E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSBy NBC's Michael Isikoff
Sharon Bialek, the first woman to publicly accuse Herman Cain of sexual misconduct, today acknowledged she has experienced financial and legal difficulties in recent years, but said they were “absolutely not” related to her decision to come forward and detail her encounter with Cain in a car outside a Washington hotel fourteen years ago.
But Cain’s campaign signaled today they will seek to undermine Bialek’s credibility by highlighting her legal troubles and the Democratic Party ties of her lawyer, Gloria Allred. An NBC News review of court records show that Bialek’s legal problems include two personal bankruptcies, an Internal Revenue Service tax lien, and a civil judgment against her last year for an unpaid loan that is still outstanding.
“Absolutely not,” Bialek said when asked by NBC News Today show co-anchor Ann Curry whether her financial problems caused her to come forward and make accusations against Cain in hopes of making money. “There’s no skeletons in my closet. I told her [her lawyer Gloria Allred] 'this may come up.' I expected this may come up. It's not about me. I’m not running for president.”
Bialek, a single mother with a 13-year-old son, also denied that anybody from any rival campaign encouraged her to speak out against Cain in an effort to damage his candidacy. “I came forward of my own volition,” she said. In a separate interview on CNN, she said her son did encourage her to speak out. “You need to tell on him,” she quoted her son as saying.
Bialek’s comments came just hours after Cain flatly denied her graphic account that he sexually groped her and sought to have oral sex when the two met in Washington in 1997, telling TV host Jimmy Kimmel her story was “totally fabricated.” In a statement e-mailed to reporters, Cain spokesman JD Gordon described Allred, Bialek's lawyer, as a "high profile Democratic Party donor and activist." He added: "After attacking Herman Cain through anonymous accusers for a week, his opponents have now convinced a woman with a long history of severe financial difficulties, including personal bankruptcy, to falsely accuse the Republican frontrunner of events allegedly occurring well over a decade ago for which there is no record, nor even a complaint filed." (In a press release late Tuesday morning entitled "Who is Sharon Bialek?" the campaign gave the case numbers for six civil lawsuits in which Bialek was sued as well as her two bankruptcies. It also cited a press report indicating that she has worked for nine employers over the last seventeen years).
Cain has scheduled a press conference to rebut Bialek’s claims on Tuesday, signaling that the controversy over sexual harassment allegations -- which Cain’s campaign had hoped to put to rest last week -- is unlikely to end anytime soon.
The dueling accounts underscore the difficulties in sorting through politically charged sexual harassment allegations in which partisans on both sides seek to impugn the character of the principals with whatever evidence they can find.
Bialek dramatically raised the stakes for Cain on Monday by becoming the first woman to publicly speak out. News reports last week identified three other unidentified women at the National Restaurant Association who had made unspecified sexual allegations against Cain, two of whom received financial settlements with no findings of liability. Bialek detailed an encounter that she says took place in 1997 after she was let go from her job after six months as a National Restaurant Association foundation fundraiser. Seeking Cain’s help in finding new employment or getting her job back, she described how Cain -- then the president of the National Restaurant Association -- booked her a Washington hotel suite and took her out to dinner. While the two were alone in the car, Bialek says Cain put his hand up her skirt and then sought to have oral sex, telling her, “You want a job, right?”
Allred, who frequently represents accusers in celebrity cases, told reporters on Monday that she had sworn affidavits from two others -- one from a doctor who was Bialek’s boyfriend at the time and the other from a businessman -- who affirm that Bialek told them about an encounter with Cain shortly after it took place. But Allred has declined to release their names -- making it impossible at this point to verify her account-- and Bialek acknowledged Monday that she did not share details with them of what Cain had allegedly done in the car.
Bialek also did not describe her encounter with Cain to her current boyfriend, Mark Harwood, with whom she lives in suburban Chicago. In an interview with the Chicago Tribune, Harwood was quoted as saying he was in “a bit of shock” when Bialek first told her about her experience with Cain last Friday night, but that he admired her decision to come forward.
“Its not an anti-political thing,” Harwood said. “It’s not a money thing. She’s just trying to do the right thing and that takes guts.”
Court records show that Bialek filed for bankruptcy in 1991 and 2001. She was also involved in protracted domestic relations litigation starting in 1999 with a marketing executive at News America Marketing, a division of News Corp., over questions of paternity and child support for her now 13 year old son. Court records show that the marketing executive was ordered to pay child support that in 2010 was $66,700 a year.
More recently, the records show, the IRS filed a tax lien of nearly $5,200 against Bialek in 2009. (According to the Chicago Tribune account, the Illinois Department of Revenue has also claimed Bialek owed the state $4,300 in unpaid taxes, penalties and interest.) Last year, an Illinois lending company filed a lawsuit against Bialek for an upaid ($3,539) loan and won a judgment against her of $3,539. The lawyer for the lender, Illinois Lending Corp., told NBC it was a standard “breach of contract” lawsuit and that the judgment is still outstanding.
Allred told reporters that Bialek has not had a job in about two years. Harwood, her boyfriend, told the Trbuine that the couple met online and moved in four years ago, getting engaged during a vacation in Venice last year.
“Sharon is very much one of these women with a huge heart and always trying to do the right thing,” he said. “Sometimes, I have to pull the reins in.”
Susan Bialek, the fourth woman to come forward and accuse GOP presidential hopeful Herman Cain of sexual harassment, tells TODAY's Ann Curry why she waited 14 years to come forward and says her decision to do so was not financially motivated.
Leave a Comment:
Just saw a report on Fox that said a month ago when Sharon Bialek saw Herman Cain at a Tea Party Conference - as she said she did in yesterday's press conference - that she EMBRACED HIM!!! People saw her!!
Would someone who had been physically assaulted as she alleges EMBRACE her assaulter??
She also just said on that TV interview that she might take $$ in the future for a book - or a magazine interview - etc. - but she added that of course $$ was not the reason she did this. Right!
This story will cement Herman Cain as the GOP alternative to Mitt - and I bet Herman Cain will be the GOP nominee.
The grand poobahs of the GOP Establishment - Karl Rove, Brit Hume, Steve Schmidt, etc. - are all saying Cain cannot survive.
I bet otherwise. The GOP base is tired of the GOP Establishment - and they really don't like For Pete's Sake Mitt.
Monetfan Bless your heart you were watching faux news. We all know how much they check there facts.
Anything with Gloria Allred's fingerprints on it automatically has a stink to it.
Of course that won't stop the lefty liberal lynching of Herman Cain.
I still haven't seen much in the way of comment about the Cain campaign's accusations that the whole story in Politico started with a leak from the Perry campaign. Just more finger-pointing at the "liberal media".
Perhaps you'd like to start that discussion, Joe?
Smitty - Bless your heart - it is all over the internet - not just "faux news."
Monetfan
Did you happen to see palm trees in the background of the Fox report?
Next stop for Ms. Bialek - Dancing With the Stars!
Four allegations are nothing to sneeze at, and now, a real person steps up.
It's clear Republicans don't care about sexual harassment or misuse of campaign funds.
Same old....same old....from the GOP.
This is an entirely republican based effort to get Cain out of Romney's way, the republican base and majority may not want Romney but they are going to get Romney anyway, the corporate republicans have already mandated it.
Yeah - Finally something the Democrats and the Republicans can both agree on.
Monetfan, your credibility is in jeopardy when you quote Fox (aka tea people GOP republican propaganda machine) and tea people GOP republican blogs as your sources. There is no such thing as truth or facts on either. If Fox couldn't make stories up for their less educated viewers they'd be off the air. And then those lies and made up stories are repeated on the conservative blogs.
Let the bastard take a Lie detector if he continues to claim all of these women are gold digging bitches out to get money.
I just get stuck on the part where $35,000 and $45,000 pay-outs were made on this guy behalf to shut (2) previous accusers up. It don't pass the mustard test.
At the end of the day...we will find out all of these women were white...so I ask you...who is the real racist? Here is a black man who has an obsession with white women trying to make them trophy's.
It is disgusting.
lynching ? really ?
It is obviously true, just as it was with justice Thomas.......
no lynching here, just the truth........
I hope you are right about Cain. We liberals just salivate about running against this major know-nothing; assaulter of women and genuine fraud.
Apparently there's an entire cemetery.
Did Allred ever represent Kathleen Willey?
Oh Mo there's just as much fact on Fox as there is on MSNBC. Its the conservative rag versus the liberal rag. "News" stopped being about reporting facts long ago.
Not a peep for over a decade and then just when Cain is topping the polls the rats come out of the woodwork. And just happens to be represented by the shyster lawyer who devotes her life to destroying conservative political candidates. How can that not be suspicious?
The accounts of the accuser giving Cain a hug at a political event, then chatting with him is strong circumstantial evidence of the nature of the allegations.
It also goes a long way to highlight the accuser's credibility.
Fact is we don't know the truth. Cain may be lying, the accuser may be lying, or the person who says they saw the hug a month ago might be lying.
So be entertaining to see how this pays out.
Me, I'm betting against the person sitting next to Gloria Allred.
Which lies do you speak of Mo? What made up stories are you referring to? Once again, God forbid someone look somewhere else than MSDNC for their news. I can understand after watching Rachel Maddow how someones expectations can be lowered considerably, but come on. At least take a look and read other sources.
Now lets talk about less educated viewers.
I wish people will quit throwing the lynching word around. It does not have a pretty history in this country. Anyway, I wish the Cain camp would launch a liable suit against this woman. Get her in court and get her on the record. That should put that to rest.
w bush - You are so right about this being an effort by the Karl Roves of the GOP Establishment who are supporting Mitt - they are pulling out their hair over this "outsider" edging out their Establishment guy. Just listen to Steve Schmidt who was on Lawrence O'Donnell's show last night - or Brit Hume - or the grandest of the grand poobahs - Karl Rove himself. They are going crazy! It is fun to watch.
