Cain accuser wants to tell her side of story

conservativeguy said:

No, he never settled anything. The NRA settled with the women AFTER Cain left the organization and Cain never signed anything. Everything was done out of court since there was never a case to begin with.

Click to expand...

Sheik Yerbuti said:

The news is reporting otherwise ...

Bennett said he would not disclose the amount of the monetary settlement his client was awarded by the National Restaurant Association. He also noted that Cain--who was then president of the NRA--did not sign settlement documents. Cain has stated he has no knowledge of a settlement involving this accuser--or with any other women who had lodged sexual harassment allegations against him.

Herman Cain accuser stands by 1999 harassment claims, won’t reveal details; NRA confirms complaint​

Click to expand...

OscarB63 said:

he paid her to go away because the lawyers were afraid she would win her appeal and the lawsuit would be reinstated. such fears would be unjustified if her accusations were meritless

$850K is an awful ot of money to pay to make a meritless case that had already been dismissed go away

Click to expand...

Sheik Yerbuti said:

Like most of everything you've been posting today, you have no evidence of that other than your overactive imagination.

Like it or not, based on the evidence she provided in court, her case was found to be "meritless." Your fantasies of why Clinton paid her to go away notwithstanding.

Click to expand...

OscarB63 said:

perhaps you are confused? your own link says that Cain did not sign the settlement

Click to expand...

Sheik Yerbuti said:

Like most of everything you've been posting today, you have no evidence of that other than your overactive imagination.

Like it or not, based on the evidence she provided in court, her case was found to be "meritless." Your fantasies of why Clinton paid her to go away notwithstanding.

Click to expand...

OscarB63 said:

and apparently the overactive imaginations of Clinton's lawyers who advised him to pay nearly a million dollars rather than take the chance of an appeal. yeah, that sounds like the charges were meritless

Click to expand...

Sheik Yerbuti said:

Holy ****, are you going to gnaw at my ankles all day?

Conservativeguy posted the settlements came after Cain left the NRA. I even highlighted that in his quote to avoid confusion, yet it didn't help you apparently because you are still confused.

Your confusion aside, the part I highlighted was the part I was responding to. Conservativeguy claimed the settlements came after Cain left the NRA and the part of the article I posted was, in at least 1 of the 2 cases, the settlement occurred while Cain was still the president of the NRA.

Gnaw away . . .

:lamo

Click to expand...

Sheik Yerbuti said:

Well they were found to be meritless by the presiding judge while all you have is your overactive imagination.

Click to expand...

OscarB63 said:

spin away, you claimed Cain settled, your own link shows otherwise, but hey...thanks for playing

Click to expand...

OscarB63 said:

see the post above yours. even the lawyer who disagrees with me on everything thinks you are wrong :lamo

Click to expand...

Sheik Yerbuti said:

So? I posted the link to you which stated the case was dropped due to lack of merit.

Click to expand...

OscarB63 said:

please look up the definition of "harassment". his alleged actions might be considered "assault" but it is NOT harassment. harassment requires a pattern of behavior, not a one time event.

Click to expand...

solletica said:

Any behavior that makes someone else feel bad is harrassment. Of course, in a free society, the sticks and stones principle applies, i. e. depending on the relationship of the harrasser to the victim, unless it involves physical harm or a threat of harm, punishing the harrasser is not always necessary. If a man, say, just made lewd remarks to a pretty woman walking in a park, but that would not require punishment.

But even though specific kinds of harrassing behavior (i. e. lewd remarks) may not merit jail time, a formal complaint, lawsuit, or even a monetary settlement, that does not mean that punishment won't take place. If one is running for political office, mere evidence of any harrassing behavior, i. e. rude remarks, is sufficient to destroy that candidate's chances. That's just the way politics works.

If cain admits to anything at all, including of just remarks that could be seen as rude, he will do more time in the oven. Case closed.

Click to expand...

Sheik Yerbuti said:

The news is reporting otherwise ...

Bennett said he would not disclose the amount of the monetary settlement his client was awarded by the National Restaurant Association. He also noted that Cain--who was then president of the NRA--did not sign settlement documents. Cain has stated he has no knowledge of a settlement involving this accuser--or with any other women who had lodged sexual harassment allegations against him.

Herman Cain accuser stands by 1999 harassment claims, won’t reveal details; NRA confirms complaint​

Click to expand...

conservativeguy said:

Seriously, you are relying on the plaintiffs attorney to tell the truth.......good grief.

Herman Cain accuser attorney: Settlement dated 9/99, Kilgore signed - Jonathan Martin - POLITICO.com

Click to expand...

MaggieD said:

Harrassment is ongoing unwanted attention. This last lady isn't claiming sexual harrassment. He stopped. She's claiming sexual assault. I wonder if that means if some guy cops a feel he can be indicted.

Guys!!!! Get signed contracts!!!!

Click to expand...

OscarB63 said:

exactly: one instance of making a comment is not harassment. one instance of groping, etc is assault. some people refuse to see there is a difference

Click to expand...

liblady said:

not true, oscar, as several people have pointed out.

Click to expand...

OscarB63 said:

exactly: one instance of making a comment is not harassment. one instance of groping, etc is assault. some people refuse to see there is a difference

Click to expand...

OscarB63 said:

it is true, not my fault if a few liberals on this forum don't like it. :shrug: I'd love to see you try to sue a guy for harassment after he made one comment to you.

the only way a single comment could ever be considered harassment would be if it was so severe and so egregious that it could be considered a threat. and even then it wouldn't be harassment, it would be assault

Click to expand...

Sheik Yerbuti said:

Here, read it again, this time for clarity ...

What is sexual harassment?

Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination. The legal definition of sexual harassment is “unwelcome verbal, visual, or physical conduct of a sexual nature that is severe or pervasive and affects working conditions or creates a hostile work environment.”​

Severe or Pervasive

The conduct of the harasser must either be severe or it must be pervasive to be sexual harassment. A single incident is probably not sexual harassment unless it is severe. For example, a single incident of rape or attempted rape would probably be sexual harassment (it would also violate criminal laws).​

ERA: Sexual Harassment at Work​

Click to expand...

Aunt Spiker said:

assault itself is merely threatening harm on someone - if it's enacted on it becomes battery.

sexual assault is the harmful conduct of any sexually-related acts against someone. . .the same word but it's given two different definitions (legally)

Click to expand...