Looks like he's having a press conference to address the new claim this afternoon... He was also on Kimmel last night... <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/_FhuhwhoDdI?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/eCjscowxiBs?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8b4y-CAbhCY?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Accusations are not evidence, sorry. And it's difficult to disprove something that didn't happen, that's what makes the accusation so insidious and effective. It doesn't need to prove anything, just stain the person's character enough to get the job done. I'm not saying that is the case with Cain, withholding judgement for now.
For a political douchebag you do have a rich musical history. My oldest friend up in Longview, he's a close friend and huge supporter of Louie Ghomert, was the person that turned me on to Black Blues (Taj Mahal specifically in 1970). I can't seem to get him to understand the disconnect between the compassion and humanity of the music and his political pettiness. You either. (he did take a beat down from some black youths at one of our high school football games, maybe that was it)
Actually, accusations, in the form of testimony, *is* evidence. And in cases involving sexual harassment, testimony is often the only form of evidence (in the Lewinsky case, she had physical evidence... but that seems rare, and the keeping of that evidence was deemed "weird"). In the Hill versus Thomas case, there was not only her testimony as evidence, but there was corroborating evidence from co-workers and friends that Hill told about the harassment. There was also another woman who made similar accusations (the senate chose not to have her testify). And while it has come many years later, an ex-girlfriend of Thomas has made statements about Thomas and p*rnography that at least partially corroborates what Hill testified.
Sorry to double, but on this point I agree... lets let Cain give his version of these stories and also see if more people and evidence comes to light.
As I said in the other thread I wouldn't convict Cain criminally over what we know now but I don't think these allegations are baseless. The fact that two women were paid off shows that at least the NRA felt there was enough substance to the allegations that they had to silence them.
The most recent accusations makes me pause. . . . Basically . . . from the accusation . . he asked a woman to hook him up with another woman and she 'FELT' he had malicious intent or something so she declined . . . he then asked her out . . . . and she declined again. NOW. I think he was a bit of a CAD and maybe a bit rude and uncooth but Harrassment? He asked. She said no. and they both moved on. Except . .she didn't . . now she feels HARRASSED some years later This bothers me because. . . . If you asked her out . .and she likes you It is all good. IS she don't like you . . NO is not enough . . now it is HARRASSMENT? uneasy about that situation Rocket River
He's given his version - or versions, to be more accurate. His version changes every day though, so who knows which to believe. He's holding a press conference about it today, so we'll get the latest version this evening.
What? You may choose to not believe her, but that's not at all what she claims happened: http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...-herman-cain-of-sexual-harassment.php?ref=fpb Bialek described an incident after dinner in 1997 in Washington DC when she said Cain reached up her skirt and tried to force her head to his crotch while the pair were in Cain’s car. Do you believe that is acceptable behavior?
RR, you're right -- #5 isn't much of a story. #4 is more problematic. Cain's sexual harassment: non-consensual Mark Foley propositioning pages: non-consensual Clarence Thomas: non-consensual Clinton affair: consent John Edwards affair: consent Gerry Studds: consent Ted Kennedy: affair was consensual (though he got off too easy on her death) In short, I don't think there's a double-standard here. It's just that the media, the voting public, members of congress, and everybody else are able to see a little more nuance to these scandals than just sex and party affiliation. Besides there are plenty of sex scandals for Democrats in which they did get crucified, and they didn't have to include anything non-consensual either. Anthony Weiner comes to mind.
Yeah it's funny that the GOP was supposedly up in arms over Weiner's scandal which didn't involve anything non-consensual and didn't even really involve any sex. That was horrible, yet Cain's problems which were all non-consensual somehow aren't a problem for them. It's a great example of hypocrisy.
One of Weiner's big problems was he lied about it and later had to admit lying as more facts came to light. Not sure how this will play out in Cain's case, since the episodes were from the pre-twitter age. Cyberspace provides more paper-trail than real life-- so, there's a lesson to you: When you do something creepy, do it in the physical world, not cyberspace. Then again, the Weiner thing took a while to grow, so there's time for more stuff to come up.
But Cain was videotaped lying about it once the story broke. First he had no recollection of any settlement, then hours later he's on FOX news talking about the details of one of the settlements. His initial responses were nothing but lies. His interviews demonstrate it clearly.