LMAO! JAS1, You can add Herman's name to that list too!
Herman Cain is totally innocent. He is a victim, a victim I say, of a liberal media! Those of us on the left should keep our traps shut about Herman, heck, we should donate money to him!
He is so awesome, I hope he wins the Republican nomination!
PS - I know a lot of my fellow liberals come on First Read and love to point out the hypocrisy and stupidity of the right. I'd suggest they stop and think for a moment or two. Is this really a pile on we want to be a part of? What would it mean for Democrats should Herman Cain win the nomination? Think about it, then, when you are done considering, either shut your mouths or start defending Cain.
Clearly a case of "He Said, She Said, He Said, They Said, She Said, He Said, I Said, They Said, You Said..."
I just wonder exactly HOW many '...sub par employees...' no longer work for the NRA - and if their separation was during Cain's tenure there?
I DO get your larger point,...nisl; but cain wrecks are the new spectator sport and I'm all about watching the carnage.
A few observations from someone who deals with this issue from time to time, and usually, but not always, on the opposite side of the table from the accuser.
First, it does take an incredible amount of courage to come forward. If you have read the comments here for the past few days, it is SO typical to see this kind of attack on the accuser. I always tell clients to beware of potential retaliation claims because, sorry to say, retaliation happens. The level of disrespect I have seen expressed by many on this board for the women in this matter is exactly the sort of misogyny one often sees in these situations. The lady must be a tramp.
Well, even if she is a tramp, that doesn't mean this didn't happen.
And second, just because you have a high-priced and flashy plaintiff's lawyer in your camp doesn't mean it didn't happen. That's how they make their bread, and God bless them for it. How on earth would anyone ever achieve justice if not for them? And maybe that's the way some of the good-old-boys out here like it.
Third, on the same note, just because it's "he said, she said," doesn't mean it didn't happen. Quite often the only two people to witness the conduct are the victim and the perpetrator.
Fourth, I can tell you from experience that, if this woman was making up a story, she'd have made up a better one. Often, where the facts seem weak or odd, there is substance. Do you seriously think she would have stopped the story where she did if it wasn't true?
Fifth, the National Restaurant Association did not pay out those sums of money without due consideration of risk. No reasonable employer throws money around like that, when all that does is encourage more people to make claims.
And finally, those of you who were so anxious to give Herman Cain the benefit of the doubt ought to afford it at least as much to these women, especially when there have been at least two men that I know of -- one a conservative talk show host -- who have come forward to say they have observed Cain engaging in offensive conduct.
As a postscript, I might remind everyone here that I called for Anthony Weiner to resign almost immediately. So those who will inevitably accuse me of partisanship are barking up the wrong tree, not to mention displaying their own partisanship.
I'm with an earlier poster. If these woman are slandering Herman Cain, we should have seen legal papers being filed second 1 from the Cain Campaign.
Like her or not, she has a face and mouth and she is using them against Cain. If his presser is anything like what tidbits he has laid out do date, he is toast.
Saying 'my wife doesn't even believe that I would do any of the things this woman claims' isn't exactly scientific proof of innocence there Herman.
And loving it! Nothing like a good scandal to wreck your chances...
Obviously you're one of the less educated viewers of Fox Govt_issue. Nothing to discuss.
Not as "long" as you try to make out. This comment just goes to show that you don't know much about co-dependency situations. The same sorts of things, on a more serious scale, happen all the time in abusive relationships.
So, the fact she gave him a hug may go to credibility, but it is by no means determinative. It doesn't mean the incident didn't happen. It just means it's complicated.
Devie - NO! Look, we don't want to wreck his chances! Cain is a goofy half wit who didn't know China had nukes and doesn't even know what a neocon is. Why would you want to ruin his chances.
He's innocent I tell you! By golly, those meanies on the left keep ganging up on poor Herman. Herman is a victim! What do you do when the liberal media victimizes good God fearing conservatives? You rally around them!
If we don't defend Herman Cain the liberals win. And if the liberals win they will dig up the corpse of Reagan and sodomize it! Cain/Palin 2012!
You are just so noble. Pure as the driven snow. Did you save Anthony's pictures?
Who do you think paid for Ms. Bialek's cosmetic surgery?
All true AM, but it all just begs the question - why now, and why Allred?
Now tell us what you'd tell the accused if he was sitting in your office for the initial consult. From what you said it appears that you represent defendants, not plaintiffs so I suspect that you have a defense perspective on this.
Particularly these 15 year old allegations in light of the statements that she had contact with Cain just last month.
Would you advise a quick settlement? To fight? To go after the accuser?
I wonder AM - in your view does Bialak deserve criticism? She filed no claims when they were ripe, she waited until now, then hire a know publicity whore to represent her.
Why did she get a lawyer?
Oh My Anna Molly - 'Co-dependency?"
She met him once 15 years ago, then last month gave him a hug and you toss out co-dependency?
So you are a psychiatrist/Lawyer that does a lot of defense work.
In other words you represent the person doing the harassing.
Interesting. More money in defense work, eh AM?
And of course credibility is not determinative. But as you now a witness who lacks credibility is a bad witness that will be unpersuasive.
Damn! You're right what was I thinking? We need to raise Cain! Why I heard he can see China from his house...
Devie - That's the ticket. Also, no matter what, don't remind conservatives that the alleged victims of Cain's unwanted advances are white women. It is irrelevant, and we all know the real victim is Herman Cain.
How about don't make sexual jesters at women period in the work environment and especially if you are married. This way you don't have to defend yourself period. food for thought.
Who ever supports Hermmie supports lying to his wife and his disgusting grab ass hands.
This is clearly a pattern even sexual assault.
Looks like Annie has decided, and in a stunner, decided in favor of Ms. Bialek!
She's got it all figured out. No further questions.
"Co-dependency". Good one.
Yeah. Proving things always seems to be that way. Just ask Kathleen Willey.
Stop and think this out
If she is lying than the two witnesses that signed an afidavit under oath also must be lying.
If the witnesses are lying, ask yourself WHY? Motive? (ex boyfriend??? must still love her)
Because if it can be proven that she lied (like credit card, gas receipt ect that place her nowhere near Cain at the time) it means the witnesses to her statement to them at the time is also a lie.
And the witnesses are subject to prosecution if they lie under oath.
Now maybe you can twist this to give me a reson for her to lie..but the witnesses???
Are you a sexual "jester?"
Wait, wait, you'd have to be wearing a multi-colored hat with little bells on the end.
Oh and getting mighty close to overt racism - of course in the old South they did call them jesters. It started with an M.....
screeminglib - The witnesses are lying because they hate freedom! Also too, they wear poopy pants.
If you really are a liberal, in this case, screeeeming is going to be counter productive. The wingers want to turn Cain into a victim, there is absolutely nothing they love more than pretending to be victims. Let them!
Cain is the perfect puppet for his Koch brothers from another mother, because they would like to slide their hands up America's skirt.
If she is a money grubbing evil lying witch because she has financial problems what does that make Joe Walsh, the dead beat dad Representative who himself was foreclosed upon and . . oh yes owes $117K in back child support. Or is the Republican party once again stating if it is a Republican man, anything will be forgiven and we will even award your bad family behavior. However, if it is a Republican woman, we have a higher standard? Just asking that you examine yourselves very thoroughly before throwing stones.
Spanky In my old age I have turned into a "sexual jester".
Years ago if I stood naked before Mrs. Grump she might give me a naughty smile, now I almost always get a hearty laugh out of her.
By the way I don't have a multi-colored hat with little bells on the end, any idea where can I get one of those.
Why a Renaissance faire.
I do like the 'get their hands up America's skirt' line.
Damn 1%-ers.
You know like Obama, Warren, Daley, Geintner, Summers, Pelosi, Reid.
Funny thing is - Scott Brown is only pulling in $150k, plus whatever he got, a one time deal, from his book deal.
Anna Molly - What co-dependent relationship? By her own account, it was a one time incident that happened over 10 years ago. Its not like she's accusing Cain of repeatedly assaulting her over a period of time or that they were in contact all the time for many years before or after the alleged assault. Its hard to be co-dependent with someone you can count the number of times you interact with them on one hand - and over a 10-15 year period.
If I was in her situation, I would simply have avoided the man at the event. He's running for President, its not like she wasn't aware he was going to be there. I certainly wouldn't have hugged him. If she absolutely could not have avoided him, she could have just shook his hand and moved on as 90% of the other guests did.
While I don't discredit the other accusations against Cain, this one seems to be suspect to say the least.
As a woman, I really find it hard to believe that she would have not informed her live-in boyfriend of over 4 years that the assault took place until last Friday. Cain has been in the media for months and its far fetched to believe someone who knew him and had such a negative experience that directly speaks to Cain's integrity, would not mention anything to her significant other until several other women came forward.
While I like Cain - I think some of these other allegations may be true. One thing is for sure though, he has handled the situation terribly from a public relations standpoint.
Anna Molly - What co-dependent relationship? By her own account, it was a one time incident that happened over 10 years ago. Its not like she's accusing Cain of repeatedly assaulting her over a period of time or that they were in contact all the time for many years before or after the alleged assault. Its hard to be co-dependent with someone you can count the number of times you interact with them on one hand - and over a 10-15 year period.
If I was in her situation, I would simply have avoided the man at the event. He's running for President, its not like she wasn't aware he was going to be there. I certainly wouldn't have hugged him. If she absolutely could not have avoided him, she could have just shook his hand and moved on as 90% of the other guests did.
While I don't discredit the other accusations against Cain, this one seems to be suspect to say the least.
