51 Responses to “Herman Cain Accuser’s Lawyer: ‘No Value of Revisiting the Matter … Now’”

1. Dan Collins
   November 4th, 2011 @ 5:02 pm

   Oh, it’s better than that.

   1) Lawyer calls on NRA to release his client’s non-disclosure requirement, even though that means legal jeopardy for NRA.

   2) NRA calls his bluff, releases her from requirement.

   3) Lawyer’s client decides she’d rather not relive the trauma.

   Pigs.

2. mark
   November 4th, 2011 @ 5:14 pm

   one would think that a well organized liberal media would wait until he got the nomination.

   but while they are liberal, they aren’t organized.  kinda like monkeys throwing excrement.

   no offense, david gregory. 

3. » Cain accuser – now not willing to talk // Added: Politico and NY Times spin refusal as accuser “confirming” and “standing by” her complaint - Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion
   November 4th, 2011 @ 5:16 pm

   […] Stacy McCain: “Lawyer ethics” — Hold a press conference to announce that you don’t want to discuss your sm….   […]

4. Opinador Compulsivo
   November 4th, 2011 @ 5:42 pm

   Great parody of the Cain kerfuffle at the Kansas Citian :

   Barack Obama accused by two men of inappropriate behavior 

5. Datechguy
   November 4th, 2011 @ 5:44 pm

   I think you misunderstand me, Weigel was making fun of the PJ story that reported than backed away.

6. Datechguy's Blog » Blog Archive » The Black Bill Clinton sans facts UPDATE Accuser via Lawyer: no value” in discussing matter
   November 4th, 2011 @ 5:48 pm

   […] 2: Stacy and Smitty react as does the Cain Campaign. Share this:PrintRedditDiggStumbleUponEmailFacebook opinions powered […]

7. smitty
   November 4th, 2011 @ 5:52 pm

   Indeed, I may not have read deeply enough.

8. Joe
   November 4th, 2011 @ 5:53 pm

   What is also sad about this is how so many Republicans and even some conservatives piled on Cain and did not defend him.  It is both shocking and depressing. 

   If you think Cain is not a good candidate (say Riehl, Ace and Allah come immediately to mind) you have a right to criticize him as a candidate.  But when you see a hatchet job by the media and do nothing but criticize Cain…well then you joined the ranks of the left or the “pragmatics” like Jen Rubin. 

9. Joe
   November 4th, 2011 @ 5:54 pm

   Pigs and liars they are.  This was a disgusting hatchet job. 

10. bradley
    November 4th, 2011 @ 6:03 pm

    I agree with Pete that this has been a good acid test for the Cain campaign

    It’s been an even better acid test for the conservo-sphere. Some folks on our side are all too willing to say go berserk on one of our own if they think it will get them hits, or cred, or help the campaign of “their guy”.

11. Charles
    November 4th, 2011 @ 6:07 pm

    You must remember that Herman Cain essentially called the woman a liar when he said that the had been falsely accused of sexual harassment. Cain also suggested that he had been exonerated in the investigation of these charges.

    The lawyer’s statement today, saying that the woman “stands by the complaint she made” sets the record straight. Cain maintains his innocence, but there was in fact a settlement and no exoneration. You can decide how much or little weight this merits in supporting Herman Cain for President.

    But where is the smear-job for the woman’s lawyer to say she isn’t a liar? I know that Ann Coulter set the standard for lawyering sexual harassment cases when she called her client Paula Jones trailer-park trash. Call me old-fashioned, I like lawyers who stick up for their client.

12. Joe
    November 4th, 2011 @ 6:10 pm

    Quote of the Day:  “So now I’m thinking her claim was trumped up.” Ace.  http://ace.mu.nu/archives/323371.php
    Glad you realized that. 

13. Anonymous
    November 4th, 2011 @ 6:12 pm

    I’m not a conservative, but I caucus with Conservatives to push the left back into it’s rathole.

    In order to caucus with them, I have to know who they are.

    One reason I can work with them is because a Conservative honors the truth, and doesn’t fear being wrong.  These petty morons who claim to be conservatives, but trot out the personal attacks and hype the innuendo (all in an attempt to defend their candidate by besmirching the others) disgust me.  They may be “of the right”, but they cannot be “Conservative.”  They don’t even question their own BS.

    Why people don’t want to let the primary process play out,  I cannot understand.

    (Edit: yes, I am aware of the “True Scotsman” fallacy. But a Tiger has stripes.)

14. Charles
    November 4th, 2011 @ 6:25 pm

    That PJ Media story was very curious. Dave Weigel was suggesting it’s writer Richard Pollock had driven the car off the bridge, and Herman Cain was the young woman in the car. It does not however appear that Cain has drowned.

