E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSCain still leads the GOP field, but will it last? Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour offers his advice on how Cain handles this campaign crisis.
Herman Cain should come clean immediately, and release the details of a settlement with a former National Restaurant Association employee who accused Cain of sexual harassment, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R) said Wednesday.
Barbour, speaking on MSNBC's Daily Rundown with Chuck Todd, urged Cain to release his accuser from a confidentiality agreement associated with the settlement in order to help get the story behind his campaign.
"Everybody watching knows, if a week from now we've had one week of the confidentiality agreement is keeping the facts from coming out, that's not in Herman Cain's interests," Barbour said. "Herman Cain's interest is getting this behind him where he can get back and focused on the things that made him very popular among Republican voters."
Barbour, who considered running for president himself, is regarded as one of the sharpest political minds in the GOP. He hasn't endorsed any of the Republican presidential hopefuls currently in the race.
Cain has been dogged since Sunday night, when Politico reported that the NRA had settled with two women who accused Cain of harassment. In the days since, Cain has acknowledged that there were settlements (after initially denying recollection of them), but he has steadfastly denied any harassment.
An attorney for one of the women now says she wishes to be released from the confidentiality terms of the agreement, but Cain declined to say Tuesday evening whether he'd agree to the request.
"I think the best interest of Herman Cain's campaign -- of everybody -- is let's get all the facts out," Barbour said. "I can tell you this: If you have a confidentiality agreement that keeps the public from finding out something that the public is interested in knowing the facts, you ought to go on and get the facts out."
Leave a Comment:
Shouldn't that be a burning cross in the background? I wonder what happened to his white hood?
devie... your comment is nothing but inflammatory and adds no value. I reported it as such too. :-)
Thanks SOB. Nice to see too.
BTW SOB it wouldn't be surprising to most anyone that Haley and Rove were behind the sexual harassment leak...
Oh, Devie.. I'M telllll....inggggg.
LOL! Thanks dbo I needed a good laugh. What would do without the self appointed poster police?
Well, Cain now has two choices.
Drop out gracefully or be pushed out noisily.
I think Barbour just gave him the first nudge.
Cain is just crazy enough to wait around for the second one.
Might as well sit back and enjoy it.
As Feisty might say, popcorn, anyone?
Exactly. Apparently that was lost on some of the posters on this thread.
For SOB to be sensitive to a post about anything defies credulity given what he posts here daily. Hypocrite much?
[I think Barbour just gave him the first nudge.]
AM, it seems that the party bigot got the task of "nudging" the black guy out of the line...I knew Cain wouldn't last against the Tea Party...
What is most disturbing about this scandal is how Mr. Cain, his campaign, his supporters, the Republican Party and conservatives in the media have downplayed the serious nature of Cain's behavior. Sexual harassment is serious business, and for the supposed "family values" political party to make light of such anti-family crimes committed by Herman Cain is wrong and totally offensive. http://www.sunstateactivist.org
Apparently this country has moved to the idea that all it takes is an accusation to be deemed GUILTY.
mattpfl... I call you a witch!
"...downplayed the serious nature of Cain's behavior."
Yeah, its alleged behavior at this point. He may well be a seriel harasser, or this may be nothing. I think most of us have seen things that fall on either side of that fence, with regard to sexual harassment complaints. Until we know, we don't know.
What I find offensive is you referring to it as "crimes comitted by Herman Cain" when there is no such evidence, just your assumption.
He has no track record of things of this nature other than these two incidents. Compare that to Clinton who had a track record a mile long before Lewinsky.
It is common practice for companies to offer settlements even for baseless claims if it resolves them quickly and costs them less than the legal battle. A settlement made was between the company and the women and Cain had no say in it. So the existence of a settlement and a payout does nothing to indicate guilt. And if the payout was low, it does more to justify innocence and a baseless claim. As I understand it, the settlement may have been 3 months severance pay to make the claim go away. If that is in fact the case, then the claims must have been baseless as that is a pittance compared with the cost to defend. and any claim of base would have netted a much bigger settlement at least equal to the cost to defend. And an attorney would have taken the case on a percentage and pushed hard to pursue if it had merit. But none of that happened, as I understand it.
Sexual Harassment is serious business. And anyone with a real claim will dig in their heels, not accept pittance settlements, severance pay and lose their job. And reasonable people will realize that if the company chose this route to minimize costs, it has no bearing on whether or not the claim had any validity. It just means they could make it go away easily with minimized cost. If the cost to settle was less than the cost to defend ( and indications are it was less ) then it is the prudent business decision and no guilt is admitted or implied.
And the confidentiality agreement was not between Herman and the women. It would have been between the company and the women. I doubt Herman can single handedly waive the agreement and make public the details.
We have not downplayed the serious nature of Mr Cain's behavior, as we are not aware of any wrongdoing or specific behavior to downplay. And neither are you Matt. You just choose to assume, which is what the liberal media is counting on. Uneducated assumption of guilt.
ABO 2012
Uh oh, was that a inflammatory remark about mattpfl there SOB? That's not very nice calling a fellow poster a name.
Dsdsherm you are wrong they never just hand out cash for bogus claims, bogus claims are easily and cheaply dispatched. I keep hearing this bogus argument of it is the cheap way out because of the high cost of litigation, but you and others keep forgetting that cuts both ways. If a claim is deemed to be bogus they let the claimant incur the high cost of bringing her case to court, people don't spend that kind of money to try and collect on a bogus claim, and a lawyer wont take it on contingent unless he thinks he can make a good case. They only settle when they know there is a good case against them, and or when they want to seal the details so wifey does not find out exactly what hubby was up to. By the way a years salary is not a pittance to that women, but it was a pitiful amount for such a wealthy man to sell his reputation for if the womens claims were unfounded.
"mattpfl... I call you a witch!"
Well, at least you admit it.
You seem to be making progress. Neat.
Actually it does not surprise me that my comment was completely lost on you devie...
Let me spell it out for you since you seem to be part of the SLOW group here.
There was a time in the history of our country where a fear of witches led to the out and out murder of hundreds of innocent women... merely accused of being a witch. The town was Salem...
SO... the term 'witch' was a reference to a horrid time in the early days of our nation... not an inflammatory name...
Hope that helped you pass your third grade history test. :-)
Blessed Be. An accusation of being a witch is not as bad a thing as you can say or do. Cain however and not the harassment but his reaction to it far surpasses any stupidity you learned as a child when it comes to Wicca and it's practice. Need I remind you that even at the infamous Salem witch trials it was the accusers that lied? The accused were actually under the influence of something that had grown on the materials used for bread at that time? Oh well ignorant is as ignorant does.
That's my point, Ray. Even at the Salem witch trial it was the accusers that lied. Yet those women were found GUILTY!
Now here we find ourselves doing the same thing... accusing and in the mind (small minds i might add) of many here... finding him GUILTY.
Mind you... I am NOT defending Cain... I am saying that people should remember... Innocent until PROVEN guilty! (note that nowhere in that statement does the word accused come up.)
SOB, Thanks for the time warp back to Salem, MA and the 17th Century.
"I'm not a witch, I'm you."
DRIP ... DRIP ... DRIP ... DRIP ... DRIP ...
But you ARE subtly accusing the complainants of lying with every line you write.
Think about it.
I think we had this conversation the other day. Does it make any difference to you to find out that at least one of the woman was paid a full-year's salary?
DRIP ... DRIP ... DRIP ... DRIP ... DRIP ...
Like oral sex in the oval office of a married man with an intern isn't serious in nature? Like trying to lie about it to the entire country and his spouse isn't a serious nature????? Please drop the double standard. Sex is sex and if you can excuse it for a sitting president (no pun intended), it should be excusable for somebody who is running for that office. Either we have morals or ethics, or we don't. Or is it a case that once you reach the heights of power, you are above the rules and can do as you like? If that be the case, then I am truly scared, because if they would lie to us about their sexual behaviors, how much else is lies as well.
Forrest,
No, you are wrong. The litigation costs add up no matter if you are defending a baseless claim or a legitimate one. And the settlements they are leaking out are a mere pittance and basically a nusiance settlement amount, not a justified amount. The plaintiffs only take these settlements if they have little expectations of winning straight out. And many shady lawyers will take such a case on contingence as they know at some point the company will cough up an amout to make them go away and stop costing them money to defend. Many lawyers make a very good living doing just that, even though very few of their cases could justify a settlement if fought all the way through. They know a settlement will be offered and their costs will be covered.
On the second claim, I dont believe Mr Cain had any say in whether or not they made the settlement. The company can make the settlement in such matters without regard to if the person being accused agrees or wishes to settle the claim. After all, it is the company being pursued, not the individual. And Mr Cain could not have stopped a settlement if he wanted to, as it was between the company and the women. He could not have forced them to defend his honor and fight the claim.
The fact they women settled for severance (they forfeited their position to take the money) and by all accounts the settlement was in the nusiance range and that Herman continued on in the same position without reprimand tells me the suit was a nusiance case and without base. And if the amount to defend would have exceeded this settlement, then a years severance (if in fact that was the amount) is easily given rather than defend and bear those costs as they cost in both money and resources to defend.
And they seal the settlement to protect all parties involved, mostly the company. It is very common in todays time to settle claims, regardless of base, if they can settle for less than defending. And legal costs being what they are, unfortunately, it is becoming even more of a common theme. And the chances of couterclaiming legal costs never get realized, even if you win.
So companies many times pony up a settlement for the most outrageous claims, just to get them to go away.
The common theme that a settlement was made therfore it must have merit is nonsense. If it had merit, it would not have been settled or it would have been a much higher amount for the settlement.
ABO 2012
It's not whether he did it or not at this point that matters - he and his people had 10 days to prepare a response to the claims in the story, and they came out with a mess (the accusations are baseless, there was no settlement, there was a settlement but I wasn't aware of it [y'know, despite being CEO of the organization at the time], okay I was aware of the settlement, I made a gesture that might have been misinterpreted, etcetera, etcetera).
The '62 Mets were better run than this.
DSD >>> you say the Cain has no track record of this type of behavior........Well, it seems there are now #3 woman that would disagree wit you it seems and unlike yourself they were actually there.......hmmmmmmm, who to believe huh ????
Looks like they are coming out of wood work to finish off Cain.
Bye. Bye Herman.
I thought the latest was that the woman is having second thoughts about talking.
As a Democrat I see the sticky fingers of Karl - Mitt-backing- Rove all over this story. I think he is Politico's source. He - and fellow Mitt-backer Steve Schmidt - have been pulling out their limited hair for weeks over Cain's rise.
It came out this morning that one of the $$ awards was $35,000. In these kinds of cases that is thought of as a "nuisance fee" at best. Compare that to the $800,000 paid to Paula Jones. Unless another shoe drops I really do not think this will hurt Cain with his supporters in Iowa, SC, etc. In fact it seems to be backfiring in his favor to the tune of $400,000 raised in the first 24 hour cycle.
As a Democrat who is fascinated by all of this I still say the bottom line SHOULD BE - did Herman Cain actually commit sexual harassment? It appears that he did not. I beieve his denials. And the monetary settlement backs it up that this was not a case deemed to have merit.
Of course he should have handled it better. But in all of his interviews the BOTTOM LINE has not changed - he has continually denied that he committed sexual harassment. Yes he needs more polished and professional political aides to guide him in his PR - but his poor PR skills should NOT be an indictment of him personally as to his guilt on this issue. That is playing right into Karl Rove's sticky fingered hands.
While I usually disagree with Gov. Barbour, in this case he is right. If Mr. Cain wants this over and done with, get the info out there than let it go. It is always the cover up that gets them.
I don't believe the agreement is between she and Mr Cain. I believe the restaurant association would need to release her from her contract. Also, please remember the exact details of something 12-15 years prior when contacted out of the blue. Lastly, an agreement has different legal implications than does a settlement
As long as this issue is out there, there will be questions and doubts. Now, I am trying to be middle of the road here. If the man wants to be president, he needs to put this behind him so his opponents cannot use it against him. And, obviously, some of his own party feels that way, too.
If she is asking to be released from the confidentiality claim, she needs to pony up the $35,000 she was given. I'm thinking she doesn't have the $35,000. I'm also thinking that you imagine I want this to be covered up, but you are wrong. I am curious to see what all the hubub is about and want to see transparency with this story. Just don't forget, she signed a contract and is only entitled to her "hush" money by keeping "hush". Pay back the money and let's hear your side of the story, whoever you are.
You do know that they can release her from the non-disclosure clause. It would to Mr. Cain's benefit to get this all out in the open as Gov. Barbour has said. Mr. Cain should learn from the past - it is always the coverup that makes things worse than they really would have been if everyone was up front to begin with.
Ha are you kidding in all likelyhood he broke the agreement when he spoke of her "sup par job performance" she will not have to pay the money back, she may be able to now sue for his breach of the contract.
If the media and sensationalist talk show circuit want the story bad enough, I am sure that she will have 10 times the 35K to pay back and then some.....and I am sure as the speaking engagements roll in the story will become more and more elaborate.
I'm amazed that some people actually believe the amount paid to the accuser proves the claim has no basis. If that's the way it worked than every woman out there should file harassment charges against their boss just to make a few bucks. Th reality is, when a company pays out, it's because they believe the case has some merit and the price of defending would not be worth the chance of a bad outcome. So the reality is that he probably did something which could have been considered offensive by a normal rational person.
Unfortunately, men have a tendency, even today, to put women down as 2nd class citizens. Surprised some haven't even tried to take away our right to vote.
Tell me please RetiredMilitary, what is it exactly that he has done? Give us some insight as to what you know for a fact to have happened. No? You're just like the rest of us, so stop speculating as to what he did or why something was done.
Unfortunately, women have a tendency, even today, to make blanket accusations of an entire gender. Surprised some haven't even voted in a single election.
I agree, I saw it in all my years in the military, some men are just pigs who think they are entitled.
No bama, I have no idea what he did, but if you read most definition's of sexual harassment, it states that a gesture or words that would be considered offensive to a normal rational person. So my comment was not what he did, only that the perception of what he did was enough for the company to have to settle with the plaintiff, those are just the facts as we know them. If the case was completely baseless there would not have been a settlement. I have seen enough of these cases to know how the work.
You are exactly right Retired Military, they never hand cash out for no reason, if they think the claims are bogus they make the claimant spend a fortune to try and prove her case if she can. They put the high cost of litigation on her back.
The advantage was all on Cains side if he was innocent. He is rich, she is a $35K a year secretary. If she falsely accused him he could have sued her for defamation, after all he is a rich and important guy. It looks more like there was something to her allegations and it was easier and cheaper to buy her off than go to court where she might have been awarded much more. It wouldn't surpirse me if they offered her free pizza for life initially!
You nailed it James.
Huge difference between being offended and being sexually harrassed under the law. I am continually offended, but nobody offers me a settlement.
Fine, if its unproven guilt as many of you on here seem to know(right) or at least feel then let the man stand up to these accusations like the man he wants you to believe he is and face this head on. Let the woman speak and prove her wrong Hermie or hide in your corner and pray it goes away (it wont). Dont hide behind your money and a pay off, prove her wrong if you can.......and quit blaming everyone else Hermie, they werent there............YOU WERE so you deal with it like a man
Mr. Cain, You have Judas in your midst and his name is Barbour! Surprised anyone?
Think its more like Barbour knows a sinking ship when he sees one
Either way Haley Barbour is putting it to him, challenging him to fess up. Given Mr. Barbour's history I am not surprised.
Politco notified Cain's camp and then sat on this story for 10 days before running it. And this was the best response they could come up with? Alibi Ike could've done better. Not to mention that there are (so far, unconfirmed) rumors that the source was a former board member of the National Restaurant Association itself.
And he may not have to worry about the condifentiality agreement. He may have already broken it - it contained a clause that both parties would refrain from "disparaging" the other in perpetuity. Cain's out there claiming right and left that the accusations were baseless and that any suit was frivolous. A judge may just come to the conclusion that Mr. Cain is making inferences that would "disparage" the other party to the settlement, thus rendering it void.
Am not sure if what you say is so or how you come to know these things but we can only hope cause this clown does in fact need to go.......anyone that would tax the middle class and poor while giving people like the Koch bros and himself a "HUGE" tax break has no business running this country period cause we been there done that and it did not work even one time..............
Another thing that troubles me is the occasional use, by Mr. Cain, of the catchy term "hermanator." It brings associations with "Herman the terminator." Of course, the idea is that "he will terminate all competition, in the other party ... and in his own." But this is not what America needs of a President! Not a "Rhetorics' Rambo." This is not we need now. This is not our war, certainly not my war! I want a man of principles, ready to give his life for such! I want a true man of God, not "terminator of men", good or bad, with pungent one-liners, throwing into their faces a "rhetorical coctail of dirty water." It reminds me of Zirinowski, who "terminates" the opposition with a real glass of water in their face, right there in the Senate. I understand that the Republicans feel they need just this type of man, to win. But we must keep in mind that once he is president, he may not unlearn the "one-lining" and "terminating" overnight. But even if he so castrates himself, becoming not his habitual self, he will then have to submit to other handlers, which I think is too dangerous for the Nation!