As a woman, I really find it hard to believe that she would have not informed her live-in boyfriend of over 4 years that the assault took place until last Friday. Cain has been in the media for months and its far fetched to believe someone who knew him and had such a negative experience that directly speaks to Cain's integrity, would not mention anything to her significant other until several other women came forward.
While I like Cain - I think some of these other allegations may be true. One thing is for sure though, he has handled the situation terribly from a public relations standpoint.
ITtripledogdare
ah hello.....she did inform her boyfriend at the time and he signed an afidavit to that affect
Bless your heart
Spanky your still a fake. Remember you said it. So why believe a word the spankster says.
I went to a Renaissance fair once, and some damn people thought I was part of the show.
screeeminglib - you should read my statement. I said she did not inform her current boyfriend of 4 years whom she is living with.
Regarding the former boyfriend - If we are to believe Allred without any ACTUAL proof (like a copy of the affidavits), Sharon still didn't tell him the details of what happened to her nor did she to the business associate. You don't have to believe me on this issue, just re-read the story above.
Smitty, you are obviously uninformed or misguided. Which is it?
My big question is, whether he is guilty or not, or ethical or not, why are the right and far-right conservatives so adamant in defending this guy? He isn't competent, and you shouldn't have to choose between ideology and competency, not when Jon Huntsman holds much of the same ideology and is so clearly more well informed.
Or better yet watch the evil one Alred on video with the afidavits in hand.
Guess we will have to wait for a Fox reporter that saw the afidavits before well get anywhere
BUT you are correct about her current boyfriend (my bad). But why is the idea that she didnt tell her current boyfriend in any way a disqualifier of what happened 10 years ago
Care to refresh my recollection there Smitty?
Besides Smitty we all know you are going to believe whatever you want.
Ain't america great?
So you thnk FR heard about Holder's testimony this am?
You do realize that payouts such as that are made all the time just to avoid paying at least double that to a lawyer to fight it. Many unscrupulus people are aware of this fact and make accusations that are completely false but impossible to prove either way....because they know they'll get SOMETHING out of it. $45K is not a big sexual harassment case payout. You need to remember, sexual harassment can be decided by the person making the accusation. I can get pissed because a manager told me my new hair cut looked nice and accuse him of sexual harassment. It isn't....at all...and it shouldn't be.....but employers don't mess around with that kind of thing. They pay it off and make it go away and fast. Now would you deny this man a chance to prove he can be a good President because he told a woman her hair cut looked nice? Or if he told the other one that blue was her color? Since we don't know WHAT was said or done, other than this recent story which was never reported until now and no complaint ever filed.....how can we be judge, jury and executioner? Until we know exactly what happened in all these cases...we can't judge....and I doubt we'll ever know.
Cain is incompetent to run for president ... womanizer or not ... he's proven that 200% over the last few days!!!
It is more than disconcerting to see posters like Forrest Gump print his allegations based on news stories of the past concerning the republicans he obviously hates whith a passion while completely ignoring that we had a sitting president that engaged in the same behavior and even paid out a huge settlement to one of his accusers. Or the long time career democratic senator who was found reponsible for the death of his pregnant girlfriend. To loosely quote Betty Friedan concerning Bill Clinton, I don't care what he does in his personal life as long as I am getting what I want. As I recall that did a lot of damage to NOW but you all don't seem to care about what your politicians do.
GOP is turning on one of their own...blonde, attractive, GOP/ Tea Party Supporter who has had some financial difficulties raising her son as a single mom while trying to legally get alimony from the father (GASP! - the skeletons)...and all for support the big black man!?! Couldn't write a better script.....wonder how long this song will play...is the fat lady singing yet???? la-la-la-la-laaaa
I am with newscover on that one, I think it is pretty funny when a "rocket scientist mathematician" uses the old 200%, and tries to reduce an economic strategy to a bumper sticker slogan, the man makes a joke out of what is supposed to be his credentials.
screeeminglib - Its one thing not to tell a current boyfriend about a past event, particularly one that's so personal. Its another not to tell someone you have lived with for 4 years about it. Its even more strange to me that she didn't mention it to him in the past 3+ months when Cain has been in the media spotlight. Only after the story had been out over a week and several other women came forward anonymously does she find the time or guts to tell her partner? And then in less than 3 days finds enough guts to hire Allred and make a public statement? I'm sorry, I just don't buy it.
As for the affidavits - if she can have them in her hand to wave them around, she can publish them. As a sworn document, it would become public in the event of a lawsuit and they are in fact public documents already. Allred has no excuse not to publish them.
I personally believe she didn't because they won't say much and won't back up the actual allegations of the assault. If they did, why would any lawyer not release them and vindicate their client?
Pure show on Allred's part.....
ITtripdag
Maybe the two people who signed the affidavits dont wish to come under public scrutiny.(?) I can think of more reasons as well. If Allred shows the documents to reporters would that suffice?
Try and give me a reasonable explanation for her ex boyfriend (a doctor who I assume has cash so he could ultimately be liable for defamation if he was found to have lied under oath.) to lie.
Ok, Herman...if she's lying, file a libel suit against her. I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.
Tell you what, Spanky --
I'll answer all your questions if you first answer one from me. Tell me what the two males who have come forward to say they've observed Cain engaging in harrassing behavior -- one of them a conservative talk show host from Iowa, I believe -- have to gain by making THEIR statements.
I mean, Spanky, is there possibly enough money in the WORLD to satisfy all the lying opportunists out there -- some of them male and some of them Republicans -- who have been waiting for this chance to accuse Herman Cain of sexual impropriety.
Look, I already know that this isn't coming out exactly the way you drew it up. But instead of trying to blow more smoke that only makes you look more foolish with each new allegation, I think it's time that YOU admitted that, too.
Just like I admitted it with John Edwards and Anthony Weiner.
Triple Dog Dare:
Both you and Spanky need some lessons in thinking outside the box. Especially if you really are a woman. What happened here is very much LIKE an abusive relationship. Sexual harassment, like abuse, is about power. Women frequently are dependent on their abusers -- like Cain, if you believe this woman, tried to make her sexually beholden to him for a favor. That's exactly why they have laws against this sort of behavior, by the way. Because it's an abuse of power that HAPPENS.
It's not so hard to believe that, 14 years later, she may have forgiven Cain, as women frequently forgive their abusers; and because there were no further incidents in between, when she saw him, she felt no further animosity towards him. I've often seen victims and their families make peace with perpetrators in criminal matters in similar ways.
There's a woman in Wisconsin who was shot in the head and left for dead in a burning car by two vicious home intruders who has spent her whole life forgiving them, and even has a website devoted to teaching the rest of us the power of forgiveness. The fact that she forgives them doesn't mean they didn't really do it, or that they shouldn't be punished for it. They're still in prison for it right now.
Read about it:
http://www.jackiemillar.com/
Forgiveness is not the same thing as it not having happened. This woman said she came forward to give some comfort to the other women. If you take Jackie Millar's case as an example, that's a perfectly reasonable explanation.
Frankly, I wouldn't care if she was convicted for prositution 5 times in the last 2 years.
What is good for the goose, is even better for the Gander, as Mr. Cain said, "What part of NO do you people not understand."
Same applies to Slick Willy, John Edwards, Newt, Wiener, or anyone else who decides that a position of power gives them the right to assault women.
Herman Cain is NOT qualified to be President of the United States, the latest fiasco just proves he is every bit a politician.
the only problem I see is that people are willing to believe any politican no matter what..and this is no different. How many politicans have claimed to be innocent of charges of the same kind....even when shown proof of one kind or the other. Personally, I would like to see all congress today kicked out ...they all accept funds from lobbyist and their wealthy friends...and every bill passed by either party favors that particular groups of donors to the politicans cause..which is re-election.
We elected a president with minimal governance experience and now we are looking at another and that worries me. The democrats reaction to this reminds me so much of Clarence Thomas. That was all about Anita Hill and her accusations and it turned out after everything was said and done that Thomas' qualifications were questionable. Why do the democrats feel they have to take cheap shots? Why can't we discuss the qualifications?
And people wonder why the other ladies want to continue to be anonymous.
What we know:
1. Someone is lying
2. We don't know if politics is at the core, or just bad behavior
3. All the accusers fit into a timeline of 1997-99. This is odd. Either Mr Cain did these things, or he didn't. If he did, douche bags normally don't get better with age, and money. So I am suspicious of the claims for that reason alone - if Mr Cain has an interest in blonde women, why no accusations after 1999? Honestly, at this point anyone else coming forward would tend to be believed, because of the others.
4. We know that politicians, really men in any position of power, tend to be over-sexed, so this lends credence to the possibility that he is just like many of his cohorts - no excuse, but if he is acting like Kennedy, Clinton and others, at least we know recognize the behavior.
I certainly hope that we get some clarity soon as at this point this is a massive distraction.
Cain just ain't go'na make it past December 25, 2011! Next GOP fruitcake please and Merry Christmas to all! HO,HO, HO!
The personal scrutiny of sexually abused women is why very few come out. She is NOT running for anything.
Herman is the one who wants to be "king". He should have come clean first!... BUT he believes in RHIP!
I don't believe that's entirely true. The three other situations I've heard of where third parties -- all males -- have claimed to have observed Cain's behavior seem to be more recent than that. In fact, one of them was a political reporter saying it's well known on the campaign trail that Cain treats his female campaign staff in a way that could be considered harassment. Another one is from a campaign official who saw things, including incidents in a restaurant, that "disturbed" him, and the third one is from a conservative radio talk show host, two members of whose staff were allegedly harassed by Cain.
I haven't yet been able to figure out what ax any of these men have to grind.
While not sure of the exact timelines, but with events occurring between 1993 and 1997 can we really be sure of anything or of any ones recollection? I would be more concerned if the events happened recently. Then again I like to think that people can change for the better. Looks like we will have to just wait and see how it plays out/.
Wow! I guess my question is why is she talking to her 13 year old son about how Herman Cain reached up her skirt and grabbed her vagina and then proceeded to try and make her give him head? They must have some interesting dinner conversations.
screeeeeminglib -
If they signed affidavits, then their statements can be made public. Their identity does not have to be made public for their statements to be made public. Please note the distinction.
What other reasons can you think of why Allred would not release the affidavits or at least portions of the affidavits?
As I previously stated, I believe that the affidavits would simply not provide much evidence. That doesn’t mean I think the witnesses were lying, just that they don’t have much to add in the form of testimony. As per the MSNBC report and Sharon’s own statements, she did not divulge much information to either of them about the assault. But until the affidavits are public, we are all just speculating or using Sharon’s statements to fill the gaps.
I really want it to be Cain v Obama...two black men vying for the top honors.
A) it's unprecedented, so historically that'd be awesome to see
B) I think out of all the republicans, Cain is the least scary from an ideological religious angle...
C) Im not convinced the overwhelming hatred on the right for Obama has nothing to do with his skin color.
So, I guess im just curious to see how deep the racial lines truly run...we've been told over and over and over that the past 4 years and vitrolic hatred for Obama had nothing to do with his skin and everything to do with his policies...i'd really like to put that reality to a test.
If a 3rd party candidate pulls votes from the GOP, I think we'll have our answer.
Anna Molly "I haven't yet been able to figure out what ax any of these men have to grind."
well, the obvious Anna...would be that they dont want Cain to be president, or they are worried that if he was the GOP nominee, that the racist white people would sit home and pout...handing the election to Obama.
That's the most OBVIOUS reason I could think of why they'd lie about things they saw.
Im not saying they ARE lying...but it really doesnt take a genius to stretch ones imagination into the realm of possibilities.
Such as, perhaps, they simply all like Mitt Romney way more than Cain, and here's how they thought they could help?
I'm still trying to figure out why a girl accused my brother in law of raping her, when A) he didnt even have sex with her B) she didnt remember a single thing about that night, but still felt compelled to claim she was raped and C) didnt even bother to attend any of the hearings or even the trial...it clearly, was really important to her.
Meanwhile, my brother-in-laws life was put on hold for 2 + years and my inlaws had to take out 2nd and 3rd mortgages just ensure his freedom, of which both attorneys agreed there was little chance of him being found guilty...but the attorneys made their money anyway...preserving justice and all that.
People say and do stupid @!$%#, and we'll never really know why...never.
I nearly got into a fist fight with my mother-in-law because I had the gumption to say "at the end of the day, I simply trust that Brian is telling the truth...because we'll never ever ever know for 100%"
and that was truth...but you cant speak truth like that.
Just like all the women you represented...it's entirely plausible half of them were just horrible people, sociopaths possibly...and they lied to you. It's entirely plausible you have ruined innocent lives...
how would you know?
Anna Molly
What the heck does that mean?? I would lie about being a woman. Really??? That's your argument?
What I questioned was your verbiage of a co-dependent relationship. Do you know the difference between a single assault and a co-dependent relationship? If not, please inform yourself. Two very different situations.
I agree with you that these incidents are largely about power however she was not co-dependent on Cain. According to her, she asked Cain for a favor and he assaulted her. She did not consent and left the situation. He didn't hold her down and not let her leave. Her job wasn't in jeapordy if she didn't give in to him. She didn't get a job from him and was not dependent or beholden to him after the incident. That doesn't mean that the allegation, if true, is any less of a violation. But its a big leap to go from single incident to co-dependent relationship that forces the victim to feel the need to reach out to the perpetrator again.
I don't deny she could forgive him, but why would she hug someone that violated her? She was in a public place and could have easily avoided contact with him altogether. In your example, would the woman in Wisconsin invite these intruders into her home, especially if they were able to get away with such a violation without any punishment? If you believe Sharon, Cain got away with this violation. Why would Sharon invite physical contact with someone who has violated her?
The moment I heard the accuser's lawyer was Gloria Allred, I pretty much realized the accusation is in all likelihood exactly what Cain says it is, a smear.
The fact that Cain didn't even know that China had nuclear weapons should disqualify him in and of itself. Did he fail to even crack open a newspaper for the last 40 years?
What kind of mother would talk to her thirteen year old son like that?
[So you thnk FR heard about Holder's testimony this am?]
So many off-topic talking points, sooooo little time.
Anyhoo...
Cain is toast...it doesn't matter who this woman has as a lawyer, or that she "hugged" Cain at an event, or that she waited "this long" to come forward. Cain is D-O-N-E. He is going to have to take that B.S. detector test if there is going to be any chance of him salvaging a tanking political career, and that isn't going to sit right with the GOP/Tea Party.
Pretty big difference in allegations between Cain and Edwards/Weiner. Edwards had a child and Weiner, well, some other evidence - certainly much more concrete and serious than what Cain has been accused of doing.
And now we have a demonstration of why the women whom filed complaints more than a decade ago have decided they will not reveal their names and go public. Dare to reveal your identity and you will be destroyed. Mr. Cain could have merely denied these allegations by this fourth accuser, but instead he chose to unleash his campaign staff and investigators to turn over every rock in order to commit character assassination; even going so far as to make statements that the woman's attorney has made campaign contributions to "Liberals" in the past.
This despicable response today from the Cain campaign is absolutely over-the-top and repugnant, and since Mr. Cain is responsible for the actions of his campaign staff, as well as his own defamatory statements, he has disqualified himself from consideration for public office. Even if he is wholly innocent of all of these charges by four separate women accusers, his response should simply have been denial, not character assassination. Disgusting!
No surprise that the GOP is using the tried and true "blame the victim" tactic...
smitty....you're a typical leftist, pseudo-intellectual, border-line idiot, with a mean streak......and , therefore a fairly disgusting human being.....Have a wonderful life, jackass.....
Stephen,
You are familiar with the study that was done linking conservatism to mental ilness, right?
...just sayin'...
The latest accuser might have been more believable if she had stated her case from recollection instead of reading a prepared statement word for word. Maybe she should borrow one of Obama's teleprompters.
Haven't we been through this dance before. Remember Clinton? His public police bodyguards warned the U.S. about his philandering and nobody paid attention. Another very public figure John F. Kennedy everybody winked at. And good old Teddy Kennedy, he got out with a suspended license. When he should have been jailed for manslaughter. Then there was good old Arnie.
Now the biggie. These women signed confidentiality clauses to get the money. They have to return it with interest. Or they have to go to court, liens etc will be put on their properties earnings etc. Guess who is going to come to their aid and help them pay back the money and interest, some very benevolent democrats.
I personally will never vote for Cain because of his stance on abortion and if he has forced his attentions on women, every voter should know. But if this is the usual dirty politics then that should be known too.
And I would like to know who ghostwrote Obama's books. He ranks right up there with Carter as a dumb uneducated politician. Carter was very intelligent but as low as you can get as a president, down there with Clinton.
Cain should sue these women and bring them to court and have them sworn and get everything out. And Cain should swear in court. Then someone(s) should be sent to jail for perjury. And stop this s*it already. He said, they said means nothing. Too bad we can't get these big talkers, lawyers included before a grand jury and have them questioned and strip them all of immunity.
Rick, clarence thomas was a republican and yes his nomination was questionable. Most democrats did not want him on the supreme court nor did I, but I don't get your point. His most prized possession was thousands of playboy magazines (pervert). I say this about Cain, where there's smoke, there's fire.
Michael Sneed of the Chicago Sun-Times is reporting that, according to a witness who attended that Tea Party event where Sharon Bialek approached Herman Cain, Sharon Bialek actually HUGGED Herman Cain (link below). Included in the article (link below) is a photograph of Sharon Bialek with her arm around Herman Cain. Does she look like she is angry at him to you?
This does not discount Cain's actions and alleged sexual harassment. Nice try at diversion GOP.
Just saying (link below) doesn't make your repeating a lie you heard on Fox (aka tea people GOP republican propaganda machine) credible. I would guess you don't have a link do you Cory.
Eric - how does it not call her credibility into question?
Here is the link. I heard this on MSNBC not on FOX...... This lady is going to be destroyed. I do not condone sexual harrassment but people like this and Gloria Allred makes it very hard for victims to come out. They do women no favors.
THIS IS ABOUT MONEY...PERIOD...SHE NEEDS IT RIGHT NOW.
http://www.suntimes.com/8592168-417/sneed-witness-says-cain-accuser-hugged-him-during-tea-party-meeting-a-month-ago.html
Hey, maybe she was trying to get her old job back...
But seriously weather she was harassed or not it sure seems like there's a pattern of misconduct that was set long before he threw his hat into the ring.
This is not the Dems going after Cain this is fiasco is the result of a serious power struggle going on within the GOP.
"I say let them crash. They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into."
So ITM what this guy says is true, and everybody else is lying. Sounds like you believe what fits your argument. I've been watching MSNBC all morning and I haven't heard a thing about it. It's amazing how you tea people GOP republicans try to distance yourselves from Fox (aka tea people GOP republican propaganda machine).
Tell us Mo - in your opinion is MSNBC different than FOX?
Is it, in your opinion, unbiased?
Isn't having a remote control that functions great?
So Mo, you see how Elizabeth Warren raked in over a million dollars last year?
In your estimation which channel is a OWS propaganda machine?
When do you suppose Schultx, Rev Al, Maddow or O'Donnell will cover Solyndra?
Holder just testified about F&F today - will big Al mention it tonight?
Gosh, I kinda doubt it.
That link shows a picture of the faux foil hugging Cain, NOT Sharon Bialek. The caption under the photo clearly reads:
"Herman Cain backstage at the recent TeaCon with Amy Jacobson shortly after Cain’s alleged encounter with accuser Sharon Bialek."
Try again...
That's not her in the picture.. reading is fundamental....
She grabbed his arm and whispered in his left ear.
She kept talking as he bent to listen, and he kept saying “Uh, huh. Uh, huh.”
Huh?
“I don’t know if what she was giving him was a sucker punch, but he didn’t put his arm down while she was talking to him,” said the Sneed source.
Bialek told the media on Monday: “I went up to him and asked him if he remembered me. I wanted to see if he would be man enough to own up to what he had done 14 years ago.”
The encounter: “It looked sort of flirtatious,” said Jacobson. “I mean they were hugging. But she could have been giving him the kiss of death for all I know. I had no idea what they were talking about, but she was inches from his ear.”
So much for the credibility of the FAUX News viewing audience. Well, if they ever had any...
Zzzzzz.
He should be thanking her for discreetly asking if he remembered. If it were me, I'd have waited until he was answering questions at a press conference and stood up and asked loudly, right there in front of the cameras. Oh...and I love that the woman who is making this claim of it being "flirtatious" was at that event, and then is shown in a picture attached to the article at ANOTHER event shortly thereafter standing with her arm around Herman Cain. Yeah...no bias there.
By the way...did anyone else notice Herman Cain's hand placement in that photo attached to the document that IntheMiddle linked to?
Ms. Bialek is supposed to be less credible because of the kinds of financial failings experienced by Joe Walsh (R - Deadbeat Dad)? Oooooooooookay!!!!!!!!
Other than the possibility of her doing this for financial gain, I could agree with you. If (and I'm not saying either Cain or Ms. Bialek are telling the truth/lying) she does get paid to appear on shows or for exclusive interviews, it would take from her credibility.
Well, if you can't disprove the facts attack their personal failings. Cain is toast much to the our chagrin. I would love to see the President trash him in the 2012 Campaign.
After seeing Cain ..try to explain his way out of this...it makes me wounder if any men will come forward !
It's funny the Weiner had to go, and now Cain gets to stay.......
Cain was smart enough not to take pictures. It won't matter in the end, the GOP establishment did their dirty work and he will fad ultimately. Do you really think he will win any southern state with these charges? All white women I believe - Remember what the GOP did to Harold Ford in Tenn...
Eric
A picture,or more,is worth a thousand words,or more.
I guess I'll wait for the pictures to start showing up.
This witch hunt a classic example as to why women don't come forward...
What the hell does her financial difficulties have to do with Hermie attempting to play slap & tickle?
Did I miss where she was compensated for telling her story?
Feisty, this reminds me of the way men try to shrug off a rape charge saying the woman was just asking for it.
When pressed this morning she said she will not rule out a book - or a magazine article - etc. - but said she never intended for this to be a money-making venture. Sure.
Feisty, after reading many of your posts, I believe if this was a Dem presidential contender your outlook would be totally different! You are so transparent! In your mind the candidate would be right and the lawyer and her client would be wrong!
Gotta love all the righties falling on their sword for Cain.....
Oh Gooodee - another Fan of Feisty's ;o)
Tnat's what is great about this country honey... you can believe whatever you want!
In your case Tessy - it's called delusions...
If that isn't the truth - don't forget what she was wearing...
Anyone that thinks this lady is not in this for monetary gain is silly.
Her financial difficulties have everything to do with it, it's called motive. If she was interested in 'doing the right thing' she would have reported him the day it happened instead of waiting for him to be in the spotlight. Odd that she was fired from her job, then went to the big boss to try and get her job back, then many years later claimed he made unwelcome advances. Is it not even remotely possible that SHE offered herself in return for a cushy job and Cain refused? Me thinks it is ENTIRELY likely...
Compensation has many forms: Money, travel (both of which she is enjoying in ample quantity from the talk shows,) fame, recognition, and more. She was a NOBODY on Saturday, look at her front page pictures now. Tell me she isn't being compensated again?
Remember, if it was about doing the right thing it would have been done YEARS ago. Waiting until now just shows it likely to be an opportunistic jab at the guy who refused HER advances and wouldn't find her a new job. Just sayin...
Feisty if this is a witch hunt against Bialek how do you know its not a witch hunt against Cain? No proof has been presented that Cain did absolutely anything and yet you, predictably, instantly believe Bialek and condemn Cain. Guilt by accusation - didn't think that happened in the United States.
Ken Starr had no proof either but it dint stop the GOP from spending $40 Mill on a "witch hunt"that took 6 years to complete, I say LIBERALS can do twice as good as that, lets spend 3 years & $40 Mill looking into Cain & see what turns up ...eh?
Another classic example of blame the victim from the party of "personal responsibility." Fits right in with the News Corp (Faux News) marketing executive trying to get out of paying her child suipport. Any wonder how they were able to dig up the dirt on her so quickly?
Good to see you this morning Mister Fids! ;o)
of course, per lib spokesman bill maher, r @ p e is only acceptable if it is done to conservatives.
Al, we actually haven't determined yet that she is a victim of anything, or where you referring to Cain?
Fids, yes let's have the liberals have their turn because, as always, two wrongs will make a right.
This is your supposed family values crowd folks. Their all over the internet defending sexual assault by one of their own candidates. They even gave the "dead beat dad" who by the way owes 17,000 in child support to his 1st wife and children Joe Walsh an award for family values. Is this what family values is all about, taking money away from your own children and giving it to your lover. Go figure, they only cling to family values when it suites them. Has anybody seen bigger hypocrites than the tea people GOP republicans and their so called family values?
Correction Mo - that's $117,000.00 the dead beat daddy owes to his children!
Sorry Feisty missed a 1.
No problem! ;o)
I love the way Herman and the RWNJs are attacking her attorney. How fitting.
As I predicted when this woman first stepped forward, the righties are launching a major vicious assault on her, with Faux News leading the charge. They have a target now, so they can attack her, and try to dig up dirt on her, or make some up, if they don't find enough. They can ignore the three other women, who are still anonymous, and ignore that he has shown a pattern. One false accuser, benefit of the doubt, two, well maybe, but four? With nearly 100 thousand dollars in settlements paid to two of them? Come on Hermie, admit the truth. You're toast anyway.
Mo I don't think its defending sexual assault. Its about not convicting him without evidence. Merely being accused does not equal guilt. Or do the liberal forces at work here not think Herman Cain is worthy of the protection of the Constitution? If he confesses to what he has been accused of or guilt is established by like, you know, actual evidence, he can go down in flames as far as I'm concerned. And yes, I said exactly the same thing about Weiner. But until that happens his innocence should be presumed just as it is supposed to be for everyone.
Mo... I can't speak for other conservatives but I am reserving judgment until some evidence is presented.
You see, in our country we presume the accused to be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law...
Or have you libbies (conveniently) forgotten that?
If some REAL evidence is presented to substantiate the accusations, then Mr. Cain should be dealt with accordingly. Until then, he is innocent. It's that simple.
Now, she needs to present evidence or get off the TV. One or the other.
(BTW... thanks for the clown nose, Nasty!)
He's not on trial, except in the court of public opinion. There are no rules, or rights of evidence. There is no presumption of innocence, that is for the criminal court system. He has not, and will not be charged with a crime. He is running for president, serious allegations have been made, and his explanations have been inadequate to satisfy a huge number of people. If he wants to get elected, he has to come up with a satisfactory answer for the majority of people. joemike and SickOfTheBickering - you need to stop confusing rules of evidence in a legal court with public opinion. In the court of public opinion- if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck.... You know the rest.
Actually, Michael... what you meant to say was if it looks like a conservative... Blah Blah Blah!
Unless he is accused of a crime there is NOTHING TO ADDRESS! The court of public opinion is BS! Anyone could say ANYTHING! Should EVERY candidate be required to address any/every statement or accusation that comes from every nut-job out there? Especially with the way copy-cats pile on?
Your public opinion argument is baloney. Personally I would love to see Cain take these people to court for slander. He would likely get nothing out of them (should he win) other than to clear his name. That is the only way he can defend himself when there is not "right of evidence".
I also believe that you liberals were never going to support Cain anyway... you are simply jumping on the bandwagon... good little followers that you are. I guarantee you that if an accusation like this came out about Pres. Yomama, you would all attack the accuser.
You are all such hypocrites.
I am no fan of Herman Cain. He has some interesting ideas. But the reality of it is that I couldn't care less if he wins the nomination. I will back whoever my party selects as their candidate in an attempt to push Yomama out of office. I find it amusing that the liberals are all attacking a candidate that none of them would vote for... I think it could have something to do with the fact that they are worried about him. Time will tell. ;-)
SickOfTheBickering- You may think the court of public opinion is BS, but like it or not that is how we select our leaders. It's called an election. Proof is not needed, John Kerry can tell you all about it. Ether your hero Hermie comes up with a better answer, or what minuscule chance he has of being elected is gone. Time you took a reality check.
Over/under on the number of days until Sharon "I didnt do it for the money" Bialek poses nude for Playboy or Penthouse: 45
"a friend of Ms Bialek, from Chicago, told the New York Post: 'She has a very infectious personality. It’s easy to see how she won [Cain] over. But the reality of her situation is -- she’s a complete gold digger. It’s all about the money.'
Adding that she was from a middle-income family but lives in a posh house while running from bill collectors, the source said: 'Most of her jobs ended in termination. It’s always the employer’s fault, not hers.
'This is a lady who lives off the system. She is hellbent on finding a way of never having to work and living the lifestyle she wants to live, a very affluent lifestyle.'
Read more: #ixzz1d83xm4mP
Look at how stupid what you just posted is. She's got a judgment against her for a $3k loan, a single unemployed mom and she's living a "very affluent" lifestyle?
What the hell are you smoking?
Cyclometh - did you miss the part in the sentence where Bob said she "wants" to live a very affluent lifestyle? He didn't say she was living one. English grammar, not for the faint of heart.
And who isn't? Sorry, but Herman is in hot water.
Again... all she needs to do is present some EVIDENCE. That will do it... some evidence.
Until then, she looks like a money-hungry liar. (Sorry... but let's call a spa... never mind... )
.
.
(show me the clown nose, fisty!)
As I said before, this is not a court. She doesn't need anything except her word. Hermie needs to come clean with the people. Otherwise, he doesn't get elected. Of course, he won't get elected anyway.
Again... the court of public opinion is BS. Cain's position is indefensible.
How do you disprove something that never happened when all that is required is the word of the accuser? Huh?
(think about it... eventually it will make sense.)
No... for me... the burden of proof lies with the accuser... whether in a legal court or not.
Until then... this person (me) views Cain as innocent.
(BTW Michael... I sure hope you never find yourself falsely accused of something in the court of public opinion... could be quite frustrating don't you think?)
The court of public opinion is called an election. It is how we select our leaders. Keep bawling about rules of evidence all you want. This is how it is.
Michael - Please at least acknowledge your obvious bias. Look at your language...
"She doesn't need anything except her word." "Hermie needs to come clean with the people."
What is abundantly clear is that you totally buy into the concept of guilt by accusation. Whether in a court or in the public square, guilt by accusation is the antithesis of what this country is supposed to represent. We are hands down, bar none, the most accusatory, vindictive, judgmental collection of misfits on the planet. We are so enthraled with our victimhood that we will believe anything that anyone says about anyone as long as its nasty enough. I don't know whether Cain did anything or not. History would seem to indicated that where there's smoke there's fire, but I would rather hold off my judgment until some actual facts are presented. We are so busy racing to the bottom that we will make the fall of the Roman Empire look like child's play.
There are FOUR accusers. Two were paid off with substantial settlements. You can call it bias. I call it a pattern, and common sense. Hermie did what he is accused of. He is rich, powerful, arrogant, and contemptuous of women. He is not alone in this. It is a disease among the powerful, regardless of political persuasion. Bill Clinton, Anthony Weiner, etc.. But he is guilty, and I am amused and disgusted at the same time with people defending him, saying there's no "proof", attacking his victims, blaming everyone except the one responsible- him. You people have to know you're full of BS when you defend this guy. If he had been man enough to stand up and say he did it, apologize for making mistakes in the past, and then promise that he is more mature now, and this kind of behavior is behind him, then he would have my respect, and I might even be tempted to vote for him. I don't agree with his plans, but he won't get them through Congress anyway. I might say he has character, so lets elect him. But he didn't do that, did he?
Thanks Michael for confirming my thesis.
Whatever.
I owed back taxes for awhile, and am behind on my student loan repayments, I also owe $1,000 on a very old credit card bill, does that mean I don't have the right to look for work without being hit on? I don't have the right to report a crime? I should keep my mouth shut while a man I know to be abusive is shoehorned into a position of power?
It is all over the internet that at this function a month ago people saw this woman go up to Cain - they hugged - she was whispering in his ear - they chatted for awhile.
Does this really square with her story? Would ANY woman hug and chit-chat with a man who did what she alleges? I don't think so.
And now saying she would consider a book deal? Come on! Fair is fair!
Mika Brezinski said she thinks there is something strange about this. Where was this woman's "outrage" back in 1997?
Why don't you just pay your bills and that part won't be an issue? May seem far fetched but most people do pay their bills. It's called having integrity...
Amy, You not only have a right to report this but you also have an obligation, if not to your self then to other women to report it when it happens, not 12 or 15 years later.
Amy - you have every right that is afforded to you.
And pay your bills dearie, so others don't have to.
Don't read too much into that - Spoons confuse Mika.
Amy, he was in a position of power when this event supposedly occurred. Why didn't she report it then if she wanted him to not have power?
Maybe Amy can't pay them what she don't have, Donald Trump has been bankrupt several times but that never interfered with him living lavishishly, and many people don't question his character for it.
Amy,
I have a solution for you. Arrange a meeting with a powerfull person. The sit back and wait till the right time.....
An interesting enough story and vivid imagination could get rid of all these problems for you......
Reality says, I dont know who did, or did not do anything. I find it odd the timing of all this. It is obviously a GOP hitjob due to its coming out before primaries. I find it interesting neither Herman nor this gal are tripping over the opportunity to take a lie detector test to "prove" their side of the story. It would clear up quite a bit, I would imagine.
ABO 2012
You certainly have the right to report a crime but please try and do it before the statute of limitations runs out.
Amy... it would certainly help your case if you reported the "crime" right away... perhaps then some evidence could be collected.
Because lets face it... without evidence it is just your word vs his.
You want justice... do your part and report the "crime" right away. The longer you delay the less likely justice will prevail.
You people attacking this woman just don't get it do you? I find myself wondering what you all do for a living. You all have never had to take crap off of some jackass, and talk nice to him, because not to would threaten your livelihood. If you are desperately looking for a job, and file charges against a powerful man, charges that you can't prove, what does that do to your job prospects when word gets around? None of you people can possibly have lived in the real world.
Michael -- you have it right. Been there, done that. Ended up quitting the job because I couldn't take it any more and moving out of state. Senior partner of a very prestigious law firm and no one would have taken the word of a junior admin asst that he was continually harrassing me. I was scared to death that if I did say something, he'd pull the strings necessary to make sure I never got another job in that city again. Yeah, that kind of influence....
For all those people out there that blame the victim, say 'she really wanted the attention' and there's no such as sexual harrassment, you have obviously never had to deal with it.
Poor old mikey hes had a tough life you know!
@frespech- Stupid comment. That's what people do when they have nothing to say.
Lets not forget that the Restaurant Association paid hush money to two victims. Corp. do not pay for baseless accusations.
The NRA paid $35,000 and $45,000 from the two internal complaints.
The NY Times said the $35,000 payment was a severance agreemrnt.
These low $$ amounts are called "nuisance fees" in the legal community. And there were no legal cases here - no under oath depositions - nothing except deals worked out between the women's lawyers and the NRA. These are very common in the business community.
A full legal case can result in enormous payouts - a recent case in basketball paid 11 million. And of course there was the Paula Jones' case for $800,000.
Yes, it happens daily, it's all about the money, often times it is cheaper to pay off the accuser than mount a legal defense, in both instances hear that was the case it would appear, it would cost well over 100K to take either case to trial, the so-called "victims" were shut up for half that much.
I don't know what kind of business your worked for, but the corporation I worked for, the second complaint and Cain would have been the one fired.
One case sure it could be an misunderstanding. The second complaint, no way. You then pay a second woman to keep quiet because Cain is innocent? It seems the republicans depend on stupidity.
Good luck with that stupidity when Cain tries to keep China from getting nuclear capabilities. Or even more stupidity when Cain starts a war with Iran, the republicans favorite wet dream.
Stupid is as stupid does and the republicans are trying to get a corner on the market. If you ever had any doubt why republicans are against education, now you know.
These low $$ amounts are called "nuisance fees" in the legal community.
Well it did not work to well because seems it is still a "nuisance" for Cain. Perhaps now he wished he would have defended himself and had been cleared in court, so now he must forever live with the ambiguity surrounding his character. You would think a man that shows so much righteous indignation every time he is challenged, or questioned would have defended his good name with that same passion.
If an investigation occurred and Cain was found to not have committed the violations, he would not have been fired or he may have come back and sued for wrongful termination.
For you to think Mr. Cain is stupid shows a lack of credibility. If Cain is stupid then Mr. Obama too must be stupid. Of course, you would not think so because he is a liberal and since you agree with his (Mr. Obama) opinion, he is thus smart.
If an investigation occurred and Cain was found to not have committed the violations, he would not have been fired or he may have come back and sued for wrongful termination.
For you to think Mr. Cain is stupid shows a lack of credibility. If Cain is stupid then Mr. Obama too must be stupid. Of course, you would not think so because he is a liberal and since you agree with his (Mr. Obama) opinion, he is thus smart.
You have no idea what they found, pure guesswork on your part, what ever they found they decided to give to different women cash payments, and had them sign agreements not to talk about it. You think that they did not want these women to go around talking about Cain's total innocence?
Bookem you had better send Cain money. We sure don't want China to get nuclear capabilities. Any smart person would agree with that statement by Cain, right danno?
For the love of America
Obama/Biden 2012
@AF--I don't know what kind of business your worked for, but the corporation I worked for, the second complaint and Cain would have been the one fired
No he wouldnt have been. Especially if the settlements made were not an admission of guilt or liability.
Stupid is as stupid does
That would describe the corporation you work for if they did what you indicated..
So, why not tell us where you work? I will have 2 people come in and accuse you and test your theory. Are you game? I bet you still have a job. And why? Because there is no proof you did anything wrong.
Do you see the pattern here??
You are probably correct in the fact if these had any base to them, Cain WOULD have been let go. The fact that he remained indicates to me the accusations must have been very weak.
But I dont have facts yet, so will reserve my judgements untill I do. Much unlike many here who seem to believe more than one accuser is proof enough. You all would have loved the Salem Witch trials.
ABO 2012
Ha those settlement checks and confidentiality agreements are not an admission of innocence that is for damn sure.
Neither are they an admission of guilt.
Again, where is the evidence?
That's exactly right SOTB, because he did not defend the charges and prove he was innocent he now forever lives with ambiguity surrounding his character, that is exactly what they bought and pay for with an agreement like that, nobody can ever prove he did it. Of course the other side of that coin is he can never prove he did not. However in the court of public opinion he will mostly be seen as guilty, because he did not defend himself, and they paid out the cash, and signed an agreement to keep the details secret, that was a bad move as it turns out, because now he is running for the highest office in the nation, at a time when people are looking for clear an transparent government. The fact that it happened twice looks pretty bad, wouldn't you agree. If I may I would ask you if you were charged with sexual harassment claims would you fight to have your good name completely cleared or would you just settle with a cash payment and a non disclosure agreement.
Forrest,
You know as well as I do that confidentiality agreements are par for the course in damn near any matter that HR departments "settle". There are always conditions attached to a check. This one is stanard. And it is also standard that the settlement is made with no admission of guilt or wrongdoing. It is one of the conditions of the settlement.
Cain had no say in the settlements. It was an internal decision. I have no idea if there was any merit to the claims, and neither do you. You can point to the issue that a settlement was reached and point to that as an indication of guilt.
I, on th eother hand can point to emotions. If a person truely believes they were harassed by a person of power and have a legitimate verifieable claim, would they settle for no admission of guilt? Would they settle that they get a monetary settlement and lose their job but the one who perpetrated the incident was allowed to stay in a position of power and repeat these actions?
In my mind any person making such a claim would have 1 thing in mind. Bring down the person they are accusing. The fact they reached such a low settlement amount, there was no admission of guilt and their attacker was allowed to continue on in the position of power indicates to me their claims were not verifiable, their case was very weak, and they were very quick to settle for money only something that should have had very personal motivation to see through.
We may never know the evidence and charges by some of these people. I also believe if Cain wanted to put it all behind him and he truely were innocent and is merely a victim here, he would find a good lie detector test to take and "prove" his innocence. I also suspect there may very well be some base to the claims, not because of the settlements or qty of accusers, but based on the fact Cain is not looking to prove his claims. He is just denying them.
I am just not willing to rush to judgement based on what I have seen thus far. I am starting to lean based on Cain's own inaction on the matter, but even then I am not going to assume anything.
ABO 2012
Oh your wrong he does have a say, the allegations were against him and the the organization, you always have the right to defend yourself, and he had the money to do it. Remember your high cost of litigation argument, that is exactly why a women who makes $45,000 a year might just just settle and move on with her life she may not have the finances to pursue it if their lawyers drag it out, whereas Cain certainly has the means to defend himself. He already took the lie detector test, and failed, he started out by saying he never recalled any charges against him ever, but then his story changed by the hour after the proof that he knew because two different settlements by two different women were exposed. Would you forget if a women charged you with sexual harassment, would you forget if two different women charged you. BTW they can't settle a charge against him without telling him exactly what and who charged him, he knew exactly what the details were and he had to sign off on the agreements, any employee is entitled and required to be given that information. The fact that he was the CEO makes it even more ridiculous to think he had no knowledge or control of how the organization he was at the very top of handled this. I have seen enough, I have made up my mind.
Sorry I meant to say the allegations were against him and not the organization
Forrest: obviously you rely on rational thinking and facts, so you can't possibly be a Republican. Rational thought and facts have no place in the modern GOP.
Forrest,
As I understand it the allegations were aginst him, but filed with the employer, as it has to be. The employer does not have any obligation to involve the accused. Their obligation is to the individual who filed the complaint, and they can make any kind of dealk they see fit without involving the person being accused. Heck, they didnt even need to talk to him about it.
The complaint was against the organization, as this was the entity that employed both of them. There was no civil action against him.
So I believe you are wrong. He was made aware of the complaint, and I am sure he gave a statement on his side of it. Then the organization went off and made a deal with the woman without him being party or signer of the deal.
HER LAWYER ALREADY SAID CAIN WAS NOT A SIGNER OR PARTY TO THE SETTLEMENT.
ABO 2012
Forrest,
And the ONLY way he would have had to be given details or required to sign off on anything is if they made a settlement that indicated he was complicit in the accusations she brought.
But the deal was not an indication of guilt or responsibility of these allegations she brought. The deal was made around him and he had no say in it. And the deal they made kept him whole and no liability or indication of guilt so they had no obligation to include him.
WHICH IS WHY HE WAS NOT BOUND TO THE AGREEMENT. THE NON-DISCLOSURE DID NOT APPLY TO HIM.
ABO 2012
Dsdsherm I think it is naive to think the president and ceo had no control or knowledge of what was paid out and why, and none of these women complained about he organization in general the complaints are against Cain, very specifically they are directed at Cain. He changes his story constantly and will be change it again, and then again because he is either lying or he has Alzheimer's. He is guilty with a capital G in my book you can delude yourself if you wish, you can even call it objectivity if you want to. I hope he stays in the race because he will damage the entire republican brand with everybody but a hard core group of supporters that will defend him at all costs. If runs against Obama he is a 15% disadvantage and that will only get worse because he has handled this badly, because their is no other way he can handle it. Because they don't pay out cash settlements for no reason at all no matter how much you want to believe they do, that is the smoking gun and there is not just one but two smoking guns. Good luck, we will see how it shakes out politically for him in the next few days or weeks.
Forrest,
He said already he recused himself from involvement in the claim, as he should have. That gave the HR department full control of the situation as it should have been. And if there was a confidentiality agreement, it may very well have been a breach if they DID discuss it with him, even though he was CEO.
It seems these smoking guns are already starting to point back at the accusers. It appears one of the "settled" claims has a history of multiple complaints and legal battles with employers and others. The term "Serial Complainer" is being bandied about..
And the 4th gal sounds as if she may have some mental issues and many co-workers who would love to spill some habits of hers.
I am not the biggest Cain supporter, and seriously still have my doubts about him. But this is starting to stink pretty bad for the complainers. They better come up with someone with more credibility than these two so far.
ABO 2012
Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Charley Brown and loveable Snoopy are real. Susan Bialek and her attorney friend are not !
Just another delusional Republican babbling about Santa Clause, Michelle Bachmann, the Easter Bunny, Herman Cain, Charlie Brown, Rick Perry and Snoopy being REAL. They are all characters who live in a fantasy world, and most of the smart people quit believing in them when they grew up!
There you go again making up lies...
David NEVER mentioned Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, or Rick Perry!
You libbies CRACK ME UP with you feeble attempts to make a point. LIAR!
n
I really, really have a problem with most of the men of the right on this. You guys always can come up with a reason to defend one of your creepy own! You will find any reason to blame a woman. Heck, the way you all are, you would blame a woman for being raped if it suited you. Sick.
Patriarchal Power Protects Punks
period.
As a woman, Cain gives me the creeps. All the posters who want to blame the women who have come forward are denying reality.
Men, go talk to your mothers, daughters, sisters. If you happen to be married,let your wife explain the world to you.
Cain is scrambling to deligitimize his accuser. Historically that has been the strategy of rapists to deligitimize their victims. There appears to be a preponderance of evidence without the latest testimony that there has been something askew with Cain.
Politically speaking his 9-9-9 tax plan was a debacle in the making. Obviously it was not well thought out for him to change it to 9-0-9. Then he rationalizes that a candidate doesn't need to know the details of foreign policy. Cain is not a viable candidate.
"You want a job don't you"
I mean really....I think Cain even if he was somewhat of a clinton would never use that line. I think he would be a little more inventive. The original complaint may have some merit but this broad? Come on now.
It's also more than amusing how the lefties eviserated Paula Jones who got a settlement of $850,000 and prop up this women based on no evidence whatsoever.
At least Cain or his peeps settled the matter for less than 80K while as Clinton as I mentioned had to pay out $850K.
This just confirms that republicans have more financial acumen and frugality. Something we definitely need right now instead of obama who continues spend us into bankruptcy.
That is quite possibly the stupidest thing you've ever posted...sexual harrassment lawsuit settlements as a bellweather of financial conservative values?
All of us are dumber for having read that!
come on I thought that was pretty funny....and you know it rings a bit true.
I find it strange that in a country where freedom and justice reign, a unsubstantiated accusation must bring about a defense. She cannot prove the event happened and likewise, he cannot prove that it didn't. But isn’t the onus on the accuser? I know I've heard somewhere, "Innocent, until proven...", well you know the rest. Allred taints her creditability, not her financials, IMO. But, by all means, continue to volley…
Seriously, You forgot that we have been living in liberal world for a few decades now and what ever a lib says makes it a done dea and only a liberal dem gets afforded the "Innocent, until proven . . ." not a conserivtive.
Seriously, You forgot that we have been living in liberal world for a few decades now and what ever a lib says makes it a done dea and only a liberal dem gets afforded the "Innocent, until proven . . ." not a conserivtive.
How about a little honesty? Didn't conservatives jump on Anthony Weiner?
… photos and texts provided the accuser with credibility and footing. Here? Or is it strictly political as you seem to suggest?
Show us some pictures of cain's wiener and then you'll have an argument.
Rob, I had no idea you were a swinger. I'd rather NOT see photos, if it's all the same to you!
m'kay, thanks,
you may say, one sexual harassment case is OK. it may be in doubt...maybe she misinterpreted the situation..
second sexual harassment case....Ok..maybe she wants money too..???
3er sexual harassment case....oh..oh... we have a pervert on our hands..!!!!
fourth sexual harassment case.... this is getting messy, what is your excuse to not believe it happened??
or do you expect Mr. Cain to say: " yes, I did it?"
Actually, what exists are 4 accusations, without corroboration, evidence of any kind, made by 3 anonymous women, 2 of which were paid paltry sums (in comparison to Paula’s 850K) to indicate there was substance to their claims, and a fourth, her claims veracity, yet to be vetted thoroughly.
The timing is the issue. The man has been running for a little less than a year, and when he gets national attention, he gets hit with these stories, placing him in a no win situation.
