Hat-tip to Ace of Spades and congratulations to Richard Pollock at PJM for finally getting the specifics on the record:
Both sources, one male and one female, worked at the time — mid-1990s — for the governmental affairs department of the National Restaurant Association, as did the woman.
According to both sources, Mr. Cain and the woman had been with a large group for a long evening of food and drink at the Ciao Baby Cucina, a restaurant near NRA headquarters in downtown Washington, D.C. This was a normal routine, as the trade association worked with the food and beverage industry. Afterwards, Mr. Cain allegedly took the woman by taxi to his apartment, where she spent the night and woke up in his bed.
The female source told PJ Media that she witnessed the woman entering a taxi with Herman Cain.
Neither source has direct knowledge of what occurred at Mr. Cain’s residence, but several days after the alleged incident, the male source witnessed the woman returning to her workplace “distraught.” “She was very upset.”
Why did this take so long? What were people afraid of? Now the Cain campaign has something specific that they can deal with.
UPDATE: I have sent text messages and e-mail to the Cain campaign seeking their official response. Meanwhile, I agree with Glenn Reynolds: “I’d still like to see names named, even from people I trust.”
Anonymous accusations, in regard to such a serious matter, are unacceptable. It’s one thing to grant anonymity to sources when what you’re reporting is routine campaign strategy stuff. It’s something else when grievous accusations of sexual misbehavior are being made against the leading candidate for a major party’s nomination for president.
UPDATE II: The commenters are, of course, free to speculate on the factuality or meaning of the account reported by Pollock. Given that I am expected to report on the Cain campaign, however, I am obligated to resist the speculation temptation.
Nevertheless, it is possible to say — as a neutral objective fact — that this changes the nature of the story.
Whereas we were previously led to believe that this was a matter of mere words, which may have crossed the line into the range of “unwanted advances,” now it seems to be something else entirely. And shame on any reporters, at Politico or anywhere else, who were aware of such specific accusations and failed to report the details.
However this story turns out for the Cain campaign, there will need to be some accountability for journalistic incompetence.
UPDATE III: PJM corrects the Pollock article:
(CORRECTIONS: A previous version of this story mentioned that a source witnessed Cain and the woman entering a taxi together. This was incorrect.
The previous version also mentioned that the woman awoke in Cain’s bed — the source only claimed that the woman awoke in Cain’s apartment.
The previous version incorrectly attributed comments from one source to the other source.)
Can you see me biting my tongue?
UPDATE IV: I put this post online at 1:28 p.m. and had contacted Mark Block and J.D. Gordon via e-mail and text before 2 p.m., seeking a response. When that didn’t work, I called at 2:40 p.m. It’s now 4:15 p.m.
My phone isn’t ringing and there’s no answer in my inbox. If they’re not responding to me — on a day like today — to whom are they responding? Why should I even bother trying to get a response?
Are you kidding? Now that we know that the woman who filed a complaint cited specifics to bolster her complaint, it’s clear it must be true and that he did it. After all, why would a company pay two settlements for you if you weren’t a serial harasser? GUILTY!
Heck we do not need Democrats, Republicans seem to enjoy kicking Cain when he is down. The GOP sucks. I hope Cain fights back on this.
You jerk.
Just because someone said so doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true.
Anyway, why is this necessarily “harassment?” Perhaps she did something she regretted and decided to blame the guy later?
Naw, that NEVER happens. Like in colleges, when a woman can scream “RAPE!” weeks or even months after she regrets a hookup with some guy.
It is a unsubstantiated allegation and a settlement that appears to be in nuisance value levels. Without more facts, I am assuming there was no girl in Herman Cain’s bed.
But hey, I guess if I were a real republican like Jen Rubin I would say Herman Cain was crazy for raising issues of race over this.
My guess would be that it’s what happened afterwards that was the real problem for her. Even if it was something that took a while to regret, it could still be considered an abuse of a superior’s influence over a subordinate.
I guess we’ll have to wait and see what else comes out.
So let’s take this one step at a time.
1. The woman goes to Cain’s room with him and sleeps in the same bed with him.
2. The next day, she leaves his room “visibly upset”
3. She gets paid a settlement that was couched in terms of a severance package.
Do the math. The woman is a prostitute, in one way or another, and didn’t get what she wanted, be that money or promotion, so she sued. Could anything be more blatantly obvious?
Jeff is being sarcastic, I believe. And I’m not jumping to conclusions. Awaiting denial, confirmation or explanation. Just grateful finally to have something specific.
The vagueness of the allegations was maddening. It is not incumbent on a politician to waive his Fifth Amendment rights by telling incriminating tales against himself. A vague accusation cannot require a specific response.
CalMark, Jeff was being sarcastic.
But hey, if they put it in writing it must be true? Because everything in a lawyer’s letter or pleadings is always 100% absolutely the truth.
So let it be written, so let it be done!
The Pagan Temple: “1. The woman goes to Cain’s room with him and sleeps in the same bed with him.”
What if item ” 1 ” never happened? Right now I am going with that presumption.
Now I am not running for President, but if Mrs. Joe found out some girl from work was sleeping in my bed–you can be damn sure I would think what Herman Cain is presently going through rather mild.
Andrew McCarthy’s post focuses on the “search for the source,” and about how obviously Politico knows who its source is, even as it reports the accusations of the various campaigns.
Valerie Plame, anyone?
I was very disappointed when Palin decided not to run, and I just couldn’t get enthused about Cain for a while. Now, just when I was starting to, this comes out. I kinda liked it when the accusations were vague. The specifics are starting to worry me.
PJM has changed their story.
Now they say that nobody witnessed them getting in a cab together and they strike the reference to the girl from waking up in Cain’s bed, to waking up in his apartment.
Gee, what a surprise.
Oops! PJ Media just issued a correction:
This is KILLING us. If he did something but didn’t think it was wrong he should have said as much in the first place. I notice nothing specific as to whether HC was in bed with her. What was alleged but never corroborated are and what did happen was corroborated both have to be dealt with. The third consideration is part of both, that being what he can’t deny happened but doesn’t think it was wrong at the time. If he had sex with someone he shouldn’t have he’s toast. He’ll have enough trouble spinning what he’s done that might be subject to interpretation but he’s probably waited too long to do any of that successfully.
Since he’s one of the few who actually knows what he did and didn’t do he should have had a plan before this hit the fan.
DaTechGuy nailed it yesterday Obama wins every day this dominates the news. Greece, the Eurozone, the Mideast may go south any day now. Obama’s pals are rioting in Oakland the other Donner Party campins are bickering over who deserves to be there and assaulting each other as well as threatening the press at some places and yet the Republican field is making Obama look reasonable. His poll numbers are improving slightly, there is two possible reasons for this and both are probably part of the reason. His demagoguery is having some success and the Republicans are deliberately making themselves look like nitwits.
Looks like you were right in your concerns about the crack new PJM editorial team.
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/323338.php
Ace says second settlement for $45,0o0.
Unless the source was a hotel waiter or there was a threeseome, they could not possibly know this. They were TOLD this, which is a very different matter and the claims there was an abuse of power are TOTALLY without verification.
I wonder if Michelle Bachmann ever spent the night in a motel room with an employee? But nahh, never mind, she’s not good enough to be president, so what difference does it make? We don’t need a real conservative for president, do we guys? We just need one that’s comfortably conservative. Not too hot like Mama Grizzly, not too cold like Daddy Mitt, but one that’s, well, comfortably numb.
Such credibility!
Such journalistic rigor!
Yep. I agree.
Ace today sort of reminds me of this guy…
Comfortably numb? Do you mean Pawlenty or Perry?
While I don’t agree with Ace’s view on Cain.
I do agree with him that we better get on with this now.
Cain is a good candidate. But if it is all going to come out one day…might as well be now.
Rather fight for a candidate who may/alleged/once flawed…but who isn’t waiting for the other shoe to job.
As I say: Can you see me biting my tongue?
I don’t drink, although I did on a nightly basis as a young man, but if he (and probably the chick) drank too much and flirted or went back to his place and had sex, I just don’t find it to be a big deal as to whether he is qualified to be President.
The media never had any problems with Ted Kennedy and Chris Dodd’s “waitress sandwich”.
It took them months on end to actually pursue what John Edwards did while his wife was succombing to cancer, but if Cain drank too much and had sex with a gal from his office, it’s a Federal offense.
No problems with Clinton’s serial philandering and being accused of rape, but Cain’s drinking too much and doing something like this renders him unfit for office.
The only specific, indisputed fact the article cites is that NRA staffers once dined at a restaurant called Ciao Baby Cucina.
Mentioning the name of the restaurant is mostly a persuasion tactic – mention a very specific, detailed factoid to give the reader the (false) impression of authority over a subject matter, while the factoid, itself, is totally unimportant and/or irrelevant.
The rest of the “specifics” weren’t specific at all and are, basically, unverified hearsay, etc. Again, what specifically did Herman Cain do that was wrong?
It’s perfectly fair for people on our side to ask questions, withhold judgment, criticize the campaign’s handling of the matter, and even question the man’s veracity. But it’s inexcusable for our side to be so overly impressed by such weak evidence and logically fallacious arguments and then jump to silly conclusions.
In that case, I’m a sexual harrasser, since I’ve let women sleep in my room when I’ve been to SF conventions and they were in no condition to leave or had no place else to crash. I even *gasp* shared an room with two women on my way to Vegas once when one of them couldn’t get a reservation. To make matters worse, I was on my way to a Tea Party!
So are you for goodness or badness? The Judge Smails of the GOP want to know?
Smartest thing she ever did. Think these clowns on Twitter would have had her back?
I agree with that much, let’s shake this out now.
Ace is being pissed off, Ace. And frankly, the conduct of the conservative blogosphere is enacting me in an emicturant posture too. I’m trying to do an article on it but they keep doing dumb shit faster than I can type.
Your tongue now feels uncomfortable is filing a complaint with HR; six-digit severance package to follow.
Yep. They haven’t asked Cain if he has ever cheated on his wife.
You know that is where this is going.
