• 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

justabubba said:
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
Click to expand...

Nice fancy word "complicit." You can't be a party to a contract unless you've signed it. Period. No one else can bind a third party to anything.
 
Re: Lawyer: Cain accuser wants to tell her side of story

MaggieD said:
Nice fancy word "complicit." You can't be a party to a contract unless you've signed it. Period. No one else can bind a third party to anything.
Click to expand...

while i have not seen it, i would not be surprised if the confidentiality agreement bound all parties
ole raisin was an officer of the association at the time. that he is no longer would not then give him license to expose what had been formerly been found confidential

but you will notice, it may very possibly be that he has now unilaterally breached such an agreement, providing the opportunity for the opposing party to do the same ... again noting my caveat above
 
Re: Lawyer: Cain accuser wants to tell her side of story

justabubba said:
while i have not seen it, i would not be surprised if the confidentiality agreement bound all parties
ole raisin was an officer of the association at the time. that he is no longer would not then give him license to expose what had been formerly been found confidential

but you will notice, it may very possibly be that he has now unilaterally breached such an agreement, providing the opportunity for the opposing party to do the same ... again noting my caveat above
Click to expand...

Ya' know, ya' can't just sue somebody. What are her damages? No one even knows who she is -- and won't unless she herself violates the agreement. (Or her attorney.) If what you're saying is right, which I don't believe for a minute it is, then why isn't she speaking out? One speaking out, by the way, doesn't mean Katy Bar the Door. Violating the contract does not necessarily negate it in its entirety. If this were black-and-white, she'd be screamin' from the rooftops.
 
Re: Lawyer: Cain accuser wants to tell her side of story

MaggieD said:
Ya' know, ya' can't just sue somebody. What are her damages? No one even knows who she is -- and won't unless she herself violates the agreement. (Or her attorney.) If what you're saying is right, which I don't believe for a minute it is, then why isn't she speaking out? One speaking out, by the way, doesn't mean Katy Bar the Door. Violating the contract does not necessarily negate it in its entirety. If this were black-and-white, she'd be screamin' from the rooftops.
Click to expand...


you are assuming that her case, and the resulting agreement, is not being revisited by her attorney
my understanding is that it is now under review
we should soon see if she has the ability and inclination to make her version of this situation public
 
Re: Lawyer: Cain accuser wants to tell her side of story

I see no reason why money would be a problem. If what she had to say was juicy enough I am sure some news organization could come up with enough money to make it worth the effort. She could pay the money back and have something left over. It may be in he best interest of Cain's enemies to keep the details hidden if they seem to be frivolous.
 
Re: Lawyer: Cain accuser wants to tell her side of story

MaggieD said:
She hasn't been "dragged into the public eye." No one even knows who she is!
Click to expand...
Its true we dont know her name and I mentioned that in another thread. We dont know her name...yet. I just really believe that the cat is out of the proverbial bag for whatever reason. Cain didnt bring it out but since it was out he HAD to respond. the question now is what was his response? If he is being honest...that whatever she claimed was harassment was simply an innocent gesture taken the wrong way...fine. Hell...Im sure we all (men and women) have done something or said something that could be misinterpreted). But if there were legit charges, his statement "I have NEVER sexually harassed anyone" now comes into play.
 
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...

allow me to answer your "hypothetical" with a reality check.. regardless of your political affiliation, I would hope that due to the fact that this was A. 20 years ago, and B.take into account the timing, and C. and most importantly the fact that there was a nondisclosure agreed to 20 years ago.
which means the seriousness of the charge was sold for a monetary fee. which would lead me to believe that this stunt may have a monetary motive. basically if he didnt rape someone, and its all based on an inuendo or gesture of some sort...dont we feel at least a little silly for entertaining ourselves with it.
 
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...

Why does she give up more than he gave up? Someone did pay her, right? For what? Look, you can draw no conclusions from what we know. it says nothing one way or the other to his guilt. If he wanted accquital, it can be argued, he should have made it go to court.
 
