home

Herman Cain Strategy: Attack Accuser

Herman Cain will hold a press conference at 4 pm ET to address the allegations of sexual harassment made by "woman number four", Sharon Bialek. Cain is likely to be all fire and brimstone today. Expect a lot of righteous indignation.

His campaign has sent out an e-mail to reporters that shows his strategy. You can read it here. Classic blame the victim, who he says has a history of financial problems and got fired from a lot of jobs. One section is called "Who is Sharon Bialek?"

I'm not a political consultant but I think Cain's reaction last night on Jimmy Kimmel and today are missteps. He shouldn't have referred to Ms. Bialek as "woman number four." Every time he does that, he reminds people she's not the only one accusing him. [More...]

I think the only thing that would save Cain is if he has evidence he couldn't have done what Ms. Bialek claims, like: he was in another state that night or he was using a town car service that night and didn't drive himself anywhere. Short of that, it might help if he obtains a copy of her hotel room record which shows she wasn't upgraded to a suite.

Attacks on her reputation are unlikely to work, unless they relate to something like a history of making false accusations of sexual harassment.

I wonder how many of the Chief Executives of the National Restaurant Association have had similar claims filed against them that ended in settlements. If the answer is none, I think that's something that bears consideration: one executive has three complaints that end in settlement while everyone else had none.

Lots of people have said Cain wasn't adequately vetted. Just as troubling as the allegations to me is his seeming arrogance in knowing these claims were out there and thinking no one would find out or if they did, no one would care.

It's reminiscent of John Edwards, who stayed in the primaries thinking he could keep his relationship with Rielle Hunter a secret. Not to mention, after Edwards' protestations of denial and statements of how much he loved Elizabeth, Cain's fall-back position that he's been married 43 years is unlikely to convince anyone.

I also doubt that Cain knows what other evidence Gloria Allred has collected to support her client's allegations. Gloria may be a grand-stander, and no one winces more than I do when she appears on the scene, but she does her homework. I'm sure she vetted her client and her allegations before going public and came up with nothing that sinks her. She probably also anticipated Cain's reaction and has held some things back for Round 2. If not, she's slipping.

Another tactic by Cain that's likely to go nowhere is questioning who's paying Bialek's legal fees. These kinds of cases, like personal injury cases, are taken on contingencies with the lawyer fronting the expenses, gambling that there will be a book deal or other money coming later. Gloria doesn't take these cases out of the goodness of her heart. She's said in the past most of her cases are taken on a contingent fee basis. Even her firm's website says:

We often take employment case on a contingency basis, meaning the fees for our legal services are paid upon successful completion of the services and usually calculated as a percentage of the gain realized for the client. In other words, once your case is resolved we take a percentage of the settlement. Our firm is proud to provide power to the powerless, helping California clients victimized by those who possess money, celebrity and influence. Our attorneys are dedicated to not only the recovery of compensation but to setting the precedents that will ensure that no other person is victimized in the same way again.

< Eric Holder Testifies Again on "Fast and Furious" | Cain Denies Knowing Woman Number 4, Earlier Accuser Comes Forward >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    And there is "woman number five" (5.00 / 0) (#2)
    by Towanda on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 01:53:14 PM EST
    telling of behavior that made her and others uncomfortable, and not in the restaurant association but at a government (USAID) event.

    Now, if only the women who received the settlement are given a way forward to talk.  Allred may be a showboater, but I'm glad she's there for cases such as this, as she may find that way -- and she knows how to get media attention to situations that otherwise might not gain even a mention.  Ms. Bialek needs a fighter for her, considering the power that Cain has behind him.

    (I have to note that Allred's line on Cain offering his own sort of "stimulus package" was priceless.)

    It's possible that the two women who recv'd (5.00 / 0) (#8)
    by shoephone on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 02:14:52 PM EST
    settlements would not want to talk even if released from those non-disclosure agreements. The right wing attack machine is running at full speed, thinking they can smear and destroy Bialek, but she seems formidable. Others may not be as strong, and when the attack machine is geared up, who would want to put themselves in its path? This ugliness thrown at women in such circumstances has become standard operating procedure. It's a cliche. I'm just waiting to see how many times Cain channels Thomas in his presser, using the high-tech-lynching nonsense.

    Parent
    Agreed, definitely; the Chicago Trib (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Towanda on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 02:35:24 PM EST
    has several stories on this, as Bialek is a Chicagoan, and the grief that she is getting.

    I would not want to bring down upon me and mine the mighty power of the Koch Bros. money and machine.

    Parent

    that's so funny, because I was (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by observed on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 08:54:51 PM EST
    just thinking that Cain's referring to one accuser as "woman number 4" may have been an unconscious acknowledgement that more would be forthcoming.

    Parent
    It's Bill Clinton's strategy, in fact (2.00 / 0) (#60)
    by diogenes on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 11:08:15 PM EST
    For a long time Bill Clinton and his minions were spreading the word that Monica Lewinsky was a "disturbed woman".  Up until when the blue dress appeared, I think.

    Hmmmm. Don't remember that. (5.00 / 0) (#61)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 11:12:46 PM EST
    "In fact" (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by Yman on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 07:52:39 AM EST
    Heh.

    More like, "In Drudge", "In Newsmax" ...

    Parent

    Cain is history! (1.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Gerald USN Ret on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 02:06:20 PM EST
    Cain is history as far as the Presidency.  There are just too many women reporting these instances, and too little time to sort it all out.

    Still it is interesting as one commenter has already pointed out, the change in posture of the "site" as regards a defendant.  (i.e. Mr Cain)

    I think also that many in the Black community will see this as another attack on a "black man" that is approaching one of the very highest offices in the land.  It doesn't matter very much his politics.  

    A Black Man flew too close to the sun and he got burned.

    "change in posture (none / 0) (#40)
    by KeysDan on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 04:57:20 PM EST
    of the "site" as regards a defendant?    And, he is toast because he has too little time to sort it out?    (a) generalization; (b) not a defendant, (c) the "settlements/agreements" were not yesterday, but yesteryear--some time to get his story in line as a candidate for president.  And, is this to be seen as "another attack on a 'black man', or an attack on another black man?   And, is it just about "a black man"?  

    Parent
    How is Cain's actions any different than (1.00 / 1) (#13)
    by BTAL on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 02:47:19 PM EST
    Clinton's "Cash for Trash" strategy?

    "The people ... like the fact that I have basically decided to ignore the cash-for-trash mentality that seems to be gripping the country and that we're going back to the real issues."

    Link to actual newspaper article.

    And that was mild compared to Stephanopoulos and Carville's attacks on Flowers.