What amazes me is the number of people yakking this up who have NO idea what a factual statement looks like anymore, or material evidence. Hell, I’m not a lawyer but I’ve done jury duty, and the judge was always damned careful to explain to us about hearsay and speculation objections.
Of course, they could just be playing dumb to cut down a candidate they disapprove of, but surely conservative bloggers would never do that…
Fifth Amendment rights don’t apply to a guy seeking high office. We’re not dealing here with rights in a trial, be it civil or criminal. We’re dealing here with the court of public opinion, and that court is able to take cognizance of Cain’s silences, Cain’s OWN vagueness, maddening vagueness if you will, on the specifics of the accusations made against him.
He KNEW those accusations were made, yet he affected an uncalled for blase attitude about it, and all the while he was seeking the chief plum of the GOP, it’s Presidential nomination.
He didn’t know about the settlement details, ——— another tidbit that just happened to be convenient to him who was trying to avoid answering anything specific on the issue.
He affected a lack of memory on the SPECIFICS of the accusations themselves, quite apart from those accusations were finally settled.
And I’m supposed to buy this, and I’m supposed to buy this because I don’t want Romney to gain the nomination.
Well guess what, I DON’T WANT ROMNEY to gain the nomination and I still have reached the firm conviction that Cain is a dissembling, poorly informed, ill-read jerk, and that said jerk is wholly disqualified from the White House.
Exactly. By their standards, just about any time Clinton hooked up with a young lady around the office – at the statehouse in Little Rock, in the WH, etc. – he was in a position of power and therefore he has taking advantage of his position = sexual harassment.
Except, if it’s a Democrat, then “it’s only sex, for cryin’ out loud! . . . why are we wasting our time on this distraction when there are suffering chilrin’ and needy old folks that must be saved before the Republicans push them down a flight of stairs . . .”
They should have retracted that story because those few “corrections” really change the whole tenor doesn’t it?
I am a social conservative. Adultery is a sin, and very stupid to boot. But it does happen when you have powerful men and young, attractive single females.
I would see this as an arguement for getting women out of the workforce, or having women only sections of the workforce.
I don’t think this is sufficient reason to deny him the nomination.
Well….rumor has it that Cain is soon to be on Fox to discuss all of this.
I am a die hard Cain supporter. However, I don’t believe in making out anybody to be a messiah, a god, or a saint.
He has my support. Even if the worst is true…he hasn’t done anything illegal (ahem…Clinton).
The important question is: If Cain has to admit that he cheated on his wife…would you still support him?
(not saying that he did or did not cheat on his wife)
remember Democrats can do stuff like that because they have no standards, bad behavior with them is not an issue.
If you sever Stacy’s tongue who’d recognize him? “That can’t be Stacy. Not quiet.“
Ace lost me eons ago. He suffers from that incurable disease known as “wanting to be cool.” If a conservative is uncool (aka populist) he gets down on them.
Of course, this ridiculous passion for coolness results in Ace taking contradictory positions that make no sense. Remember Christine O’Donnell? He’d duck, weave, go one way, then another.
That’s what we’re seeing here with Cain. Perry is “cool enough” for Ace (yes, I know, nobody thinks Perry is cool but Ace has to pick someone not Romney from the conservative sphere, and Rick P is it), so he’s gotten on board and will slag anyone else that gets in the way.
It seems like the woman may have slept in his aparement and not in his bed and there is still no accusation of actual sex.
The PJMedia correction now says that…um, well, uuh…the reporting was wrong. What the same sources who didn’t actually SEE her do anything actually said was that she didn’t actually wake up in Cain’s BED. She woke up in his APARTMENT. Allegedly.
Jeez.
I don’t understand your logic when you complain that Cain “affected an uncalled for blase attitude about it.”
If the allegations have serious merit, wouldn’t it be irrelevant to you that he was supposedly blase about the allegations? I mean, if he had been humble about them, all would be forgiven, and you’d have no reservations about voting for him? More likely, if the allegations have real teeth, then Cain’s candidacy will implode.
On the other hand, if the allegations are bogus, are you suggesting that Cain was supposed to take them seriously, give them power and legitimacy, and pretend to be contrite? Not only would that be wrong, it would do more damage to his campaign than anything he’s done the last few days.
Hey, Joe: there’s a feeding frenzy under way. Against a conservative. A BLACK conservative, yet!
Anything goes! Go with the flow! Ride the wave!
I didn’t mean numb as in boring, I just have serious reservations about Cain, from his “I’ll pick it up as I go” answers to things he’s not familiar with to his lackluster, devil may care attitude about campaigning in general and the Iowa caucuses especially. He wouldn’t even appear at the last economic forum. I can understand why Mitt didn’t go, but what was his excuse? And now this thing pops us, and he seems to think its not even important enough to get his story straight. That goes back to his answers about unfamiliar subjects. Sure, no one expects him to be a foreign policy expert, but a little research goes a long way. But he doesn’t seem to think he should be bothered with it. I’m just wondering if he’s really ready for this. It’s almost like his success in the polls are a bigger surprise to him than to anybody else. And that makes me wonder how serious about all this he really was from the outset.
What’s left after the retraction? A plug for the restaurant chain Ciao Baby Cucina.