Re: Lawyer: Cain accuser wants to tell her side of story

shes a gold digger and to that we can rest assure
 
Re: Lawyer: Cain accuser wants to tell her side of story

MaggieD said:
View attachment 67117867

..........
Click to expand...

and something about your picture tells me you know a lot about palming...

but on topic, and to defend what I said, why dont you tell me what you think her motive to come out now is, if not money...
Cain didnt mention her by name, and it has been 20 years,

just something she could no longer hold in, shes been to therapy and taken pills, and just cant shake it?
 
Re: Lawyer: Cain accuser wants to tell her side of story

shades said:
allow me to answer your "hypothetical" with a reality check.. regardless of your political affiliation, I would hope that due to the fact that this was A. 20 years ago,
Click to expand...
the press says it was 12 years ago. this is a character issue. if it is found that ole raisin misused his influence a dozen years ago to sexually intimidate a subordinate employee, does that character flaw dissolve over 12 years

and B.take into account the timing,
Click to expand...
ok. what about the timing


and C. and most importantly the fact that there was a nondisclosure agreed to 20 years ago.
Click to expand...
your item 'a' and item 'c' appear very much alike; again, the press is indicating that it was 12 years ago

which means the seriousness of the charge was sold for a monetary fee. which would lead me to believe that this stunt may have a monetary motive. basically if he didnt rape someone, and its all based on an inuendo or gesture of some sort
Click to expand...
we can speculate that money was exchanged. from raisin's employer to the purported victim of his sexual harassment. raisin himself indicates that there was a sum tendered to the woman ... after he initially questioned whether she received any monetary payment

you appear willing to ignore someone in a position of authority abusing their authority to sexually harass an underling, provided that abuse of authority does not "rise" to the level of rape. you appear unwilling to recognize that this woman's career was adversely impacted by the supervisor's inappropriate behavior. the possibility exists that the employer lost a very capable employee - besides the expense of settlement - only because ole raisin could not control his sexual innuendo. you spoke of the 'timing' issue above. could it be that ole raisin's departure from the restaurant association so soon after this incident was precipitated by his proclivity to mistreat his subordinate staff

...dont we feel at least a little silly for entertaining ourselves with it.
Click to expand...
i can certainly understand why you would feel that way
 
Re: Lawyer: Cain accuser wants to tell her side of story

Boo Radley said:
Why does she give up more than he gave up? Someone did pay her, right? For what? Look, you can draw no conclusions from what we know. it says nothing one way or the other to his guilt.
Click to expand...

she was paid for her silence....he wasn't :shrug:

If he wanted accquital, it can be argued, he should have made it go to court.
Click to expand...

just as it can be argued that if she had wanted her version to be made public, she should have refused the payoff.

funny how these kinds of people always seem to have a change of heart and feel the need for the truth to be told.....after the payoff money runs out.
 
Last edited:
Re: Lawyer: Cain accuser wants to tell her side of story

shades said:
and something about your picture tells me you know a lot about palming...

but on topic, and to defend what I said, why dont you tell me what you think her motive to come out now is, if not money...
Cain didnt mention her by name, and it has been 20 years,

just something she could no longer hold in, shes been to therapy and taken pills, and just cant shake it?
Click to expand...

Palming? I don't know what that means, though I imagine it's a slam. I sense it makes more sense to say it to you than to Abby. :rofl

When she "comes out," I'll let you know. She hasn't. Actually, though, I interpretted your post to mean that initially her motive for reporting years ago was because she was a gold digger. Perhaps you need to be clearer in your posts.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Let's not do the facepalm thing, nor the insult thing. Thank you.
 
Re: Lawyer: Cain accuser wants to tell her side of story

shades said:
shes a gold digger and to that we can rest assure
Click to expand...

We have absolutely no information on her motives. We cannot even begin to make an educated guess. She could be looking for money, she could be outraged that the man who did outrageous things to her is potentially the next president, she could be reacting to the publicity. Who knows.
 
Re: Lawyer: Cain accuser wants to tell her side of story

not saying it's the case in this instance.

but isn't it funny how in many of these cases the accusers suddenly catch a case of the conscience and just can't live with themselves if they don't clear the air and get the truth out....shortly after the settlement money runs out?

that's the trouble with paying hush money. sooner or later the money is going to run out and they are going to come back at you with their hand out for more. better to take your chances in court, if you are innocent, in many cases.

Michael Jackson paid that little kid's family $20 million in hush money and they still tried to use it against him in court.
 