    Someone does need to help connect the dots. Is the woman PJ Media says went home with Cain in his taxi the same one who today confirmed she complained only inappropriate behaviors and unwanted advances. Or is it the other woman?

15. Info
    November 4th, 2011 @ 6:32 pm

    Don’t always agree with you, but your comments are usually sharp and insightful.  So, please understand, I say this with respect:  no capitalization makes you look like a child or (worse) bell hooks. 

    Thanks for your consideration. 

16. Anonymous
    November 4th, 2011 @ 6:36 pm

    Piling on was stupid.  But as to “defending,” I don’t feel like that’s a big deal.

    A LOT of Palin supporters kept hammering various Republicans for “failing to defend Sarah Palin” over the shootings in Az. and the blame Palin game being played by the Dems and their hacks in the media. Bachmann, in particular, got a lot of heat for not defending Palin.

    I take another view.  You let the person show how they will react, and take your lead from them.  The veterans in this “war” held off until Palin weighed in on the whole deal, THEN they argued her points in her favor. That way the “accused” can show leadership.

    When you leap to defend someone in the public arena, you make it look like they cannot defend themselves.  THAT’S why people hold off on “defending.”

    But the piling on shows a moral failing, and that fashion item doesn’t look good on a conservative.

17. Joe
    November 4th, 2011 @ 6:40 pm

    And it is damn sickening. 

    And let’s all agree that Jen Rubin is not a friend of conservatives. 

18. Anonymous
    November 4th, 2011 @ 6:40 pm

    That is the million dollar question when Cain wins the nomination.

    I think this is actually the case that Cain didn’t really know about and the other, the one discussed in PJM is the one he knew about (as far as settlements and what not).

19. Joe
    November 4th, 2011 @ 6:42 pm

    Acutually he did not.  What he said was he did nothing inappropriate or improper. 

    We don’t know what she actually alleged, we just got partial stories and inferences that tended to be not true.  No one has reported (publically at least) what Herman Cain was even accused of (other than it was bad). 

20. Anonymous
    November 4th, 2011 @ 6:45 pm

    I don’t believe this is the case Cain was referring to.

    Be viligent for the other shoe to drop (that case is likely like this one too, but it would create a bit of a media storm).

    The other woman has not spoken at all despite phone calls and evidently a media stake out.

21. GayPatriot » 90 stories on Cain kerfuffle and still no specifics
    November 4th, 2011 @ 6:45 pm

    […] come forward to tell us that he won’t tell us anything, leading Stacy McCain to quip that “Lawyer ethics” meanings holding “a press conference to announce that you don’t want to discuss your […]

22. Anonymous
    November 4th, 2011 @ 6:49 pm

    You make a claim that there was no exoneration, but you do not support it with any fact.  A settlement is never indicative of whether the claimant is lying or telling the truth.  Never.

    Fortunately, most people with neurons that actually connect know this.

23. SDN
    November 4th, 2011 @ 6:57 pm

    No shit, Sherlock Ace, what was the first clue?

24. Anonymous
    November 4th, 2011 @ 6:58 pm

    Exactly.  And I want to know why the hell we don’t already know this.  People keep saying Cain had ten days!!!! to respond to this.  Well, the Politico reporters have had far longer to get the facts out, if they have them, or admit they do not.

    At this point, it is beyond ludicrous that we have no straight story on even the most basic aspects of this accusation.  It’s not like a freaking “birth” issue or anything.

25. Anonymous
    November 4th, 2011 @ 7:08 pm

    Or read Live at Five this morning. Weigel’s piece led off the “Blogs & Stuff” links this morning.
    >:(

26. Anonymous
    November 4th, 2011 @ 7:09 pm

    One has to start wondering about PJ Media, for that matter. That piece of theirs (which they later had to do the backdown for) sure looked a lot like a try to stick the last knife in.

27. Anonymous
    November 4th, 2011 @ 7:21 pm

    The problem here is that defining what is sexual harassment is, is left up to the imagination  of an alleged “victim”so it is possible to technically be telling “her truth” and still be spouting absolute bullshit.
     The more details I read of what actually passes for sexual harassment by it’s vague legal definition the more convinced I become that laws against it should be abolished.

28. Garym
    November 4th, 2011 @ 7:56 pm

    His eyes open wide.

29. NEVERMIND! Rushing to Non-Judgment « Temple of Mut
    November 4th, 2011 @ 8:03 pm

    […] for leftist lies, smears, and projections so they don’t interrupt the campaign. ALL of the GOP hopefuls have got to improve their game immensely before hitting the general. While I believe that the Politico story was unleashed by Team […]

30. Donald Douglas
    November 4th, 2011 @ 8:43 pm

    Linked: ‘VIDEO: Attorney Joel Bennett Issues Statement on Herman Cain Sexual Harassment Allegations’.

31. Charles
    November 4th, 2011 @ 8:52 pm

    The settlement, now acknowledged, is a fact establishing that there was no exoneration.

