« | »

2 Women Accused Cain Of ‘Sexual Behavior’

From a crowing Politico:

Exclusive: 2 women accused Herman Cain of inappropriate behavior

By: Jonathan Martin and Maggie Haberman and Anna Palmer and Kenneth P. Vogel
October 30, 2011

During Herman Cain’s tenure as the head of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s, at least two female employees complained to colleagues and senior association officials about inappropriate behavior by Cain, ultimately leaving their jobs at the trade group, multiple sources confirm to POLITICO.

"At least two"? What an interesting way to put this, Politico.

The women complained of sexually suggestive behavior by Cain that made them angry and uncomfortable, the sources said, and they signed agreements with the restaurant group that gave them financial payouts to leave the association.

"Sexually suggestive behavior" could be anything. And anything can make some people "angry and uncomfortable." Some people are born that way.

Also, it should be noted that "financial payouts" in sex harassment claims are the rule rather than the exception, these days. Since it is very costly and nearly impossible to fight them and win.

The agreements also included language that bars the women from talking about their departures.

Except to leftwing attack dogs — I mean news operations — like the Politico. Especially with Mr. Cain leading in the polls.

So will these women be made to give back their financial settlement cash?

In a series of comments over the past 10 days, Cain and his campaign repeatedly declined to respond directly about whether he ever faced allegations of sexual harassment at the restaurant association.

This turns out to be a little less than the truth, as we will see below. The Cain campaign did response within four days. And they gave a fairly direct response. They said the matter had been settled amicably.

They have also declined to address questions about specific reporting confirming that there were financial settlements in two cases in which women leveled complaints.

That may have been part of the legal agreement. Besides, why should the Cain campaign help Politico in their efforts?

POLITICO has confirmed the identities of the two female restaurant association employees who complained about Cain but, for privacy concerns, is not publishing their names.

Yes, Politico must protect their privacy. Unnamed accusers are always the best way to try to bring down a politicians. Anyway, whoever said people have the right to confront their accusers? Also, we know that women never lie about such things.

Cain spokesman J.D. Gordon told POLITICO the candidate indicated to campaign officials that he was “vaguely familiar” with the charges and that the restaurant association’s general counsel had resolved the matter.

Which would seem to contradict Politico’s claim that the Cain camp has "repeatedly declined to respond" to these allegations. (And we will learn below that this response was even more direct than this.)

The latest statement came from Cain himself. In a tense sidewalk encounter Sunday morning outside the Washington bureau of CBS News — where the Republican contender had just completed an interview on “Face the Nation” — Cain evaded a series of questions about sexual harassment allegations.

Gosh, this sure sounds like the kind of ‘ambush journalism’ that the news media likes to decry when it is used against Democrats.

Cain said he has “had thousands of people working for me” at different businesses over the years and could not comment “until I see some facts or some concrete evidence.” His campaign staff was given the name of one woman who complained last week, and it was repeated to Cain on Sunday. He responded, “I am not going to comment on that.”

He was then asked, “Have you ever been accused, sir, in your life of harassment by a woman?”

He breathed audibly, glared at the reporter and stayed silent for several seconds. After the question was repeated three times, he responded by asking the reporter, “Have you ever been accused of sexual harassment?”

Which seems like a pretty straight forward response to us.

Cain was president and CEO of the National Restaurant Association from late 1996 to mid-1999.

So this may have happened as long as 15 years ago. And at the high water mark of ‘sexual harassment’ claims.

POLITICO learned of the allegations against him, and over the course of several weeks, has put together accounts of what happened by talking to a lengthy roster of former board members, current and past staff and others familiar with the workings of the trade group at the time Cain was there.

You see? The news media will spare no effort of expense when it comes to investigating a decades old sexual harassment claim. Or even a painted rock in Texas. – And as long as it involves a Republican front-runner.

In one case, POLITICO has seen documentation describing the allegations and showing that the restaurant association formally resolved the matter. Both women received separation packages that were in the five-figure range.

Given that they were also terminated from the company as part of the deal, this would seem to be a paltry sum. And about the amount a company would agree to just to end a nuisance suit.