Last edited:
Re: Lawyer: Cain accuser wants to tell her side of story

OscarB63 said:
not saying it's the case in this instance.

but isn't it funny how in many of these cases the accusers suddenly catch a case of the conscience and just can't live with themselves if they don't clear the air and get the truth out....shortly after the settlement money runs out?

that's the trouble with paying hush money. sooner or later the money is going to run out and they are going to come back at you with their hand out for more. better to take your chances in court, if you are innocent, in many cases.

Michael Jackson paid that little kid's family $20 million in hush money and they still tried to use it against him in court.
Click to expand...

well, we know she kept her silence for 12 years
 
Re: Lawyer: Cain accuser wants to tell her side of story

MaggieD said:
Nice fancy word "complicit." You can't be a party to a contract unless you've signed it. Period. No one else can bind a third party to anything.
Click to expand...

That's not strictly true. An organization with full power to work on one's behalf can enter into an agreement on your behalf. You don't have to sign a thing. You don't even have to approve of the agreement! An example would be if a police officer was accused of excessive force, and the city entered into a confidential agreement with the victim. The city signed the agreement, the city signed the check, but all parties, including the police officer and the police union, are part of the confidentiality agreement.
 
Re: Lawyer: Cain accuser wants to tell her side of story

Redress said:
We have absolutely no information on her motives. We cannot even begin to make an educated guess. She could be looking for money, she could be outraged that the man who did outrageous things to her is potentially the next president, she could be reacting to the publicity. Who knows.
Click to expand...


That's a possibility that occurred to me. I can't even begin to imagine what I'd think if some lecherous creep from my past, who caused me to give up my job just to get away from him, was suddenly in contention for a position of national power, like president or supreme court justice. I don't think I'd have Anita Hill's courage, and be prepared to be publicly smeared for the rest of my life in order to let the nation know what kind of man they are dealing with, specifically because I've seen over my lifetime that the nation really doesn't care what kind of people they are dealing with. Character doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that they belong to the "correct" political party.
 
Re: Lawyer: Cain accuser wants to tell her side of story

OscarB63 said:
not saying it's the case in this instance.

but isn't it funny how in many of these cases the accusers suddenly catch a case of the conscience and just can't live with themselves if they don't clear the air and get the truth out....shortly after the settlement money runs out?

that's the trouble with paying hush money. sooner or later the money is going to run out and they are going to come back at you with their hand out for more. better to take your chances in court, if you are innocent, in many cases.

Michael Jackson paid that little kid's family $20 million in hush money and they still tried to use it against him in court.
Click to expand...

I am not sure on this, but the impression I get from reading the one Politico article was not that they came forward but that this was discovered. The politico article I read stated that they had managed to discover the identity of the two women after they became aware of the story, which would suggest that the women did not come forward. However, again, I am making a supposition and if any one knows more please correct me.
 
Re: Lawyer: Cain accuser wants to tell her side of story

DiAnna said:
That's not strictly true. An organization with full power to work on one's behalf can enter into an agreement on your behalf. You don't have to sign a thing. You don't even have to approve of the agreement! An example would be if a police officer was accused of excessive force, and the city entered into a confidential agreement with the victim. The city signed the agreement, the city signed the check, but all parties, including the police officer and the police union, are part of the confidentiality agreement.
Click to expand...

I'm sure coppers (your example) sign a subrogation agreement upon hire. Or, wait, I could imagine a corporation could insist on having an employee sign a subrogation agreement before entering into litigation like we're talking about here. IOW, "You want us to defend this on your behalf? Sign here." If Cain did that, you're right. He would not have had to sign a thing.
 
Re: Lawyer: Cain accuser wants to tell her side of story

MaggieD said:
I'm sure coppers (your example) sign a subrogation agreement upon hire. Or, wait, I could imagine a corporation could insist on having an employee sign a subrogation agreement before entering into litigation like we're talking about here. IOW, "You want us to defend this on your behalf? Sign here." If Cain did that, you're right. He would not have had to sign a thing.
Click to expand...

With police officers... all municipal employees, actually, and most corporate employees... do not really have to sign a subrogation agreement. It's called "terms of employment", and is contained in the personnel manual of the organization. Employment is almost always contingent upon complying with terms of employment. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom