...tion-fight/2011/11/02/gIQAg8MheM_story_1.html

Ruiz’ comment that sexual harassment is “like rape” and therefore these women should not have to come forward is absurd. Notice that I am not objecting to their privacy, I think they should have it, but to compare their reluctance to coming forward to the reluctance of women who have been raped to come forward is an insult to rape victims, IMO.

 

[HankD]

A lot has been posted so rather than quote others and respond individually, I’ll try to address it all in one post.

As to paying the women to break the ND agreement being a felony, I was presuming the payer would not hold a press conference and hand over a gigantic prop check! Of course the money would be paid under the table.

Actually ITL, even if it rises to the level of a felony (although I've never heard of a felony of disclosure, sounds more like a civil infraction) there are mitigating circumstances. The possible slander and libel (because of electronic media both probably apply) constitute a possible defamation of character against Herman Cain which would eclipse a disclosure breach.

Are there any lawyers or law students out there?

What is your judgment?

A Post Script. when there is a subjective "crossing of boundaries" there can be no sexual harassment charge made until 1) the offendee warns the offendor of his/her displeasure at least once and 2) The act is repeated.

Having been a corporate board of director member in my life time, we had to make collective corporate judgments against employees concerning these kinds of situations.

ANY term of endearment such as "sweetie" or "dear" or "honey" or act of endearment such as a hug whether innocent or flirtatious by either gender can be a "Crossing of Boundaries". In fact any act of uninvited physical contact can constitute an offense.

Once warned you may never use the term or act of endearment again without the offended's permission (which occasionally happens).

We need to see the documentation.

Thanks
HankD

 

[Ruiz]

I have to wonder what Ruiz's motivation for his fervent prejudgment, despite evidence and reason, of Herman Cain is.

I wonder why you have not addressed any of my points. My point is that I have investigated such. The evidence is never outright. Yet, the evidence I have seen gives it validity. A quick accusation in comparison to the date, a specific accusation at the time, telling others who collaborate this event, and someone later who is quiet. It fits a legitimate complaint. As well, it fits a serial adulterer, who keeps doing this with a number of people.

What is your motivation to doubting a victim?

 

[poncho]

Political theater. Crooks calling crooks a crook so they won't look like the biggest crook.

Haven't y'all seen this enough now to recognize it for what it is?

 

[Ruiz]

A lot has been posted so rather than quote others and respond individually, I’ll try to address it all in one post.

As to paying the women to break the ND agreement being a felony, I was presuming the payer would not hold a press conference and hand over a gigantic prop check! Of course the money would be paid under the table.

As to the idea of Cain releasing the documents related to the case, it presumes that he has documents and anyway, releasing documents is not in Cain’s best interest EVEN IF IT SHOWS his innocence. The Cain campaign dearly wants this issue to go away and releasing documents is not the way to go about this.

Richard Land disagrees with you. He says the more that can be released the quicker the better. Cain is trying to keep them from being released.

The radio talk show host has only said Cain behavior, “was inappropriate and awkward” and it “crossed personal boundaries.” Notice that “sexual harassment” was not a term that was used.

The term sexual harassment may or may not have been used, but sexual advances to a subordinate is sexual harassment, no matter how you cut it.

Chris Wilson, the pollster for the NRA who says Cain sexually harassed a young woman at a Virginia restaurant is having his story contradicted by another source. Wilson claimed that “everybody at the restaurant was aware of it.“ The source says “I did not see a lech” and “did not see him do anything inappropriate” and added that he never heard anyone discuss anything that may have been inappropriate. He said there were six people at the Ruth Chris Steak House that night.

I am not certain of our source and would love to read that source content. However, I tend to believe him in that he is most likely risking his entire career in politics.

Allegations were confirmed? Allegations by their very nature do not need to be confirmed!

Then why attack politico for citing those allegations and threatening them with a lawsuit for bringing up those allegations from before? Allegations don't need to be confirmed, unless of course you believe it is a legally liable act.

But my point here was that several people are making accusations. If you concede that five people have made similar accusations, then you must conclude that they are all either lying, are imagining, or are crazy. We know the two people are not crazy. We can also say that these people are very lucid. Thus, you are calling them liars.

I have the same thing I must address with Herman Cain. Either he is delusional or imagining, or is a liar.

To me, is it more likely that Herman Cain is lying than these five people? Personally, seeing the evidence I highly doubt his testimony. His slander of the people and the accusations against them lend me to believe he more for attacking people instead of handling this in the right way. A person, in my opinion, who will engage in ad hominem attack by calling people racist who disagrees with him is a person who will lie about his past. The more he responded by blaming Perry and his other attacks led me to believe he was not a man to be trusted. In fact, he is a horrible person.

The responses by the victims have not been in attack of him, but maintains that he simply did what they accuse him of doing. Insofar as character, they have handled themselves better than he has.

Faulty logic. Settlements do not indicate the seriousness of the charges only that the person(s) being charged don’t want to proceed with a legal fight.

They normally do indicate the charge and states that all future actions on this issue cannot proceed. There is usually specificity in such issues.

Could you provide me with a link that says the conservative talk show host said Cain said “sexual things”? Because I haven’t seen that.

The context was within sexual inappropriateness. If you want to try to parse every word, go ahead. Yet, I think everyone understood he was inferring sexual issues were involved.

And another staff member has said that he didn’t witness anything inappropriate by Cain that night at Ruth Chris’.

On character witness is good to have, but I go back to my previous notations on why I think Cain cannot be believed. The major issue, however, is not just that one night but many other nights. I am not sure the man stated the date of this meeting, so I am not sure we are talking about the same night.

Yes, she said that since one of her co-workers had already filed, she figured she didn’t need to do so. Makes you wonder how offended and uncomfortable she (allegedly) was.

I didn't see that, but if you look at the number of people who have been sexually harassed and who actually report it, it is very low. When you look at studies, they say that those who get seriously sexually assaulted, only 14% are reported. It is a horrifying thing to go through, so most people would rather not report. It is easy for us men to say, "Why didn't they report it." Yet, when counseling people who have been sexually abused, the vast majority never reported it.

And there are more and more witnesses that find the allegations incredulous. Meanwhile, another woman who worked with Cain at the restaurant association, said, “I found him to be a good boss.” Christina Howard, a former lobbyist for the association, said, “I felt no problem going into his office and asking for his advice.”
She said she didn’t recall allegations about Cain during his tenure and added, “I’d roll my eyes at anyone who would make that allegation.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...tion-fight/2011/11/02/gIQAg8MheM_story_1.html

Yes, and when I was on a molestation case mentioned previous, he had character witnesses that said he was an upstanding person and they could not imagine that he would do that. Again, that is not really a help.

Ruiz’ comment that sexual harassment is “like rape” and therefore these women should not have to come forward is absurd. Notice that I am not objecting to their privacy, I think they should have it, but to compare their reluctance to coming forward to the reluctance of women who have been raped to come forward is an insult to rape victims, IMO.

I don't think it is. Sexual harassment is a serious crime and very individual. Neither are easy for the woman to talk about. While rape is extremely intimate, sexual harassment is a using of a woman as a piece of property, and extremely hurtful to relive.

 

[Ruiz]

All wrong! This has went public and the only way to defend himself is to make it public if Mr. Cain sees the need for that. By the way His campaign manager has called for the women to come forward.

I strongly disagree. Women who have actually been sexually harassed will have difficulty coming forward. And why should they? Look at what happened to Anita Hill, Monica Lewinsky, Gennifer Flowers, and others. I am not saying I believed each one of them, but when women come forward, they are the ones hurt, not the man who committed those acts.

They should not come forward for those reasons.

 

[Ruiz]

You are wrong on all counts.

Herman Cain has been publically charged by those who choose to remain publically anonymous.

The Bill of Rights now takes precedence over their anonimity, they must come forward now so that he can defend himself.

The law of the land along with the right of presumption of innocence makes the anonymous public charges without publicly revealed documentation hearsay.

Name the two people "we do know" and present their evidence.

Until such time these folks identify themselves and present their evidence to his face my response to your inquiry "should we trust Cain" remains - Yes.

Also you yourself have now publically made an oblique allegation against me by casting aspersions upon my character and judgment:



HankD

First, this is not a court of law thus there is no bill of rights.

Secondly, the courts do acknowledge anonymity in many cases. The Supreme Court recognizes times when you can remain anonymous. Why? Because the public does not need to know the people.

Finally, you are basing your answer upon a presupposition where there is not precedence to base it upon. Legal precendence allows for anonymity and anonymity does not mean they are lying. As well, they have faced the accused, for some reason you don't understand that but you really want them to fact the public so they can be maligned like Anita Hill, Gennifer Flowers, Monica Lewinsky, and others. Again, I don't believe all of their testimony, but how they were treated when they went public is a disgrace.

 

[InTheLight]

The radio talk show host has only said Cain behavior, “was inappropriate and awkward” and it “crossed personal boundaries.” Notice that “sexual harassment” was not a term that was used.

The term sexual harassment may or may not have been used, but sexual advances to a subordinate is sexual harassment, no matter how you cut it.

My point is that "inappropriate behavior" and "crossed personal boundaries" is not necessarily sexual harassment, not necessarily a crime. It could be that Cain did something uncouth and/or moronic with no sexual overtones at all.

Then why attack politico for citing those allegations and threatening them with a lawsuit for bringing up those allegations from before?

I don't believe I have attacked Politico.

But my point here was that several people are making accusations. If you concede that five people have made similar accusations, then you must conclude that they are all either lying, are imagining, or are crazy.

I agree the number of people making accusations is a problem for Cain.

We know the two people are not crazy. We can also say that these people are very lucid. Thus, you are calling them liars.

I'm not calling them liars. NNE outside of Cain and the women actually know what happened. Until we hear what actually happened it's impossible to take sides.

To me, is it more likely that Herman Cain is lying than these five people?

I agree the number of people making accusations is a problem for Cain.

A person, in my opinion, who will engage in ad hominem attack by calling people racist who disagrees with him is a person who will lie about his past.

Objection. Conjecture.

The more he responded by blaming Perry and his other attacks led me to believe he was not a man to be trusted. In fact, he is a horrible person.

I would say he's an incompetent campaigner for political office.

The context was within sexual inappropriateness. If you want to try to parse every word, go ahead. Yet, I think everyone understood he was inferring sexual issues were involved.

In cases like this, the definition of words are important.

I am not sure the man stated the date of this meeting, so I am not sure we are talking about the same night.

Same city, same steak house, same number of people attending. I'd say it was the same date.

I didn't see that, but if you look at the number of people who have been sexually harassed and who actually report it, it is very low.

Well sure. Is a woman going to file a sexual harassment case if a co-worker says, "Did you do something with your hair? It looks great." or "That perfume is very nice."? Now, if someone were to say, "Why don't we sneak back to my place and do the nasty in the shower" I'd say the woman had better file harassment charges. This is why it's very important to know exactly what happened and/or what was said.

When you look at studies, they say that those who get seriously sexually assaulted, only 14% are reported. It is a horrifying thing to go through, so most people would rather not report. It is easy for us men to say, "Why didn't they report it." Yet, when counseling people who have been sexually abused, the vast majority never reported it.

Being hit on by a man is NOT the same thing as sexual abuse or rape. I can't believe you can even use the two terms in the same paragraph.

 

[targus]

So what are we hearing now?

That the Restaurant Association has released this woman from the nondisclosure agreement and she is free to talk...

And her response is...

"I don't want to discuss the details."

This is priceless !!!

So Ruiz, what does that tell you?

 

[Arbo]

What is your motivation to doubting a victim?

Greed of the alleged victim. They took the money (and not much, either) and were silent afterward. That is until Cain became nationally recognized.

 

[Arbo]

I wonder why you have not addressed any of my points.

Others have, and I see no need to repeat them.

 

[Arbo]

So what are we hearing now?

That the Restaurant Association has released this woman from the nondisclosure agreement and she is free to talk...

And her response is...

"I don't want to discuss the details."

This is priceless !!!

So Ruiz, what does that tell you?

Five will get you ten it doesn't matter to him.

 

[freeatlast]

I strongly disagree. Women who have actually been sexually harassed will have difficulty coming forward. And why should they? Look at what happened to Anita Hill, Monica Lewinsky, Gennifer Flowers, and others. I am not saying I believed each one of them, but when women come forward, they are the ones hurt, not the man who committed those acts.

They should not come forward for those reasons.

You are still wrong. To protect the innocent there has to be openness. This man says that this did not happen so they need to come out and show it did. It is not enough to make the accusations. If they do not come out they should be sued by him in open court for slander.

 

[Mexdeaf]

So what are we hearing now?

That the Restaurant Association has released this woman from the nondisclosure agreement and she is free to talk...

And her response is...

"I don't want to discuss the details."

This is priceless !!!

So Ruiz, what does that tell you?

It tells me it was fake smoke.

 

[Ruiz]

Greed of the alleged victim. They took the money (and not much, either) and were silent afterward. That is until Cain became nationally recognized.

So, you are claiming slander against them, you are attacking their motives without any evidence. That seems like a Rush Limbaugh approach to this issue, not anything based on any rationality.