    Keep in mind that while we do not know who the woman involved is, she knows who she is and many people, including former colleagues and family do know who she is. And so the story does refelect on her personally and professionally.

    Is she wrong to want to correct the record? Is she wrong not to go further and rehash every detail of the whole story? She has taken a middle course here, and I don;’t think she deserves to be villified.

32. JadedByPolitics
    November 4th, 2011 @ 9:03 pm

    You see that Stacy you defended that fake Republican journolister Weigel when he was found to be working WITH the writers at Politico taking down Sarah Palin and other assorted Republicans and here he shows yet again what a pathetic hateful LOSER he is!

33. Anonymous
    November 4th, 2011 @ 9:21 pm

    Hello, McFly! Are you being willfully dense, or what? The settlement was neither an exoneration nor an admittance of any wrongdoing. As far as I know, no one has exonerated you concerning what that girl said you did, either.

    That an accuser has family and acquaintances is generally taken as compelling evidence that he/she is telling the truth about something.   

34. Anonymous
    November 4th, 2011 @ 9:49 pm

    Weigel’s piece was actually pretty good up to the last sentence, which came off as a non sequitur.

35. richard mcenroe
    November 4th, 2011 @ 11:31 pm

    Not like it’s going to change his behavior.  He wants him some cowboy.

36. richard mcenroe
    November 4th, 2011 @ 11:34 pm

    And frankly the conservosphere with too few exceptions (Jeff G and Stacy come to mind, among a few others) crapped all over its collective shoes.

37. richard mcenroe
    November 4th, 2011 @ 11:38 pm

    Read Kurt Schlichter’s NY Post article to see where you go astray.

38. Anonymous
    November 4th, 2011 @ 11:49 pm

    “Now acknowledged”? Cain described it early on, once more information became available so he had something to go on other than “unnamed sources.”  It was never “unacknowledged,” so your attempt to paint it as withheld information is a fail.

    It is a fact that a settlement was reached.  No more, no less.  The people who “looked into it” are the ones who exonerated Mr. Cain, who was not a party to the settlement.

    Somehow we have a strange period in Mr. Cain’s life where he is suddenly guilty of something whispered in sinister tones, but not declared openly by his accusers in the media.  Out of his long working life, it only comes from this one period?  That, plus the pittance the women in question were “awarded” (from which their attorneys surely scalped a major chunk), plus the fact that they left the NRA and agreed never to speak of it are all facts that weigh heavily against them.  If he didn’t grope them, or threaten them with their careers for sexual favors, or didn’t otherwise assault them, or place them in a work environment full of lewd posters or menacing co-workers, then their case is very, very thin, indeed.

39. Adjoran
    November 5th, 2011 @ 12:42 am

    It’s Clintonian, the response.  First in Cain’s equivocations and outright lies, then in the attacks by his supporters on rival campaigns, and now conservative bloggers and columnists deemed insufficiently fervent in his defense. 

    The women have been described as golddiggers, and one has been all but called a prostitute.  Without any direct word from them or the details of their alleged accusations. 

    Sound familiar?

    It’s not enough to survive.  You must destroy all attackers, real or imagined, and damage the doubters in the process to discourage the next accuser from coming forward.

    Sound familiar?

40. mark
    November 5th, 2011 @ 1:15 am

    sorry…
    my old computer had a hemp seed under the shift/caps lock area.  old habits die hard.

    and the ‘child’ thing is probably closer to the truth.  you should get me on a day when i don’t feel like spell-checking.

    i’ll will hide from your sight. 
    any other blogs i should i avoid posting on?

41. Joe
    November 5th, 2011 @ 1:48 am

    A few folks at Riehl’s place realize that perhaps it is better to close ranks when such attacks come.  Ace even admits that the charges might be BS.  This goes well beyond Herman Cain.  They could destroy him a similar attack would come against Romney…heck even Huntsman, if he were the nominee. 

    We have to assume every GOP candidate is presumed inocent until proven guilty.  Especially when the attack is coming from Maher/Sullivan/Salon/Politico/The New Republic/The New Yorker/The New York Times/MSNBC/etc. , etc.

42. jack
    November 5th, 2011 @ 4:01 am

    if the client released non-disclosure confidential then NRA would be free to publish ALL facts confirming Herman Cain was blameless and the accusation baseless

43. ThePaganTemple
    November 5th, 2011 @ 9:06 am

    To begin with, I don’t think its technically correct to be throwing around words like “exoneration”, because there has never been any specific charges alleged, only the vague term “harassment”.  Such charges have to be specific in order for them to have any merit, or bearing. The fact that Cain’s company settled for such a low sum of money might in itself be a form of “exoneration”.

