• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cain accuser wants to tell her side of story

Re: Lawyer: Cain accuser wants to tell her side of story

AdamT said:
Another example of Cain being deceptive. The women settled with the Restaurant Association, not Cain, so the Restaurant Association is the party that has rights under the confidentiality agreement. I'm sure they would waive it if Cain asked them to. Did Cain say that he asked them to waive confidentiality? No.
Click to expand...

Why would they ever waive confidentiality? That's not in their best interests. She got a year's salary, as I understand it. Quid Quo Pro. Unless it's that important to her that she wants to give the money back....

Look, if this hadn't happened you wouldn't like Cain. You are no one who matters in this dogfight. The people who do are those who would have possibly voted for him. You oughta' quit throwing stones. You'll break your windows.
 
Re: Lawyer: Cain accuser wants to tell her side of story

MaggieD said:
Why would they ever waive confidentiality? That's not in their best interests. She got a year's salary, as I understand it. Quid Quo Pro. Unless it's that important to her that she wants to give the money back....

Look, if this hadn't happened you wouldn't like Cain. You are no one who matters in this dogfight. The people who do are those who would have possibly voted for him. You oughta' quit throwing stones. You'll break your windows.
Click to expand...

Sorry Maggie, you are one poster I most always agree with...seems we think very similar on alot of issues...not all of course :)
Herman Cain is running for President of the USA no one knows anything about him except he was CEO of a small corporation.
EVERYONE republicans or democrats or independents deserve to know what his past was...his entire LIFE became public knowledge when he decided he wanted to run for prez.
 
apdst said:
So, you ok with Libbos saying that Herman Cain, "will sit at the back of the bus", and, "is a black man that knows his place"?
Click to expand...

No more than I am OK with Hermann Cain telling women that they have to sit at the back of the bus after he harassed them, if that is what happened.
 
Re: Lawyer: Cain accuser wants to tell her side of story

danarhea said:
She could be to Hermann Cain what Paula Jones was to Bill Clinton, but here is what I would really like to find out:

1) Those who attacked Clinton over Paula Jones, before Monica Lewinsky broke - Are you going to attack Hermann Cain the same way, or is the fact that he is a Republican more important?

2) Those who defended Clinton over Paula Jones, and claimed that Republicans were attacking his character - Are you going to defend Hermann Cain with the same vigor you defended Clinton, or does the fact that Cain is a Republican take precedence in your decision?

Here's the deal - Either Cain committed sexual harassment or he didn't. Whether he did or not will be determined by the facts. Until then, I am really interested in seeing how many hypocrites, both Democratic and Republican, are members of Debate Politics.

Watching the responses from some of our hyperpartisans on both sides is going to be very interesting.

After originally defending Cain, I am now on the fence, and will wait for more information to come in before deciding whether to further defend him, or to jump on him and demand that he withdraw his nomination for President.... And yes, for the record, I was one of the very first to jump on Clinton, and demand his impeachment, once the facts in the Paula Jones case became clear to me, and I could no longer give him the benefit of the doubt, which is what I am giving Cain, at this time.

Finally, I would advise the National Restaurant Association to lift the nondisclosure agreement, and allow the woman to talk. The alternative will be to make Cain look guilty of harassment, and the association guilty of a cover up, in the eyes of many, whether warranted or not.

Article is here.
Click to expand...

I did neither, but would like to see what evidence is available.
 
Re: Lawyer: Cain accuser wants to tell her side of story

rocket88 said:
Is this what you said about Rev. Wright? Who cares about his past?

Just proves what I already said, if you've already decided to vote for him, nothing will change your mind. If you're looking for the best person for the job, you might want to look past Cain. I don't think he's it. Regardless of this charge and its veracity.
Click to expand...
The rev Wright argument doesnt apply...The Cain situation...whatever allegedly occurred... occurred 15 years ago. The Obama/Wright connection was current and modern day. Apparently though, Obama wasnt really committed to going to church for anything other than appearance purposes and slept through 20 years of race baiting sermons. But see...night and day difference.

If Gov Perry were found to be hanging out weekly by choice with a group of racists, you wouldnt think that was something to be concerned about? If that were the case, then your argument would be relevant.
 
danarhea said:
No more than I am OK with Hermann Cain telling women that they have to sit at the back of the bus after he harassed them, if that is what happened.
Click to expand...

Yeah..."if"
 
apdst said:
I believe the point is, a presidential nominee can actually rape someone and still get elected.

All Herman Cain did was say, "You're the same height as my wife".
Click to expand...

Accusations were made against both Clinton and Cain. Both cases settled out of court, so we don't really know what happened in either case. You keep suggesting you know what happened in the Cain case(s), but you don't. We've only heard one side of the story, and precious little of that.

But we do know that Cain's accusers came forth right away, while Paula Jones didn't do anything for three years after the alleged rape -- until Clinton was in the WH and Jones teamed up with conservative activists....
 
apdst said:
I believe the point is, a presidential nominee can actually rape someone and still get elected.

All Herman Cain did was say, "You're the same height as my wife".
Click to expand...

let's have ole raisin encourage the women to come forward and speak freely
then we will see if he had his hands horizontally separated about 10 inches apart as he was speaking to the female subordinate while at the hotel
all we have now is one side of the story ... raisin's
 
Re: Lawyer: Cain accuser wants to tell her side of story

MaggieD said:
Why would they ever waive confidentiality? That's not in their best interests. She got a year's salary, as I understand it. Quid Quo Pro. Unless it's that important to her that she wants to give the money back....

Look, if this hadn't happened you wouldn't like Cain. You are no one who matters in this dogfight. The people who do are those who would have possibly voted for him. You oughta' quit throwing stones. You'll break your windows.
Click to expand...

Why would they waive confidentiality? They would do so if they wanted there to be a full airing of the alleged incidents. It would have no impact on the Restaurant Association. But I think it would be a bad move for Cain to request it. He just wants this to blow over as quickly as possible, and I'm sure it will.

Again, as is so often the case, the point isn't the scandal, but the cover up -- or in this case, Cain's handling of the story. He tried to make it go away by pretending it never happened instead of dealing with it head on. He should have said he didn't do anything wrong, he wasn't sued -- the Association was -- and the Association made a business decision that it would be cheaper to settle than to litigate, notwithstanding the fact that the charges were without merit. He should have also said that he strongly condemns sexual harrassment in the workplace.

A candidate's ability to handle this kind of adversity says something about how they will perform under pressure once in office. On this occasion I would give Cain a C-/D+.

No, I'm not going to vote for Cain, and you're not going to vote for Obama. I'll stop commenting on Republican candidates if you stop commenting about Obama. Deal?
 
Re: Lawyer: Cain accuser wants to tell her side of story

AdamT said:
Why would they waive confidentiality? They would do so if they wanted there to be a full airing of the alleged incidents.
Click to expand...

Had they wanted a "full airing," they never would have insisted on confidentiality.

Again, as is so often the case, the point isn't the scandal, but the cover up -- or in this case, Cain's handling of the story. He tried to make it go away by pretending it never happened instead of dealing with it head on. He should have said he didn't do anything wrong, he wasn't sued -- the Association was -- and the Association made a business decision that it would be cheaper to settle than to litigate, notwithstanding the fact that the charges were without merit. He should have also said that he strongly condemns sexual harrassment in the workplace.
Click to expand...

I completely agree.

I'll stop commenting on Republican candidates if you stop commenting about Obama. Deal?
Click to expand...

No way!!! I'd miss out on too much fun!!! ;)
 
Re: Lawyer: Cain accuser wants to tell her side of story

Not sure who insisted on confidentuality as it realtes to keeping it closed presently. There are reasons both would like the details not made public, both legit and cya reasons. Without seeing the evidence, we can't be 100% sure we're not wrong in our assumptions.
 
Re: Lawyer: Cain accuser wants to tell her side of story

Boo Radley said:
Not sure who insisted on confidentuality as it realtes to keeping it closed presently. There are reasons both would like the details not made public, both legit and cya reasons. Without seeing the evidence, we can't be 100% sure we're not wrong in our assumptions.
Click to expand...
usually - tho not always - the side making the payout is also the side seeking to cloak any discussion of the events which precipitated the payout
 
Re: Lawyer: Cain accuser wants to tell her side of story

justabubba said:
usually - tho not always - the side making the payout is also the side seeking to cloak any discussion of the events which precipitated the payout
Click to expand...

That is quite possible. Likely even. And part of what I was suggesting.
 
It is just frustrating that Herman Cain is going around bad-mouthing the two complainants, and my client is blocked by a confidentiality agreement,” Bennett said. “The National Restaurant Association ought to release them and allow them to respond. ”
Click to expand...

waaaah, shoulda thought about that before they took the money. I bet they weren't frustrated when they were cashing that check.
 
Re: Lawyer: Cain accuser wants to tell her side of story

Maybe Im missing it...but who are these people? Yes...people are talking about allegations, but have these individuals even been named? When they say they want to clear their name...doesnt that imply their name is actually out there being besmirched?

That is an aside. At this point I think that everything should come out (and no...she shouldnt have to pay back the hush money unless she was the one responsible for breaking the story).
 
Re: Lawyer: Cain accuser wants to tell her side of story

justabubba said:
usually - tho not always - the side making the payout is also the side seeking to cloak any discussion of the events which precipitated the payout
Click to expand...
Usually the side making the payment understands the legal system. They get that it is more affordable to pay a 20k settlement than to pay 120k to go to court and 'win.' We see similar actions in the med community regularly.
 
