Patters

Since everybody wants the truth, let's hope the National Restaurant Association releases her from her confidentiality agreement. For the righties who complain, they cannot forget they set this game in play during the Clinton impeachment, and its an effective way to bring further chaos to the group of the fools known as Republican candidates for president.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/02/us...pagewanted=all

WASHINGTON — The National Restaurant Association gave $35,000 — a year’s salary — in severance pay to a female staff member in the late 1990s after an encounter with Herman Cain, its chief executive at the time, made her uncomfortable working there, three people with direct knowledge of the payment said on Tuesday.

The woman was one of two whose accusations of sexual harassment by Mr. Cain, now a Republican candidate for president, led to paid severance agreements during his 1996-99 tenure at the association. Disclosure of the scale of the severance further challenged his initial description of the matter as a “witch hunt,” as did new descriptions from the woman’s friends and colleagues of her level of discomfort at work.

Adding to the pressure on Mr. Cain, a lawyer for the second woman called on the restaurant association to release her from a confidentiality agreement signed as part of her settlement, raising the prospect that she could publicly dispute Mr. Cain’s account of what happened.

Mrs.PatsFanInVa

So he claimed the settlement was 1/4 of what it was when he stated it was equal to, "3 or 4 months salary?"

Interesting concept - her lawyer is saying that because Cain was also involved in the agreement that he, too, was bound by the non-disclosure clause and since he's violated it by giving specific details that the clause is no longer valid.

Makes sense to me.

Either neither of them can "tell their side" or both can.

That's fair.

khayos

I thought there were two people -- maybe he's confusing them?

Mrs.PatsFanInVa

There were - and I'm getting a little confused, too. It seems (although I am not sure because I might be reading it incorrectly) that it's not the "little short woman" who wants to speak, it's the other one.

If that's the case then she's got less of a leg to stand on saying that she can talk because he's already talked.....but maybe not because she can say that by NOT releasing the name of the woman Cain is referring to it makes it look as though it is her - and she may have had a much more valid reason for her suit than the "little short" woman did.

I suppose the mere fact that he's saying, "It was unfounded. It never happened," makes her look bad and she should be allowed to say, "Yes it did and here's what it was."

Real World

If she took money and signed an agreement, that's her problem, and no one elses. I hate when people sign a contract and then whine about it. Don't like it, don't sign it.

Until all the info is out it's hard to know what really happened. None of this helps him in my opinion. Maybe it helps him with his "Cainiacs" (what some are calling his most ardhent supporters), but generally it hurts. Still though, for some, this stuff isn't a big deal. It's like smoking a joint. Some people shun it, some people say who hasn't taken a drag before. With cases like this, some people feel he's a scumbag perv, others say he's just a normal guy looking to get laid. IMO, as I've been saying, this hurts much more than it helps. If it ends up that the allegations are weak at best, then it might serve him well. I just don't personally see that as being the case. Either way, I don't think the guy is going to be the nominee. Never was, and isn't going to be.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

wistahpatsfan

Even if this issue didn't exist, Cain is nowhere near good enough to be President. He is ignorant, and inept at dealing with his personal problems. He is also a plant for the corporate government. The fact he is polling so well speaks more to the ignorance of the voters than it does to his qualifications. He is a much lesser man than Obama, Gingrich, Romney, Paul, ...maybe even Perry and Bachman.

He should have come right out and said, "Yeah, a former worker came out and accused me of inappropriate behavior so I paid her X amount to go away. It happens all the time. I'm betting half the people up here on stage have done it once...even Michele. Grow up everyone. Now, about Uzbeki-beki-beki-stan...."

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Mrs.PatsFanInVa

Agreed - but since an "agreement' cannot be entered into alone, by virtue of definition an agreement takes place between two or more people, I would presume that Herman Cain also agreed to the terms of the settlement....if not him, personally, than someone did so for him.

As of right now, she is not talking about it - he is.

Shouldn't his violation of the agreement(s) nullify the agreement?

Real World

Couldn't the same be said of Obama circa 2008? I could be wrong, but I believe you're an Obama supporter, are you not? So if Cain isn't good enough to be president now, how was Obama good enough in 2008? I could probably make an arguable case that Cain is as qualified, if not more qualified, to be president than Obama was in 2008. I'm not saying he is, I'm just saying the case could be made. I just think it's funny to see people who support(ed) or voted for Obama 3 years ago, calling other people unqualified, and their supporters ignorant. It screams...



BTW, when certain people said the same things about Obama 3 years ago, anyone remember what they were called? It all goes to my general point that it's not about race or gender for the most part. It's about ideology and beliefs. People tend to support those who think as they do before anything else is considered. It was racism for a lot of people when it came to criticism of Obama 3 years ago, yet now those very people are criticizing Cain. Is this racism too? I don't think so at all. It wasn't then, and it isn't now. It's about criticizing people who you disagree with and don't support politically, or ideologically. For most anyway.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

Mrs.PatsFanInVa

Herman Cain says it's racism.

Herman Cain: I Can’t Prove It, But These Allegations Are Racist (VIDEO) | Election 2012

His campaign is using the following phrases to raise money for him:

They are engaging in a “high tech” lynching by smearing his reputation and attacking his character.

Let’s stand up against those who would like to take down any black man who stands up for Conservative values

‘Don’t Let The Media ‘Lynch’ Another Black Conservative’ Cries Pro-Cain Group | Election 2012

Real World

Do you know the details of the agreement? I don't. It will ultimately depend on the specific language.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897