    The only thing that irks me about the whole mess is the implication that Cain might have spent the night with one of these women, and in doing so there was at least the intention of mutually consensual sex. And the only reason that irks me is because Cain supporters have turned it into an 800 pound gorilla in a seedy hotel room with semen stained sheets.

    And frankly, that’s Cain’s fault.

44. Anonymous
    November 5th, 2011 @ 9:39 am

    So, in your eyes, these women are damned if they do speak and damned if they don’t, regardless of how blameless they are or how many corroborating details and witnesses they provide. 

    The Republican punditocracy and blogosphere continue their important work of enabling sexual predators in high places. 

45. ThePaganTemple
    November 5th, 2011 @ 9:44 am

    Actually, we’re continuing our work of destroying the politically correct atmosphere that has poisoned political discourse over at least the last four and a half decades, and we won’t rest until its a distant memory, remembered only with disdain and ridicule by the vast majority of Americans. Anything else?

46. Anonymous
    November 5th, 2011 @ 11:16 am

    So it’s “political correctness” when a woman defends herself against sexual harassment and assault by her boss? She’s just supposed to stay silent and put up with it, the way she would have 4 & 1/2 decades ago?

    I guess that’s what passes for “family values” these days:  Whatever happens is always the woman’s fault, and never the man’s. 

47. ThePaganTemple
    November 5th, 2011 @ 11:27 am

    That depends on whether or not there really was any kind of sexual harassment, or any other kind of abuse, assault, etc., or whether its just some chippie trying to score a big payday. Where the political correctness comes in is when we’re never supposed to question or doubt any woman that presents such allegations. Anytime a man is accused, all of a sudden presumption of innocence takes a flying leap out the judicial window. I know of one man who works for DHS who claims he was the target of a complaint of causing a “hostile work environment” because he and a fellow co-worker were discussing auto parts, which is something she felt “excluded her”. She also complained because he had a book by Michener on his desk, which she claimed was “antisemitic”, apparently due to the names of one of the characters. Ironically, my friend is Jewish, but that didn’t deter her. That’s the kind of shit I’m talking about. If somebody is claiming to be the victim of abuse, then a, it should actually be real abuse, and b, she should be able to prove it or shut the fuck up. And finally, c, anybody that’s so accused has the same level of rights and constitutional safeguards as anybody else.

    This bullshit with Cain is nothing more than an attempt to destroy a man who is a no-nonsense black man who, in addition to being an accomplished businessman, happens to also be a conservative Republican. And any such attempt such as this should be met with the derision and scorn it rightly deserves.

    If one didn’t know better, one might suspect Cain was guilty of associating with proven sixties era radical domestic terrorists or something.

48. Jill
    November 5th, 2011 @ 11:41 am

    I am stunned that anyone would dare label the republicans as “enablers” of sexual predators in high places. Simply stunned. Especially in light of the years of acceptance and enabling done by the left starting with JFK down to Teddy and onto Clinton.  The true definition of a sexual predator lies in his committed crimes…..proven over and over. Not in tawdry, shroud-covered innuendos which have yet to offer up one specific. At least Jennifer Flowers had the guts to go up against Clinton.

49. Anonymous
    November 5th, 2011 @ 12:07 pm

    Well, let’s see. One woman’s word against one man’s word doesn’t count. The word of 4 women against one man doesn’t count. And the word of 7 women and 15 men against one man doesn’t count.  And the 4 women who complained about his behavior back in the 90’s (2 of whom lost their jobs once they put it in writing) must have known he was going to be running for president in 2011 and had it in for him all this time. Got it.    

    Yeah, that’s exactly the equivalent of having a copy of a Michener book on one’s desk, and should be judged equally innocuous. 

50. Anonymous
    November 5th, 2011 @ 1:27 pm

    Jill, I am not a Democrat, I am a libertarian-leaning, Tea Party supporting  independent, but I also know sexual harassment DOES exist, and likely occurred here. 

    98% of the reporting here — including many independent assessments, as well as Cain’s own ever-changing responses — suggests strongly that Cain abused his position, his power and his privilege in sexually harassing these employees, that he got away with then, and is getting away with trashing their credibility and reputations now. 

    I’ve watched Sarah Palin being trashed viciously for years now over PROVEN lies, while the Republican blogosphere and pundits either stood by or actively joined in the completely unfounded attacks on her. 

    Meanwhile, a report of actual, documented, proven events concerning a prominent Republican man — women definitely were fired for complaining about Cain’s actions — elicits this hysterical response from all sides insisting the women HAVE to be liars, deadbeats, golddiggers and much, much worse, entirely on the word of Herman Cain. 

    If you don’t see a double standard operating here, then you’re flat-out blind.

About

This is an area on your website where you can add text. This will serve as an informative location on your website, where you can talk about your site.

Subscribe to our feed

Search

Admin

• Log in
• Wordpress
• XHTML