Its smacks of political hackery, no more, no less. Provide some evidence, otherwise, the onus is not on the accused and its slander.
OK, two of the claims were made to go away, by "agreements," since Mr. Cain does not like the word "settlement." Maybe he is afraid that someone might thing a settlement is a plantation and he's actually in favor of returning slavery and plantations... you know that whole "Take America Back" thing... back to 1781, before the Constitution existed.
Since Mr. Cain and the NRA made the agreements, I would imagine there was at least some valid basis for the agreement, otherwise the NRA would not have made an agreement. That's the one part that Mr. Cain can't get around, there is a lot of smoke, and more to come. He's toast, he just needs to be tossed away.... move on to the next GOP failure.
This article and these comments illustrate why women do not come forward when they are harassed, assaulted or raped. I have things happen to me and I would never report them because I knew that I would be dragged though the dirt and possibly lose my job. And it shows why other women harassed by Cain don't go public. Almost anyone has things in their life that could be used against them, but can only women with a spotless record come forward about these things? How many people in these times have financial problems? How many have someone who dislikes them or is jealous of them who will run their mouths to the press? To me the real issue with Cain is that he is clueless about foreign policy, proposes a tax plan that would lower taxes on the rich and raise them on everyone else, and has handled this whole mess poorly, suggesting he couldn't handle the presidency well.
Good post, Janet. And the Cain camp had about 10 days notice that this was coming at them--and they still weren't prepared to handle it.
Let's assume the people who question Ms. Bialek hugging Cain are correct---she is a gold-digger who is gaming the system. I hope that isn't the case but I don't know. That does not mean she isn't telling the truth about the incident. Maybe a month ago she felt differently--maybe that Cain had a bit too much to drink and made a mistake with her. Now a month later she learns of all the other people it happened to and realized that there is more to this and so she came forward. Or maybe she just wants to get rich. We will make choices to believe her or Mr. Cain. Some will believe him but to those of us who don't, it is another indication that he would not make a good president.
What's the answer Janet just assume the accusing female is aways being honest because it may be embarrassing to bring up her past? Be realistic some people would think even a male has the right to make use of the justice system and laws of the country, if a woman decides not to report something because they don't think it's worth the effort that's their decision, for which they should take responsibility.
Steeler Fan - She said this morning that the reason she came forward was that her past boyfriend - the one she told "something" had happened but never told him any details back in 1997 - called her up out of the blue last week and urged her to call Gloria Allred. Who is he?? Notice Gloria won't release his affidavit - nor tell us his name. Is he politically connected - right or left? Seems it would be good if we knew his identity since he was the impetus for her coming forward.
Steeler:
Did you say the same thing about Clinton? He had just as many or more accusations against him when he was running.
I bet you jumped in line and pulled that lever for him and none of those accusations ever crossed your mind.
Accusations has nothing to do with a person's job performance. People are accused of eroneous BS everyday but yet perform at the top of their game on the job.
http://www.suntimes.com/8592168-417/sneed-witness-says-cain-accuser-hugged-him-during-tea-party-meeting-a-month-ago.html
Not sure what that means, Monetfan---maybe the ex is a Democrat and wants to hurt Cain. Like I said---maybe this woman is totally a golddigger and out to make a buck. Doesn't mean I condone that but it also doesn't mean that she is lying, either.
Janet, so true. Often, it is because the woman has financial or other personal issues that make her vulnerable to this behavior. He believes he can get away with the abuse or harrassment because no one would believe her story.
ITM---the accusations against Clinton were troubling to me at the time and his behavior after he was elected troubling as well. I'd like to think there is a lesson to be learned from that----we need a President of strong moral character. If Herman Cain is that man for you, by all means support him, give him money, vote for him. That is your right.
I have come to see the long campaigns that we now have as a process of seeing the real person, not the scripted recitation of talking points. I think we have seen the real Herman Cain.
Bialek, a single mother with a 13-year-old son...............In a separate interview on CNN, she said her son did encourage her to speak out. “You need to tell on him,” she quoted her son as saying.
Might have had a little credibility, til the "advise from the son" came up.
Sister, relative, friend ????? Maybe. Maybe someone who may have been told about it when it happened. (@ 15yrs ago) But her 13 yr old son??? I can only imagine how that conversation went.
Sharon Bialek: "Hey (son's name), there's the man who tried to get mommy to do bad things with her mouth."
Son: "You should tell on him mom."
If the son had any feelings for his mother he would have stepped up and "encouraged" her to "tell on him" sooner, seeing how doing the right thing is so important to her.
Why would this woman let herself be put up in a hotel and taken out to dinner (in an effort to get her job back or find a new one). Serious lack of judgment on her part. Not how I would look for new employment. I think Herman though he was on a date.
A black married man with a 200% faithful life long wife on a date with a white women !!
ROFLMFAO !!!
So you are okay with date rape too?
Herman is 200% married by his own words. He did not think he was on a date. He simply had a meeting with a vulnerable good looking woman who needed a job and he did what every self-respecting male would do, try toi take advantage of her. What a guy.
Herman thought that he was on a date? He is a married man. What will you say when more women step up to complan. She and her boyfriend thought that Cain was a respectable man with powerful connections. Many people "network" when looking for a job.
Lets face it, the man is a womanizer and his wife knows it, I'm sure she dealt with this years ago, she just did not think it would come back up. some women except this from their husbands ie Hillary Clinton and look the other way as long as their husband come home at night and make sure the bills are paid,
Cain is not stupid, he used women who were venerable and needed his help or needed him to use his influence help get a job, this is nothing new, she did not realise she had to do a job on him first. . the fact people here are questioning her because she has regular people problems(money) makes me sick.
she could have wrote a book or tried to extort money from his but she has not, in-addition she is a life long GOP supporter but i see the GOP regulars here are going after her.
Cain the perfect slime. Cain represents the party that will not raise taxes unless you are the middle class. You are only in the protected class if you are the super wealthy.
Go ahead republicans show us how smart you are by voting to raise your taxes while protecting the rich. All the flat taxes does just that, raises your taxes while cutting billionaires taxes by at least half or more. Republican leadership is hoping you are too dumb to notice.
A vote for any republican is a vote to cut taxes for the super wealthy. We will see if any republicans are smart enough to vote for America instead of the rich.
Remember too that the rich are above having to explain how they treat the non-wealthy especially if you are a non-wealthy woman.
You just keep telling yourself that women always get paid off for fake harrassment charges. (twice)
They both are tea party, so I wonder what republicans spilled this story?
They say perry, or maybe mitt?
Who gains from this?
You RePukes are really showin' your colors now! Disgusting behavior from a disgusting person. Keep on lying!!
Kind of like Bill getting a BJ in the oval office and then lying about it?
have to hand it to the republican establishment teaming up with the professional left to not only lynch the most recent conservative man of color, but to fire a shot at the Tea Party as well.
do not despair, they will destroy themselves or each other with their hate.
the Republic will be restored.
This lady admitted she had lived in the same apartment complex as David Axelrod.. now THAT is interesting.
3 words:
She's from Chicago.
Someone here seems to have a fixation about weird sexual behaviors & Liberals....
Cain accuser comes under scrutiny
Tue Nov 8, 2011
Cain accuser comes under scrutiny
Tue Nov 8, 2011
More 2012: Election Day!
Tue Nov 8, 2011
More 2012: Election Day!
Tue Nov 8, 2011
Fourth woman details sexual harassment allegations against Cain
Mon Nov 7, 2011
Fourth woman details sexual harassment allegations against Cain
Mon Nov 7, 2011
Fourth woman details sexual harassment allegations against Cain
Mon Nov 7, 2011
Schumer: Supercommittee deal unlikely
Mon Nov 7, 2011
Schumer: Supercommittee deal unlikely
Mon Nov 7, 2011
NBC/WSJ poll: Cain allegations don't matter to majority of Republicans
Mon Nov 7, 2011
and apparently, Mister has a fixation with me!
Who cares: it all about politics and nothing else...I hope the Republicanspukes and TeaBa*tards fall like a lead ballon. I hope fifty more woman come out. all you people on here ought to get a life...Oh better yet get a job. Call your Republicanpukes and tell them you need a Job and stop Bit*ching on here.
Right. The only way to get a job in obama's america is to join a public union.
how many times has Donald Trump claimed bankruptcy
In the interview this morning she was asked how she knew to call Gloria. She said that her past boyfriend - the one she said that she told "something" had happened but had not given him the details back in 1997 - called her up out of the blue last week and recommended she call Gloria. I think it would be interesting to know who he is. Is he politically connected - either on the right or the left? Notice Gloria refused to release those "affidavits" signed by this past boyfriend and someone else - and refused again in interviews this morning to say who these two men are.
I forgot to say in my above post that this past boyfriend is the one with whom Ms. Bialek had been to numerous dinners with where the two of them sat with Mr. Cain - and had recommended that she contact Mr. Cain for a job. So back in 1997 it sounds like this boyfriend thought highly of Mr. Cain. And at this event a month ago, Ms. Bialek told people that she knew Mr. Cain and was eager to see him again. And when she did, they hugged and chatted - she even whispered in his ear.
Come on. Does this really sound credible that she was assaulted as she alleged?
Are you suggesting the former boyfriend works for Romney?
Monetfan Just bless your heart. Your defending a sexual predator.
Monetfan-- I quess by now you have either seen or heard of Mr. Cain's press conference. Mr. Cain claimed, today at the press conference, that he doesn't know and had seen Ms. Bialek for the first time at the press conference yesterday. I hope FOX News doesn't have any photos of the embrace you mentioned or any other photos that show the two together for that matter. It could prove truly problematic for Mr. Cain due to his claim of never seeing her before.