    Yes, I have thought it interesting (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 03:58:14 PM EST
    that people immediately reach for the Geniffer Flowers comparison instead of the far more apt Paula Jones comparison.

    Not sure why that is. Just the blonde hair?

    Parent

    Right wingers didn't like that Paula Jones (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by shoephone on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 04:19:05 PM EST
    made money posing for Playboy after her lawsuit was dismissed. Ann Coulter (cough) castigated Jones for not acting like a good-Christian-girl victim. As you note, it is interesting to see the wingers doing back flips over Flowers and Lewinsky, both of whom had consensual affairs with BC. I'm sure I'm not the only liberal who thought the Paula Jones harassment claims had some merit. But the right wingers themselves messed that one up by getting David Brock to write with the Troopergate story.  

    Parent
    a consensual event doesn't constitute (5.00 / 0) (#42)
    by cpinva on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 05:06:49 PM EST
    harassment, by any definition. even edwards' affair was, however odious, consensual. the rightwing noise machine was responsible for every claim of sexual impropriety brought against clinton, which had nothing whatever to do with the job he was doing as president.

    more to the point, cain and his ilk run on "family values", etc. this type of thing kills them because of the rank hypocrisy on display. it will be interesting to see how long mrs. cain sticks around, if more women come out with allegations and settlements.

    as it is, cain is (and really always was) toast.

    Parent

    If the request is from a (none / 0) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 10:09:56 PM EST
    power figure in relation to the other person, then "consensual" no longer applies.

    Or at least that is what the word was before Clinton "didn't have sex" with the very young intern.

    Funny how that rule disappeared.

    Now, is Cain guilty? I dunno. It doesn't look good. But if this was being done in a courtroom I'd say he has chance. Lots of stuff we don't know. But he's not. Gerald and SUO are right. He's toast.

    Parent

    It didn't "disappear" (none / 0) (#57)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 10:39:40 PM EST
    If the request is from a power figure in relation to the other person, then "consensual" no longer applies.

    Or at least that is what the word was before Clinton "didn't have sex" with the very young intern.

    Funny how that rule disappeared.

    ... because that "rule" never existed.

    Being a "power figure in relation to another person" does not, per se, negate consent.  If you're going to make these claims, you really should link to something to back them up if you want people to take them seriously.

    Parent

    It's been a long time since I (none / 0) (#58)
    by observed on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 11:01:36 PM EST
    read the details (and I didn't care then), but was it Clinton who actually made the request, and not Lewinsky?

    Parent
    I don't know that there was ... (5.00 / 0) (#68)
    by Yman on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 06:20:45 AM EST
    ... an explicit "request", but Lewinsky acknowledged that she pursued Clinton.  One of several, obvious differences.

    Parent
    That rule was explained (none / 0) (#88)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 11, 2011 at 08:03:14 AM EST
    in every class on supervisors and sexual harassment that I attended.

    If someone was lower in the pecking order any thing you requested of them could be taken as work related.

    Guess you are too young and/or didn't work for large companies in a supervisor position.

    Parent

    ......when sexual harassment (none / 0) (#89)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 11, 2011 at 08:05:53 AM EST
    became a focus of company management.

    Parent
    Either you misunderstood the rule ... (none / 0) (#90)
    by Yman on Fri Nov 11, 2011 at 10:16:20 AM EST
    ... or your company gave some very poor advice.  I'm guessing the former.

    I've worked in large companies and in supervisory positions.  Moreover, I worked (as a lawyer) for a division in a large agency where sexual harassment claims were a primary focus of the division.  The "rule", as you explained it, does not exist.

    Parent

    There are a (none / 0) (#91)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 12, 2011 at 10:55:23 AM EST
    lot of unwritten rules.

    Too bad you don't have the capacity to grasp that very important fact.

    Parent

    Of course there are (none / 0) (#92)
    by Yman on Sat Nov 12, 2011 at 12:14:59 PM EST
    There just aren't any "rules" like the one you just made up.

    BTW - I "have the capacity to understand" many things, Jim.  In this case (as in most, if not all cases), I just happen to know much more about the subject than you do.  But I'll tell ya what - if you provide a link to the "rule" that you just made up, I'll gladly pick up the tab for everyone at your next Tea Party meeting.  Should be easy, right?  I mean, if that's the "rule" at all the large corporations ... or anywhere else.

    I'll be right here waiting for your link.  Should take you @ 30 seconds on Google ...

    Heh.

    Parent

    You remind me (none / 0) (#93)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 12, 2011 at 01:00:06 PM EST
    of a kid I knew. If someone said his dad had caught a 5 pound bass this kid's dad had just caught a whale.

    First you were a lawyer.

    Then you were a lawyer who not only worked for large corporations but in the sexual harassment division...

    Excuse the giggle.

    You know everything about rules, but you know nothing about real life. That's fairly typical.

    Let me educate you.

    Supervisors were told not to ask for dates because as a person in power the underling could feel forced into accepting and could later claim sexual harassment. They could also claim that their rejection of the request led to them being denied promotion, etc.

    Many companies even strongly discouraged dating among peers because if a peer's partner was promoted someone could claim that the peer influenced the decision of the promoting manager.

    And you know zip about the Tea Party.

    Why don't you get a life and quit worrying about what an old retiree writes?

    I mean you being such an important person and all.

    Parent

    My turn to educate you (5.00 / 0) (#94)
    by Yman on Sat Nov 12, 2011 at 04:57:22 PM EST
    Except, in this case, my information is accurate, so it actually is an education.

    First you were a lawyer.

    Then you were a lawyer who not only worked for large corporations but in the sexual harassment division...

    Excuse the giggle.

    Actually (as usual), you misstated my background as well as what I've said.  I never said I worked for the sexual harassment division of a large corporation.  I doubt there is such a thing - but perhaps that's why you misstated what I said.

    First - between college and law school - I worked for two, large, multinational corporations.  Then I went to law school, during which time and for several years afterwards, I worked for two government agencies.  One of those agencies was the DOJ, where for several years I worked in the DOJ Management Division, Equal Employment Opportunity Section.  You may or may not have heard of it, but if not, I'm sure you can Google it.  Either way, think of it as part of the HR division for the world's largest law firm.  As you can imagine (or not), we knew a thing or two about sexual harassment.


    Supervisors were told not to ask for dates because as a person in power the underling could feel forced into accepting and could later claim sexual harassment. They could also claim that their rejection of the request led to them being denied promotion, etc.

    Many companies even strongly discouraged dating among peers because if a peer's partner was promoted someone could claim that the peer influenced the decision of the promoting manager.

    Both of those statements are probably true, although you're the one stating them, sooooooo ...

    Many, large companies (though not all by any means) do have policies prohibiting dating between employees and their supervisors, or even co-workers.  This provides some level of protection for the employer, although not entirely, as it is often ignored by employees and the policy does not, per se, eliminate employer liability.  Other companies permit dating, but require employees to disclose the relationship, often including a disclosure agreement and a requirement to notify the employer when the relationship ends.  Still other companies have no policy.

    Problem is, that's not what you originally said:


    If the request is from a power figure in relation to the other person, then "consensual" no longer applies.

    Or at least that is what the word was before Clinton "didn't have sex" with the very young intern.

    Funny how that rule disappeared.

    First, the concept of "consensual" does apply, whether you're talking about co-workers or workers in a supervisor/subordinate relationship.  A subordinate can consent to a relationship with a supervisor, whether or not it violates a policy against dating that some companies have enacted.  They may get disciplined or fired, but their consent is entirely valid, unless the supervisor coerced the employee by threatening them with firing, discipline, demotion, loss of promotion, etc.  Many employers, however, don't like supervisors dating their subordinates because of the potential for claims if/when the relationship goes bad or ends.  It then becomes difficult to prove the relationship was consensual due to the imbalance of power.  However, this imbalance does not mean that "the term consensual no longer applies".  If that were the case, any supervisor who had a sexu@l relationship with a subordinate would not only be guilty of sexual harassment, but rape, as well.

    Pretty silly.

    Another problem is that you suggested this imaginary "rule" extended beyond whatever company you worked for, by applying it to Clinton/Lewinsky.  Not only is this not true, but Lewinsky admitted that she pursued Clinton.  Moreover, she never even suggested that Clinton harassed or coerced her in any way.  In reality, she consented to the relationship - and the word "consensual" clearly did apply.

    BTW - Sorry you didn't take me up on my offer, Jim.  I was looking forward to picking up the bill for your Tea Party meeting.  Then again, ...

    ... I suppose there was a reason for that.

    Heh.

    Parent

    Quit claiming that you don't understand (none / 0) (#95)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 13, 2011 at 02:17:10 PM EST
    my point.

    Problem is, that's not what you originally said:

    If the request is from a power figure in relation to the other person, then "consensual" no longer applies.
    Or at least that is what the word was before Clinton "didn't have sex" with the very young intern.

    Funny how that rule disappeared.

    Just the request from a power figure cannot be considered consensual because it opens up too many avenues where the requestee may feel obligated to say yes.

    But you know that.

    Parent

    I understand ENTIRELY ... (none / 0) (#96)
    by Yman on Sun Nov 13, 2011 at 02:50:58 PM EST
    ... what you're saying, and I also know: 1) it's not what you originally said, and 2) like your characterization of my background, it's false.

    But you know that.

    Parent

    You ability to misunderstand (none / 0) (#97)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 13, 2011 at 06:40:09 PM EST
    is legion.

    Parent
    That's IT?!? (none / 0) (#98)
    by Yman on Sun Nov 13, 2011 at 06:55:30 PM EST
    Still no link to your imaginary "rule"?!?  C'mon, Jim ... a universal "rule" like that?  Must be easy to find something like that.  Heck, Jim, ...

    ... I'll even help you out.

    Heh.

    Parent

    Just re the facts: Lewinsky not an intern (none / 0) (#62)
    by Towanda on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 12:53:16 AM EST
    in the White House then.  She was an employee.

    Parent
    Are you saying that excuses (none / 0) (#87)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 11, 2011 at 07:57:51 AM EST
    everything?

    Parent
    Going back to real issues? (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 04:06:15 PM EST
    It is a shame that these numerous claims of sexual harassment are distracting us from how Cain would protect us from the Chinese by preventing them from developing nuclear power. Just think how much better off we would be if he would devote all of his time and effort to making sure China never becomes a nuclear power.    

    Parent
    i expect he'll build a time machine, (none / 0) (#43)
    by cpinva on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 05:08:26 PM EST
    and send a SEAL team back to stop them from developing nuclear weapons. it'd be the only way to be sure.

    Parent
    He's gonna need another time machine (none / 0) (#46)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 05:12:34 PM EST
    to unbuild their half dozen nuclear powered subs.

    Parent
    Even though you touch on it in a later (none / 0) (#1)
    by BTAL on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 01:43:19 PM EST
    paragraph, shouldn't this statement be 180 degrees the other way?

    I think the only thing that would save Cain is if he has evidence he couldn't have done what Ms. Bialek claims

    How does this square with the positions blogged here regarding the Dominique Strauss-Kahn situation?

    Maybe because ... (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 02:22:51 PM EST
    ... this isn't a situation where Cain is being charged with rape, and we're talking about being "saved" in political terms, not a criminal trial?

    Parent
    DSK wasnt running for office here (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 01:55:36 PM EST
    I'm speaking politically, not legally. Different issues entirely. Herman Cain isn't charged with a crime. He's trying to save his candidacy.

    Parent
    IIRC DSK was running or considering (none / 0) (#7)
    by BTAL on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 02:12:32 PM EST
    running for President of France so politics were involved tangentially.  I understand the different country/jurisdiction and politics/legal point but, it leads to the question of why she didn't call the authorities when it happened.  Based on her description it sounds like assault and not "mere" harassment.  

    Regardless of who is on the receiving end of this type situation, this smacks of a raw smear (without fact) campaign.  "We don't have facts but if we get enough individuals to make similar statements..."  IMHO, the accuser(s) should somehow be made to substantiate their claim(s).

    Parent

    Ridiculous (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 02:29:29 PM EST
    IMHO, the accuser(s) should somehow be made to substantiate their claim(s)

    First of all, the decision of whether or not to come forward publicly should be up to the alleged victims - they should be forced to do nothing.  Moreover, how do you propose someone "substantiate" a claim of sexual harassment, groping, etc.?  Do you think this often happens in front of witnesses or video cameras?

    BTW - At least one of the victims has provided statements from people she told about the event at the time it happened.

    Parent

    Statements "she told about the event" (2.00 / 2) (#12)
    by BTAL on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 02:41:00 PM EST
    Care to put your self on the receiving end of such a situation?

    She could have easily called the police on the night in question.  Again, by her own account, it is a description of assault.  We're talking 1997 not 1897 here, such accusations were taken seriously then just as now.  

    Parent

    Why didn't the boys who were raped (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by shoephone on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 02:54:19 PM EST
    by Sandusky call the cops? I mean, it was clearly sexual assault, and it was 2003, not 1903, right? Why doesn't every victim of sexual harassment or sexual assault immediately call the cops and put themselves in the media glare, under scrutiny, and in the pathway of powerful people who will only deny, reverse-accuse, and smear them?

    You cannot possibly be serious, asking why Bialek didn't call the cops. But then, you may have never been assaulted, so your comprehension on the matter is woefully ignorant.

    Parent

    Even the assistant coach who witnessed the rape (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 05:19:50 PM EST
    didn't call the cops.  People see stuff all the time and 95% of them don't do squat.  It's a crap defense.

    Parent
    Come on, there is a huge difference (1.00 / 1) (#15)
    by BTAL on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 03:00:26 PM EST
    between a pre-teen kid who was also supposedly threatened and a then 35 year old professional woman.

    Pure strawman argument, almost not worth responding to.

    Parent

    Actually, it was your ridiculous comment (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by shoephone on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 03:04:03 PM EST
    that women's reports of sexual harassment are taken seriously that wasn't worth responding to.

    Parent
    BS, call any Police department and report an (2.00 / 3) (#19)
    by BTAL on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 03:21:25 PM EST
    assault and as a minimum there will be a report filed after at least  interviews with one(worse case) or both of the individuals.  Or are you saying the police just ignore such reports?  

    Parent
    Oh, BS yourself (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by shoephone on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 03:50:12 PM EST
    Reporting an incident of harassment or assault doesn't mean ANYTHING UNLESS THERE IS IRREFUTABLE PHYSICAL OR DNA EVIDENCE, OR AN EYEWITNESS. Without that, cases go nowhere fast. Invariably, these incidents are rarely taken seriously BY ANYONE who has any actual power over the perpetrator, unless it means that the company or organization involved is going to suffer for it, either financially or in the media. And that's what happened at the National Restaurant Association -- they paid the women off and insisted on non-disclosure agreements.

    Stop playing stupid. It's just boring.

    As for real-life examples of professional women being treated like trash after being harassed, See: Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas. It may refresh your memory.

    Parent

    It is clear from your comments that (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 03:55:43 PM EST
    you have no earthly idea what you are talking about, have not a clue what it feels like to be doing your job, being professional, treating your co-workers and supervisors with respect, and have some a-hole who thinks he's all that use his position and power to treat you like an object there for his personal gratification.  The "just joking" double entendres and outright dirty jokes, the thinly disguised leers, the inability to be looked at in the eyes instead at one's chest, the "suggestions" that going along will help you keep your job.   I bet you've never worried and agonized over what would happen if you reported it, whether you might end up without a job, not given the good assignments.

    Talk to me about what women could do, or judge them when they don't do what you think they should do if they want to be taken seriously, when you are in that position, when you know what it feels like.

    If someone mugs me on the street, takes my purse and hits me over the head, if someone attacks me with a knife - I have something to show a police officer, don't I?  What do I have when I've been sexually harassed?  When someone puts his hands on my body?  I have a feeling.  I have my words, which - I can guarantee you - will be contradicted by the offender.  "Oh, no, officer, she must have misunderstood; I would never do such a thing."  And then what?  What police officer isn't going to see if this can be "worked out?"

    While you are as entitled to your opinion as anyone, I seriously and honestly wish people like you would stop thinking you are any kind of authority on this subject, because all you end up doing is showcasing the reason more women don't come forward to report what is done to them:  because nothing they say or do is ever enough proof that they were, in fact harmed.

    Thanks for sharing.


    Parent

    So both of you are taking the position (1.00 / 2) (#27)
    by BTAL on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 04:14:14 PM EST
    that she should just have remained silent and not reported an assault.

    It is that simple.  If an assault happened, then it doesn't matter who the perpetrator may be, remaining silent is not the solution for either the individual/victim or society.

    Specifically in this case, she was not employed by Cain so it wasn't an "uncomfortable" environment being "tolerated" for sake of employment safety.  

    Finally, as stated earlier, EVEN IF it ends with just a he said/she said result, the report will be on file with the authorities.  It may not result in a charge or conviction in that particular instance but it does establish concrete basis for other earlier or subsequent alleged acts.  This is just practical common sense decision/action not requiring any expertise or subject matter authority.

    Parent

    That is not what I'm saying AT ALL (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by shoephone on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 04:27:31 PM EST
    But there you go again, playing dumb. My comment was pretty clear. It is not my position that women should not report harassment or assault, but that doing so does not necessarily mean the allegations will be taken seriously by those who are actually in a position to do anything about it. Get the difference?

    And, once again, just for good measure: The mere existence of a police report MEANS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. A claim of harassment or assault that lacks any physical or DNA evidence rarely goes anywhere.

    Parent

    Frankly (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by sj on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 04:31:53 PM EST
    your determined regurgitation of this nonsense makes me wonder if you are using such "logic" to justify your own actions.  I agree that there may be other reasons to be so obtuse, but self-preservation is usually a pretty good starting point.

    Parent
    You're either stupid or a fool.... (5.00 / 0) (#39)
    by Angel on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 04:48:18 PM EST
    or both.  I'll go with both.

    Parent
    How is it even POSSIBLE ... (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 05:45:40 PM EST
    So both of you are taking the position that she should just have remained silent and not reported an assault.

    ... to read their statements and make that claim?

    BTW - Ms. Bialek had just been fired by the NRA (where Cain was her boss) and she was seeking his advice to get her prior position back or help getting a new one.

    Parent

    It was not an assault; she is not saying so (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by Towanda on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 12:56:58 AM EST
    so stop claiming that she ought to have reported an assault, when she is not stating that.

    She is stating that it was sexual harassment, and that is not something for which one goes to the cops.

    This is a law blog.  Do you understand the difference between assault and harassment?

    Parent

    I see nowhere in my comment where I (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 07:23:48 AM EST
    concluded that Bialek - or any woman - should just remain silent and not report.

    Nowhere.

    Only someone who has been living in a cave would be unaware that there is still - in the 21st century - a tremendous problem with the reporting of sex-based crimes, whether it is harassment, assault or rape.  

    Why is that?  Well, if you do some research, you will find that in spite of attempts on the part of a host of agencies and advocacy groups to educate people at all levels of the reporting process, and the public, the reason a lot of these things go unreported is largely because of the way women are treated when they do report.  I mean, we are still fighting to get people to understand that "no means no," regardless of what someone was wearing, how much she had to drink, what her behavior had been in the moments prior, what her sexual history is, what her financial situation is, and so on.  

    And now we are seeing the stock approach to allegations of sexual misconduct: attack the accuser, make her out to be the worst kind of human being there is in order to sway public opinion.

    Which is why a lot of women don't come forward.  They don't want to be the workplace pariah, the one who got that really swell guy in the corner office in trouble, the one who just couldn't take a joke, the one every man in the office is afraid to look at sideways lest they be caught in the web of this woman's machinations.  They don't want to have some high-priced corporate lawyer, whose job it is to defend the company from liability, looking into every corner of their lives, talking to everyone they ever worked with, to their neighbors, looking at their finances.  They don't want their families to be swept up in something that could get extremely ugly and drag on for years.  They don't want to be "that woman" at every job interview they go on from that point forward.

    Even though, they know they were harassed, or touched inappropriately.  Even if it's and open secret in the office that this boss or that supervisor does this kind of thing.  Even though they know they've done nothing wrong.

    How do you not get this?  Or are you just being deliberately obtuse, trying to find all the could-haves and should-haves you can in order to be able to reduce an allegation to the level of a lie?

    Go look in the mirror: you will be looking at one of millions of people who help create and perpetuate the very atmosphere that discourages reporting of sex-based crimes, even as you use the lack of reporting to support your contention that if nothing was reported, maybe nothing happened.

    You must be so proud of yourself.

    Parent

    "A-hole?!" Such a sexist term. (1.00 / 0) (#53)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 05:49:32 PM EST
    Kidding!

    Parent
    Donald, I am so sorry for what you experienced (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by shoephone on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 04:34:21 PM EST
    I remember you referring to this incident before, and all I can say is, you were braver than I was. (It happened to me at 13 with a math tutor, but apparently, he thought that I would tell, and we never saw him again after that day.) But your comment proves BTAL's theories so wrong that I must thank you. He claims that pre-teen boys would never tell anyone about abuse, but that 30-ish professional women would.

    Parent
    To be clear: (none / 0) (#38)
    by shoephone on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 04:37:37 PM EST
    When I was later harassed at music school -- at age 30 -- I chose not to report him, though I should have. You, a 12-year-old boy, did report it, you got great support from your family, and still... the perpetrator was protected.

    Parent
    fwiw, I was sexually abused several times (5.00 / 0) (#54)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 05:56:07 PM EST
    during my pre-teens, and I never breathed a word of it to anybody until I was in college. (When it became clear during a freshman dorm BS session that I was far, far, from alone in my experiences.)

    My point is only that our own experiences do not make any of us an authority on anyone else.

    Parent

    I am very sorry for what happened to you (2.00 / 0) (#47)
    by Buckeye on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 05:17:00 PM EST
    But, just because you experienced something horrible does not mean we are to believe every accusation of harrassment.  I agree that because she did immediately report it does not mean it did not happen. But it does matter in Cain's defense.  For example, there are 3 other accusers that did immediately report it.  Also, hiring Allred does not help her credibility in my mind.  

    Sorry, but Sharon Bialek is not lying. She's telling the truth. And yet the establishment and its lackeys smear her and rally around Herman Cain, a wretched man who's clearly not fit to be in charge of anything.

    Stop blaming the victims. You really don't know what you're talking about, and it's repulsive.

    If all it takes is an accusation for us all to be lectured like this, then why even bother having this site.

    Parent

    Seriously? (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 05:34:16 PM EST
    I agree that because she did immediately report it does not mean it did not happen. But it does matter in Cain's defense.  For example, there are 3 other accusers that did immediately report it.

    How does the fact that she chose not to report it while the 3 other women did report it "matter in Cain's defense", exactly?  How are their reports even relevant to her accusations, other than establishing a pattern of conduct on Cain's part?

    Parent

    SH is a serious offense (none / 0) (#65)
    by Buckeye on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 04:26:14 AM EST
    I have never done it and fortunately it has never happened to me yet (knock on wood).  But being a serious charge, we also should be fair to Cain.  Her accusation is coming without any evidence, 14 years after the fact, with Allred standing next to her (which impairs her credibility in my mind). We should not immediately convict Cain from just an accusation.  This is not a victim's rights forum.  This is a forum dedicated to protecting the accused.

    Parent
    Not an answer (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Yman on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 06:15:26 AM EST
    First of all, I'm pretty sure everyone's aware that this forum focuses on the rights of criminal defendants, as well as the fact that sexual harassment is a "serious charge".  In this case, however, Cain is a politician running for office.  He is not being charged with a crime - or even named in a civil suit, for that matter.  He is not being "convicted" of anything.  Finally, it's not "just an accusation" - it's numerous accusations - from four/five women (so far) and a Republican consultant.  The fact that Ms. Bialek chose Allred to represent her (not my favorite attorney, either) is irrelevant.  But back to the original question:

    How does the fact that she chose not to report it while the 3 other women did report it "matter in Cain's defense", exactly?

    Parent

    Your response is completely irrelevant (none / 0) (#71)
    by Buckeye on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 09:04:36 AM EST
    to the points I am making.  But to answer your question.  It matters a great deal in Cain's defense.  Let's just assume for arguments sake a lawsuit happens.  If she gives reasons as to why she did not come forward (embarrassment, fear, thought no one would believe her, etc.) a lawyer representing Cain would simply state that others reported immediately, it did not stop them.  Why not you?  14 years is a long time to have not brought it up.  Why now?  

    Perhaps she is doing it for justice.  She may have thought no one would have believed her then but now that she is not alone (others have complained), perhaps she has more confidence she will be taken seriously.  She may also think it is important that people know what kind of person Cain is before voting for him.  I hope so.

    Or does she want money?  She claims no, but that can change.  Having Allred next to her does not help in my mind (you may want to bury your head in the sand about who Allred is and what she does, fine.  Not me, Jeralyn has posting frequently about Allred's attention seeking money grubbing flaws).

    We will see how this plays out, but I will not convict someone of something (criminal or not) just on accusations.

    Parent

    My response is ENTIRELY relevant (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Yman on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 09:31:46 AM EST
    No one is "convicting" Cain of anything.  He is not now charged with a crime, and will not be charged with one based on Ms. Bialek's allegations.  As for this hypothetical lawsuit, it isn't going to happen ... at least not one based on what Ms. Bialek says happened in 1997.  The statute of limitations has long since run on any criminal or civil action, so if you're trying to attack her credibility with questions about her motives (i.e. "or does she want money"?), you may want to try again.

    That being said, there are numerous, valid reasons why a woman would choose not to report the incident at the time, as the vast majority of sexual harassment incidents are unreported.  I wasn't asking if Mr. Cain's attorneys would bring up the issue in some imagined lawsuit.  Of course they would.  I was asking whether you were claiming it was relevant.

    As for Ms. Allred - your opinion of her has absolutely zero relevance to the credibility of Ms. Bialek or her allegations, although I am truly shocked that any high-profile attorney would be interested in garnering attention or money.

    What is the world coming to?

    Parent

    Your points (2.00 / 0) (#73)
    by Buckeye on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 09:56:11 AM EST
    No one is "convicting" Cain of anything.  He is not now charged with a crime, and will not be charged with one based on Ms. Bialek's allegations.

    Semantics.  I am well aware he is not charged with a crime.  You know what I mean.  I am not going to assume he is guilty of something awful (what Bialek is accusing him of IMO is worse than mere SH).

    As for this hypothetical lawsuit, it isn't going to happen ... at least not one based on what Ms. Bialek says happened in 1997.  The statute of limitations has long since run on any criminal or civil action, so if you're trying to attack her credibility with questions about her motives (i.e. "or does she want money"?), you may want to try again.

    I know that.  I used the word hypothetically for a reason.  There are many ways to get money out of this other than a lawsuit.

    That being said, there are numerous, valid reasons why a woman would choose not to report the incident at the time, as the vast majority of sexual harassment incidents are unreported.  I wasn't asking if Mr. Cain's attorneys would bring up the issue in some imagined lawsuit.  Of course they would.  I was asking whether you were claiming it was relevant.

    I never said there wasn't.  You are reading too much into my posts.  I said it matters in Cain's defense for the reasons I mentioned.  Yes, it is relevant.  Does not mean it exonerates Cain, but it most certainly is relevant IMO.

    As for Ms. Allred - your opinion of her has absolutely zero relevance to the credibility of Ms. Bialek or her allegations, although I am truly shocked that any high-profile attorney would be interested in garnering attention or money.

    LOL.  I am just going to assume you do not know much about Allred.  Does this mean Bialek is not to be believed b/c Allred is standing next to her?  No.  But in my opinion (which is all we are discussing - our opinions - since there will not be a trial, criminal or civil) it does not help her.  
     

    Parent

    And yours (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Yman on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 12:12:30 PM EST
    Semantics.  I am well aware he is not charged with a crime.  You know what I mean.  I am not going to assume he is guilty of something awful (what Bialek is accusing him of IMO is worse than mere SH).

    Yes, I do know, but words have meanings, particularly on a legal blog in the context of these accusations.  When you say "We should not immediately convict Cain from just an accusation", you are both exaggerating the situation faced by Cain and minimizing the facts.  A sexual "assault" also has a specific meaning, although I can understand why someone would try to use the most inflammatory language possible to describe the events, if they were trying to suggest Ms. Bialek's claims are less credible because she did not call the police when he touched her leg and moved his hand toward her groin.  Hey - why wouldn't she report an "assault"?!?

    He is not facing criminal or civil charges and is not entitled to either a presumption of innocence or a jury trial.  People are free to weigh the evidence against him and form their own opinions about whether he did that which he is accused.  Moreover, those that believe the accusers are doing so on much more than just "an accusation".  There have been four or five women so far and a Republican consultant who have witnessed the events in question.

    I know that.  I used the word hypothetically for a reason.  There are many ways to get money out of this other than a lawsuit.

    You didn't use the word "hypothetical" - I did.  As for the "other ways to get money out of this", there is absolutely zero evidence she is doing this for money.  You have no problem suggesting she could be doing this for money with absolutely no evidence, while at the same time stating it's unfair to "convict" Cain based on numerous statements suggesting a pattern of this type of conduct by Cain.

    Strange.

    I never said there wasn't - (vaild reasons for not reporting the incident).  You are reading too much into my posts.  I said it matters in Cain's defense for the reasons I mentioned.  Yes, it is relevant.  Does not mean it exonerates Cain, but it most certainly is relevant IMO.

    My point was that the non-reporting of the incident is easily explained.  Moreover, the fact that some of the women chose to file complaints at the time is irrelevant to the credibility of Ms. Bialek's claims.

    LOL.  I am just going to assume you do not know much about Allred.  Does this mean Bialek is not to be believed b/c Allred is standing next to her?  No.  But in my opinion (which is all we are discussing - our opinions - since there will not be a trial, criminal or civil) it does not help her.  

    My reply - that I was "shocked" that a high-profile attorney would be interested in garnering money or attention - was snark.  Lawyers do their work to get money, for their clients and themselves.  The attention is also good for future business.  That being said, and your obvious disdain for Allred notwithstanding, her presence does not have any relevance to Ms. Bialek's credibility.

    Parent

    face palm (1.00 / 0) (#79)
    by Buckeye on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 12:49:10 PM EST
    Yes, I do know, but words have meanings, particularly on a legal blog in the context of these accusations.  When you say "We should not immediately convict Cain from just an accusation", you are both exaggerating the situation faced by Cain and minimizing the facts.  A sexual "assault" also has a specific meaning, although I can understand why someone would try to use the most inflammatory language possible to describe the events, if they were trying to suggest Ms. Bialek's claims are less credible because she did not call the police when he touched her leg and moved his hand toward her groin.  Hey - why wouldn't she report an "assault"?!?

    [shake my head] whatever dude.  If it will make you feel better, I will never say "convict" with this case anymore, I will say "assume guilt".  Feel better.

    You didn't use the word "hypothetical" - I did.  As for the "other ways to get money out of this", there is absolutely zero evidence she is doing this for money.  You have no problem suggesting she could be doing this for money with absolutely no evidence, while at the same time stating it's unfair to "convict" Cain based on numerous statements suggesting a pattern of this type of conduct by Cain.

    wtf?  If you read carefully what I wrote, I am not assuming anything about this woman.  I am responding to your rebuttal that she cannot be after money because she is not filing a law suit, or statue of limitation is up, whatever...I am saying there are many ways of getting money from something like this.  And believe me, Allred knows all of them.  The whole point of this thread is whether or not to "assume guilt" on Cain on just an accusation.

    There have been four or five women so far and a Republican consultant who have witnessed the events in question.

    1st, there are only 4, not 5 (could change).  A republican consultant did not witness eventS.  There is a claim they witnessed one event.  Also, as to the stacking of complaints, as I mentioned above, #3's accusation consists entirely of claiming Cain said "Darling, can you please doctor my tea?" That does not sound like harrassment to me.  A frivilous charge.

    Thanks, but I am going to wait and see how things shake out before I "assume guilt" on Cain.

    Parent

    Good for you (none / 0) (#82)
    by Yman on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 04:38:40 PM EST
    [shake my head] whatever dude.  If it will make you feel better, I will never say "convict" with this case anymore, I will say "assume guilt".  Feel better.

    No, not "whatever".  Words have meanings.  Once you figure that out, maybe you'll not only "feel better", but your arguments might hold up better, "dude".

    wtf?  If you read carefully what I wrote, I am not assuming anything about this woman.  I am responding to your rebuttal that she cannot be after money because she is not filing a law suit, or statue of limitation is up, whatever...I am saying there are many ways of getting money from something like this.  And believe me, Allred knows all of them.  The whole point of this thread is whether or not to "assume guilt" on Cain on just an accusation.