Re: Lawyer: Cain accuser wants to tell her side of story

VanceMack said:
Usually the side making the payment understands the legal system. They get that it is more affordable to pay a 20k settlement than to pay 120k to go to court and 'win.' We see similar actions in the med community regularly.
Click to expand...
and if that same scenario is true in this instance, where there was no actual wrong doing, then there should be no legitimate resistance to allowing the alleging party to express her version of the story

that may even result without cain's and the restaurant association's consent. seems ole raisin may have violated the confidentiality agreement the other day when he was presenting his version of what happened

all of this indicates that cain is a simpleton. nowhere has he demonstrated presidential mettle, as is clearly evidenced by his "handling" of this matter
 
Re: Lawyer: Cain accuser wants to tell her side of story

justabubba said:
and if that same scenario is true in this instance, where there was no actual wrong doing, then there should be no legitimate resistance to allowing the alleging party to express her version of the story

that may even result without cain's and the restaurant association's consent. seems ole raisin may have violated the confidentiality agreement the other day when he was presenting his version of what happened

all of this indicates that cain is a simpleton. nowhere has he demonstrated presidential mettle, as is clearly evidenced by his "handling" of this matter
Click to expand...

sorry, but the alleging party gave up her right to express her version when she cashed the check. If she wants to change her mind and talk now...give the money back.
 
Re: Lawyer: Cain accuser wants to tell her side of story

justabubba said:
and if that same scenario is true in this instance, where there was no actual wrong doing, then there should be no legitimate resistance to allowing the alleging party to express her version of the story

that may even result without cain's and the restaurant association's consent. seems ole raisin may have violated the confidentiality agreement the other day when he was presenting his version of what happened

all of this indicates that cain is a simpleton. nowhere has he demonstrated presidential mettle, as is clearly evidenced by his "handling" of this matter
Click to expand...

Where are you getting your information that Cain signed a confidentiality agreement? I think we'll find that the NRA and the lady signed one. So. he has no confidentiality agreement to violate. Unless someone can provide a link showing that he signed one...
 
Re: Lawyer: Cain accuser wants to tell her side of story

justabubba said:
and if that same scenario is true in this instance, where there was no actual wrong doing, then there should be no legitimate resistance to allowing the alleging party to express her version of the story

that may even result without cain's and the restaurant association's consent. seems ole raisin may have violated the confidentiality agreement the other day when he was presenting his version of what happened

all of this indicates that cain is a simpleton. nowhere has he demonstrated presidential mettle, as is clearly evidenced by his "handling" of this matter
Click to expand...
from what i have read, the agreement has nothing to do with Cain. He wasnt the respondent and isnt involved in any type of settlement.

I dont care about the event. Whatever happened was obviously benign. What I do care about is his response. If he has been dishonest then it should be curtains for him. That being said...it isnt that big a deal to me since I wont be voting for him one way or the other.
 
jasonxe said:
If you have a sexual allegation charge leveled against you, don't blame your rivals or the media. Blame Yourself! *Tea Party Crowd Claps*
Click to expand...

Actually it doesn't cost too much to make allegations. False allegations are made all of the time so it doesn't always follow that you should blame yourself unless you are actually guilty.
 
Re: Lawyer: Cain accuser wants to tell her side of story

OscarB63 said:
sorry, but the alleging party gave up her right to express her version when she cashed the check. If she wants to change her mind and talk now...give the money back.
Click to expand...
For 15 years she apparently has kept her part of the deal. She didnt out herself...she has been dragged into the public eye. Im no legal expert and i havent slept at a Holiday Inn recently, but I saw this episode of Law and Order (jk)...anyway...when one party violates the agreement it seems fair that the other party should be able to respond.
 
Re: Lawyer: Cain accuser wants to tell her side of story

OscarB63 said:
sorry, but the alleging party gave up her right to express her version when she cashed the check. If she wants to change her mind and talk now...give the money back.
Click to expand...

both parties will have normally executed a provision to maintain confidentiality of the agreement being signed
that ole raisin has breached that provision may enable the woman to now come forward and offer her version of the events

another fubar instance by ole raisin
another reason why he should be found to be unworthy of the office he is seeking
 
Re: Lawyer: Cain accuser wants to tell her side of story

MaggieD said:
Where are you getting your information that Cain signed a confidentiality agreement? I think we'll find that the NRA and the lady signed one. So. he has no confidentiality agreement to violate. Unless someone can provide a link showing that he signed one...
Click to expand...

as he was a complicit party to the agreement, it is unlikely that the woman making the allegations would be bound to confidentiality while ole raisin remained free to discuss the circumstances precipitating the need for the agreement
 
Re: Lawyer: Cain accuser wants to tell her side of story

VanceMack said:
For 15 years she apparently has kept her part of the deal. She didnt out herself...she has been dragged into the public eye. Im no legal expert and i havent slept at a Holiday Inn recently, but I saw this episode of Law and Order (jk)...anyway...when one party violates the agreement it seems fair that the other party should be able to respond.
Click to expand...

She hasn't been "dragged into the public eye." No one even knows who she is!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom