I don't have evidence either way except that there seems to be a pattern of this. I guess I'm slightly in favor of believing her.
It's a little unfortunate that her attorney is Allred. Any reasonably intelligent human is going to realize that if your attorney is Gloria Allred, there's a significant portion of the population that will immediately be biased by that fact. Better to have an unknown attorney IMHO. Whether you believe her or not doesn't really matter. Cain was never going to be the nominee or VP nominee. Well, since Palin, I guess I can't really say that, so maybe it matters a little. The only difference it will make is that it will keep him from getting a FOX News show so he'll be relegated to nighttime syndicated radio and will only be able to draw speaker's fees from 25% or the population instead of 35%. Finally, she looks sort of like a cute Tammy Faye Baker.
I am just curious about how the GOP voters will react to this. Ms. Bialek says she is a Republican (no reason not to believe her since this kind of stuff is easy to verify), so I guess there goes that "liberal high tech lynch mob" nonsense. If this turnes into an intra-GOP fight, it could get very interesting. Also, Sharon Bialek is not the cute Tammy Faye Baker, Tammy Faye Baker is the cute Tammy Faye Baker.
They'll blame the media and Liberal dollars. Because Romney and Perry are so above using smear tactics in a primary that has Cain leading in the South and tied in other states.
*sigh* Why not file at that time? When it happens . . say . . when they running for president it seems like. . . .like you trying to cash in. I would hear more before I say yea or nay but Why wait so long???? Rocket River
Real victims follow that behavior too, but I'm also inclined to believe the cash in aspect. Those two things aren't mutually exclusive. It could very well be that she was groped back then, and wants to cash in now.
It seems logical to me. If you have a charge against a powerful man in a corporation, it can seem like your chance of getting justice (or vengeance) is low -- they'll have HR people and lawyers and everything covering that guy's ass. Then, he runs for president and you're resentful but you say 'Who will believe me?' Then, other accusations come out, people start thinking he's the sort of man to sexually harass underlings, the context is there where people will believe you. And, he's vulnerable, his flank is wide-open. You don't have to deal with lawyers or HR or anything, no one can protect him. Call any reporter on the phone, say your piece, and you got all the vengeance you ever wanted; not some piddly cash settlement, you humiliated him before the nation and killed his chance to be President of the United States of America. That has to feel good.
A woman pays a big personal price for coming out in public. If Cain's poll numbers had remained in single digits like everyone though they would, there was no use in bringing this up. But in the mind of an accuser, his meteoric rise in the polls means he must be stopped. Plus, there is a good chance she was contacted by someone digging up dirt on Cain and encouraged to come out.
Innocent until proven guilty...even if I don't like his politics. It would be disingenuous to not give him the benefit of the doubt while expecting others to do so for me if I were in a similar predicament. So, unless she can produce some concrete proof of these allegations, he is an innocent man.
That is the power of the Media Proof is not really necessary "just the appearence of guilt" can be enough Rocket River
Innocent until proven guilty works in criminal courts. We are not talking about locking Cain up here. Here we don't have to give either him or her the benefit of the doubt. You weigh her words, his words, the fact that there are other women making similar charges, all of the circumstances (and possible political motivations), and whatever else come to light and decide which one you believe. Edit: Found this:
Dead on. I wish more people understood this concept. The phrase "innocent until proven guilty" is way overused in general discussion.
Why on earth would anyone not believe her? Because Cain denied it? Cain has denied making statements he himself made on camera only hours earlier. He denies everything, as a reflex. There are four women now and we know of two settlements. Why did all these women start picking on him with similar accusations so many years ago? And why has Cain himself been all over the place on his denials? Why does he flatly refuse to discuss it? This is pre-admission Clinton all over again. I don't think this is the main reason not to vote for Cain (the main reason is that he's dumb as a rock so as a Dem I would LOVE for him to win the nomination) but I do think it's pretty silly to think these women are fabricating this stuff.
This is the most spot on thing I've ever seen you post. Repped. An Allegation never has to be proved in the publics eyes..just the mere accusation is enough for most people to judge someone.
I'm not talking about the courts, I'm talking about my opinion. And in my opinion, a person (any person) is innocent until proven guilty. Her words are no more provable than his. Thus, I cannot, in good conscience, convict him in my mind.
If there is no substance to these allegations why then did the NRA pay off at least two of these women? I would've been more willing to give Cain the benefit of the doubt on Bialek's accusation but the fact that the National Restaurant Association felt ti necessary to settle over previous claims of sexual harassment long before Cain was in the media eye shows that there may be more to this than just media hype.