    I never said she "can't be after money".  I said you were suggesting it as a way to attack her credibility with absolutely zero evidence.  See if you can figure out the difference.  Your whole point may be not to "assume guilt on Cain on just an accusation".  My point is: 1)  It's not an accusation - it's several accusations, and 2) Allred's presence is irrelevant to Bialek's credibility, just as the fact that two of the other women choosing to file reports has no relevance to Bialek's credibility, 3) there is plenty of evidence for people to form an opinion re: Cain's behavior, without resorting to the kind of utter speculation you're all-too-willing to use with regard to Ms. Bialek.

    1st, there are only 4, not 5 (could change).  A republican consultant did not witness eventS.  There is a claim they witnessed one event.  Also, as to the stacking of complaints, as I mentioned above, #3's accusation consists entirely of claiming Cain said "Darling, can you please doctor my tea?" That does not sound like harrassment to me.  A frivilous charge.

    It's a little hard to keep track, hence the word "or" in my sentence.  So let's say "4", as of now.  My point was (and remains) that it was not just "an accusation", as you've stated at least twice - there are several accusations - four from women and one from a Republican consultant.  To be clear, when I was talking about the 4 women and the consultant who witnessed the "eventS", I was talking about the five different parties as a group who witnessed different events at different times.  I was not claiming the consultant witnessed all of the events.  Hope that makes you "feel better".

    BTW - The "Darling, could you doctor my tea?" wasn't one of the accusations.  The first two women were NRA employees who haven't yet spelled out their accusations, although Cain's claim was that the basis of one claim was comparing the woman's height to his wife - heh.  The third woman was another employee who stated Cain made sexually suggestive comments/gestures, commented on her attractiveness and invited her up to his apartment.  The fourth woman was Ms. Bialek.  Chris Wilson was the Republican consultant who witnessed Cain's behavior in a restaurant in Crystal City.  He wouldn't spell out the details of the incident, but noted that if she came forward, it 'would probably be the end of his campaign".

    As far as your "darling, would you doctor my tea?" comment, I hadn't heard that one before.  There are no news stories about it - which is strange, given the attention this is receiving.  It is making the rounds at a bunch of winger websites, though, usually as part of an attempt (surprise, surprise) to minimize the seriousness of the accusations against Cain.  Turns out it comes from Cain's appearance on a radio show in Iowa.  Steve Deace, the host, posted on his Facebook page that "Cain had "said things to both of my female staffers that at best are professionally awkward if not inappropriate over the last several months."  When asked about it after the other incidents became public, Deace said he didn't want to talk about it publicly or drag his staffers into it.  The "Darling, do you mind doctoring my tea for me?" was something Cain said on the day of the broadcast to another woman who was there to report on his interview.  It was not one of the accusations to date... although if you'd like to count it, that would be number five, and six and seven, including the unspecified, "inappropriate comments" to both of Mr. Deace's staffers.

    Parent

    If you want to insist that you are right) (none / 0) (#85)
    by Buckeye on Thu Nov 10, 2011 at 05:43:38 AM EST
    and I am wrong simply because I used the word convict when talking about Cain's guilt than some other word, then fine.  I think your reasoning is ridiculous.

    I don't feel like responding to your arguments anymore too many problems which is what happens when someone assume guilt without basis.  Just 2 examples, you said there are 4 or 5 accusers and a witness to the events.  It was only 4 and a witness is involved in only one event.  Further, the "witness" did not see a SH event. The "witness" just said she saw them talking once.  Cain was saying he does not know her (perhaps it was that he does not remember?)  The  rep consultant "witness" said she saw them talking once.  These things are not just semantics, they are simply wrong.  But you want to hairsplit my words???  

    It is pointless discussing this with you.  You have already made up your mind.

    Parent

    Factually WRONG ... again (none / 0) (#86)
    by Yman on Thu Nov 10, 2011 at 07:11:23 AM EST
    I don't feel like responding to your arguments anymore too many problems which is what happens when someone assume guilt without basis.  Just 2 examples, you said there are 4 or 5 accusers and a witness to the events.  It was only 4 and a witness is involved in only one event.  Further, the "witness" did not see a SH event. The "witness" just said she saw them talking once.  Cain was saying he does not know her (perhaps it was that he does not remember?)  The  rep consultant "witness" said she saw them talking once.  These things are not just semantics, they are simply wrong.  But you want to hairsplit my words???

    In addition to pushing the winger fairy tale (the "Darling, would you please doctor my tea?" statement which was not one of the events reported as SH), now you're conflating the Republican consultant (Chris Wilson) who witnessed Cain's "Inappropriate behavior" at a Crystal City restaurant with Amy Jacobson, the talk radio host who saw his brief encounter with Bialek at a TP event last month.  Wilson, the Republican consultant to who I was referring, did not specify the conduct he witnessed, but he did say it was "inappropriate" and "if she (the alleged victim) comes out and talks about it, like I said, it'll probably be the end of his campaign."

    BTW - There were four, separate women (so far) who are witnesses to their repective incidents, plus Mr. Wilson -  unless you want to count the incident at the radio station in Iowa - the real one where Cain behaved "inappropriately" to two of Mr. Deace's staff, not the reporter that Cain asked, "Darling, would you please doctor my tea?"  Then that would be five and six.

    Parent

    The payoff... (none / 0) (#74)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 10:06:05 AM EST
    could be delivered by Cain's rivals...yes I am that cynical.

    Just as there are sick f*ckers who would expect a bj in return for a job quid pro quo, there are sick f*ckers who would make such a claim falsely for cash.  Both have happened and will happen, though the prior with more frequency than the latter.

    Parent

    Just for the record, the 3rd accusers sole (none / 0) (#77)
    by Buckeye on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 12:39:38 PM EST
    complaint against Cain?  She said that Cain said "Darling, can you please doctor my tea?"

    Sounds frivilous to me.

    Parent

    I hear ya... (none / 0) (#78)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 12:41:57 PM EST
    I do not think every claim of sexual harassment is sexual harassment.  

    Sometimes its just being a d*ck or a creep without crossing the threshold to harassment.

    Parent

    I knew a guy that worked at Merrill Lynch (none / 0) (#80)
    by Buckeye on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 12:55:32 PM EST
    in a South Texas office.  Very nice man, big family, etc. and very southern.  And I mean huckleberry southern.  He was loud, very strong draw, and stood close to you when he talked.  He did that to everybody, from the managing director to the admins, men and women.  It was just how he talked.  Everyone in the office considered him one of the nicest men they ever knew.

    He took a one week trip to Denver for a sales conference.  When he returned, he learned that one of the women in the office went to HR to complain about sexual harrassment with this guy.  He was distraught.  He asked why.  The entire claim from this woman was that he stood too close to her when he talked to her in the copy room.  She said she felt uncomfortable and reported him to HR (even though she knew she would never see him again and all he did was stand close to her when he talked).  No lawsuits or anything, but it did stay on record that an accusation was made.

    Not all accusations are true.  Some that are true are either minor or the offender had no idea they were doing it.  And then some are serious.  The 4th accussors claims against Cain is very serious IMO.

    Parent

    Did the guy at Merrill Lynch ... (5.00 / 0) (#84)
    by Yman on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 10:16:24 PM EST
    ... have accusations of harassment from four different women, including allegations that are much more serious than "standing too close"?  Did his employer previously pay substantial amounts to settle claims from two of those women?  What if there were other incidents of "inappropriate" public behavior toward women?  If all of that happened, would you still accept his claims of "just standing too close" at face value?

    Parent
    We got a touchy-feely... (none / 0) (#81)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 01:23:41 PM EST
    guy at my outfit...nothing sexual about it imo, but he'll get up in your space, touch your arm or shoulders.  

    Some people are just like that, if it bothers somebody they gotta let him/her know, and if they persist, then it might be harassment.

    Parent

    No, that was NOT ... (none / 0) (#83)
    by Yman on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 04:42:12 PM EST
    ... the third accuser's complaint against Cain.  The "Darling, can you please doctor my tea" comment isn't one of the accusations.  It's from a radio interview Cain did in Iowa.  It is not one of the accusations, just an attempt by some winger websites to try to minimize the seriousness of the allegations against Cain.

    Parent
    what a joke (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by kmblue on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 05:37:44 PM EST
    "But, just because you experienced something horrible does not mean we are to believe every accusation of harrassment."

    Believe every accusation of harassment?  Most people don't believe ANY accusation of harassment.

    And that's why women don't come forward.

    Parent

    She "COULD have ... (5.00 / 0) (#18)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 03:16:02 PM EST
    ... called the police"?  No kidding ... but she chose not to.  Perhaps she didn't think it was a great idea to accuse her boss of sexual harassment/assault at a time when she needed his help finding a new job, or getting her old one back.  Perhaps she was (as she stated) willing to let the overture and the touching of her leg go when it was just a matter involving her, but now felt obligated to come forward to defend the other unnamed women who (understandably) don't want to be thrust into the media spotlight.  In any event, the vast majority of sexual harassment goes unreported (as many as 95% of all cases) - the fact that a victim chooses not to report it means virtually nothing - and they should in no way be forced to come forward.  Although it should be noted that Ms. Bialek told two other people about the incident at the time, and they have provided statements to that effect.

    BTW - I'd be happy to put myself on "the receiving end of such a situation".  If I were running for President, you wouldn't have multiple women (and a Republican pollster) accusing me of sexual harassment, groping, etc.

    Parent

    She wasn't employed by Cain or the (1.00 / 1) (#28)
    by BTAL on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 04:15:01 PM EST
    association at the time.  Let's try to stick to the facts.

    Parent
    Some more facts for you (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by nycstray on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 04:21:58 PM EST
    Powerful/well connected man in the same industry she's in.

    Parent
    She had just been let go (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 05:10:40 PM EST
    Hence my statement " ... at a time when she needed his help finding a new job, or getting her old one back (to be clear, the one at the NRA, where Cain was her boss)".

    But nice attempt at diverting from the point, ... just as you did above after your original post where you tried to suggest there was an inconsistency here between Cain and DSK.

    Parent

    You state you've been in professional politics (2.00 / 2) (#21)
    by BTAL on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 03:29:48 PM EST
    for a long time, get enough people saying the same thing (in this case accusations) and it "becomes" something.  Same thing happens in other environments (ie work places) where the "common knowledge" become indisputable fact.

    At this stage, there has been little provided other than one individual coached by Allred with self serving hearsay affidavits.

    As to your proving coercion question, what she is alleging is assault not coercion.

    The latest/fifth report is already out there.  It is laughable.  Biggest issue in that report is that Cain supposedly ordered two $400 bottles of wine and didn't pay his fair share of the bill.

    Parent

    So you think the NRA routinely gives settlements (5.00 / 6) (#23)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 03:55:16 PM EST
    to women just because they make a claim, without trying to establish any facts of the cases?

    Where do I sign up?

    Parent

    I'm guessing it's very much (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by nycstray on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 04:29:49 PM EST
    a boys club.

    Parent
    "Self-serving hearsay affidavits" (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 05:29:02 PM EST
    The affidavits are are not "self-serving", given that they were provided by people who are corroborating her claims, not for their own benefit.  Now, maybe you're to suggest that her original statements were self-serving, which could be true, ... if you also believe she made them with the idea that she would go after Herman Cain 15 years later when he became a Presidential candidate.

    Heh.

    BTW - The purpose of the statements is to corroborate she told people about Cain's behavior at the time, not testimony that he harassed/assaulted her.  They're not "hearsay".

    Parent

    No, NOT assault. Harassment. (5.00 / 0) (#64)
    by Towanda on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 01:00:42 AM EST
    And you just keep showing your ignorance of the difference, not only in the actions of the perpetrator but also in the resort that a victim has for harassment.

    Do you understand the difference between criminal and civil law?  And for which one you go to cops?

    Parent

    "One accuser" (2.00 / 0) (#59)
    by diogenes on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 11:06:08 PM EST
    "I could understand that statement if there was only one accuser..."

    So what do you make of the Clarence Thomas case, where there was just one accuser?

    Parent

    There wasn't "just one accuser" (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by Yman on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 05:59:52 AM EST
    Anita Hill was the only one who agreed to testify before the Senate, and that was only after her interview with the FBI was leaked.

    Parent
    Angela Wright also was prepared (5.00 / 0) (#75)
    by brodie on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 10:28:31 AM EST
    to testify about her similar experience with Clarence but she was nixed as a witness, probably by a nervous chairman Biden who wanted to bend over backward to avoid the appearance of unfairness and piling on against Thomas.  A third witness was also ready to testify to support the testimony of Wright and Hill.

    Parent
    actually, his crime (none / 0) (#45)
    by cpinva on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 05:10:43 PM EST
    is extreme hubris, beyond even the expected level for a politician. good thing it isn't actionable, the country doesn't have sufficient jail cells.

    Parent
    Cain's toast.

    Done and done (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by jondee on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 01:58:09 PM EST
    not even Long Dong Silver Thomas could save him at this point.

    Parent
    Who was tasked w/vetting Cain? (none / 0) (#41)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 04:59:05 PM EST
    You aren't suggesting the GOP would block a potential candidate from filing?  Nah.