 

[Ruiz]

So what are we hearing now?

That the Restaurant Association has released this woman from the nondisclosure agreement and she is free to talk...

And her response is...

"I don't want to discuss the details."

This is priceless !!!

So Ruiz, what does that tell you?

It tells me all those who slandered this person in wanting their five minutes of "fame" were doing just that, slandering them. A rape or a sexual assault victim normally does not want to revisit the issue and that is exactly what they said in their letter.

She is not in this for political gain, she is not in this to make a point. Rather, she moved on with her life and has chosen not to get into the fray. Which is basically what she said. I think it probably validates her claim even more. Cain bashed her and she did not return the favor. I think it shows more about her and less about Cain.

 

[Ruiz]

My point is that "inappropriate behavior" and "crossed personal boundaries" is not necessarily sexual harassment, not necessarily a crime. It could be that Cain did something uncouth and/or moronic with no sexual overtones at all.

By definition, that is sexual harassment.

I don't believe I have attacked Politico.

No, but Cain did and the issue is whether we should trust Cain.

I agree the number of people making accusations is a problem for Cain.

And this is my main point. If all but one is lying, Cain still has a problem and is disqualified to holding the office of the President. I think it is more likely Cain is lying than all five people.

I'm not calling them liars. NNE outside of Cain and the women actually know what happened. Until we hear what actually happened it's impossible to take sides.

There were sexual harrasment charges filed and settled. There were inappropriate innuendos and soliciting people to go to his private bedroom. To me, this is a problem. Take any of the information we heard, they are problematic to me. The specifics are not as important because five people are verifying of his character and the nature of his character in dealing with women. That is not Presidential at all.

Objection. Conjecture.

I disagree, we are dealing with a person's character. Therefore, we should look at other aspects of his character to determine if he is trustworthy. If he stole money, that would play into this assessment. His slander, as well, plays into my assessment. Calling people racists, attacking the Perry Campaign, and attacking the anonymous people were out of line and does play into the character issue. If the issue is whether we can trust him, I think this week he has given us reason to doubt.

Notice, as well, I have not touched his changing stories. Some of those changes were expected with this new news. However, some of this was not wise either.

I would say he's an incompetent campaigner for political office.

I agree, but I believed that before this stuff came out. If he were to go up against Obama, he will lose.

Same city, same steak house, same number of people attending. I'd say it was the same date.

Maybe, and that is something to consider.

Well sure. Is a woman going to file a sexual harassment case if a co-worker says, "Did you do something with your hair? It looks great." or "That perfume is very nice."? Now, if someone were to say, "Why don't we sneak back to my place and do the nasty in the shower" I'd say the woman had better file harassment charges. This is why it's very important to know exactly what happened and/or what was said.

I doubt someone would settle over something that miniscule. They would take it to court because if you settle over miniscule issues, you invite further petty accusations. The accusations must be significant enough for a jury to take it serious.

Being hit on by a man is NOT the same thing as sexual abuse or rape. I can't believe you can even use the two terms in the same paragraph.

It is degrading and psychologically is traumatic that could have dramatic effects for years to come.

 

[Ruiz]

My point is that "inappropriate behavior" and "crossed personal boundaries" is not necessarily sexual harassment, not necessarily a crime. It could be that Cain did something uncouth and/or moronic with no sexual overtones at all.



I don't believe I have attacked Politico.



I agree the number of people making accusations is a problem for Cain.



I'm not calling them liars. NNE outside of Cain and the women actually know what happened. Until we hear what actually happened it's impossible to take sides.



I agree the number of people making accusations is a problem for Cain.



Objection. Conjecture.



I would say he's an incompetent campaigner for political office.





In cases like this, the definition of words are important.



Same city, same steak house, same number of people attending. I'd say it was the same date.



Well sure. Is a woman going to file a sexual harassment case if a co-worker says, "Did you do something with your hair? It looks great." or "That perfume is very nice."? Now, if someone were to say, "Why don't we sneak back to my place and do the nasty in the shower" I'd say the woman had better file harassment charges. This is why it's very important to know exactly what happened and/or what was said.



Being hit on by a man is NOT the same thing as sexual abuse or rape. I can't believe you can even use the two terms in the same paragraph.

One more thing, the letter today from one of the lady's lawyers specifically states the claim against Cain was sexual harassment.

 

[mandym]

Politico has published about 90 stories on Cain. Their infatuation of him shows their fear of him.