On the details of Cain’s allegedly inappropriate behavior with the two women, POLITICO has a half-dozen sources shedding light on different aspects of the complaints.

The sources — which include the recollections of close associates and other documentation — describe episodes that left the women upset and offended.

These "half-dozen sources" have not signed any confidentiality statement. So why can’t any of them be cited by name?

These incidents include conversations allegedly filled with innuendo or personal questions of a sexually suggestive nature, taking place at hotels during conferences, at other officially sanctioned restaurant association events and at the association’s offices.

‘What’s this pubic hair doing on my coke can?’ – That kind of sexually suggestive innuendo? Unfortunately, in our culture there are very few things that can’t be made to sound sexual, if you have a mind to make them sound that way.

There were also descriptions of physical gestures that were not overtly sexual but that made women who experienced or witnessed them uncomfortable and that they regarded as improper in a professional relationship

We can’t even imagine what kind of physical gestures would make people uncomfortable without being ‘overtly sexual.’ Slaps on the back? Handshakes?

But maybe women shouldn’t be allowed in the workplace after all, if they are such sensitive flowers.

One source closely familiar with Cain’s tenure in Washington confirmed that the claims related to allegations of sexual harassment – behavior that disturbed members of the board who became aware of it, as well as the source, who otherwise liked Cain.

“I happen to know there were sealed settlements reached in the plural. I think that anybody who thinks this was a one-time, one-person transgression would be mistaken,” this source said.

Good thing this ‘source’ "liked Cain." Otherwise, he might try to make things sound even worse than they are.

Still, remember how all the unnamed ‘sources’ in the Perry ‘N-Rock’ non-scandal were said to like Perry. To be some of his biggest fans. They were only concerned about what that scandal might do to his chances. Which is why they went to the Washington Post (who, by the way, practically own and operate the Politico).

This is a favorite ploy of the mainstream media when it comes to taking down Republicans.

The first woman was identified to POLITICO by a former association board member and her identity was confirmed by two additional sources. The former board member recalled learning of the woman’s departure at a 1999 association board meeting and trade expo in Chicago.

“She was offered a financial package to leave the association and she did,” said the former board member. “What I took offense at was that it was clear that rather than deal with the issue, there was an effort to hush it up. She was offered a way out to keep quiet.”

Again, we’re supposed to believe that this is someone who "liked Cain." And it would not occur to this person that it is usually far more sensible for a business to settle such a claim, no matter how fallacious, than to try to fight it.

A second source with close ties to the restaurant association from that period said the woman revealed at the time that she had suffered what the source described as “an unwanted sexual advance” from Cain at a hotel where an event involving the group was taking place.

Note how far down in the article this far more significant charge is buried. At the top of the piece we were told that the two women left because of "sexually suggestive behavior" and (in the headline) "inappropriate behavior." Things which are run far short of "an unwanted sexual advance." …

So why did the Politico bury this far more incendiary charge?

On Oct. 20, POLITICO first approached Gordon, who serves as the campaign’s vice president for communications, about whether Cain had been the subject of complaints of sexual harassment.

After several days of not responding to the question, Gordon emailed on Oct. 24 that any dispute about Cain’s conduct at the restaurant association “was settled amicably among all parties many years ago.”

“These are old and tired allegations that never stood up to the facts,” Gordon said in an email response. “This was settled amicably among all parties many years ago, and dredging this up now is merely part of a smear campaign meant to discredit a true patriot who is shaking up the political status quo.”

How is this not a response to Politico’s allegations? It sounds like a fairly direct response to us?

On Wednesday, the response shifted. Gordon telephoned to assert he was not using “settled” in a legal context but rather simply meant the matter was “resolved.”

That is not a ‘shift.’ The Politico is reaching here.

In that interview, Gordon told POLITICO he had spoken to Cain about the allegations and said Cain was “vaguely familiar” with the situation.

“He was vaguely familiar with it and wanted me to get with the [National Restaurant Association] lawyer who worked the case, Peter Kilgore. He said, ‘Just get with Peter Kilgore at the NRA.’ He remembered there was something vaguely, some allegation, but he wasn’t familiar with it." …

After POLITICO published its reporting Sunday evening, the Cain campaign said in a statement that the “political trade press are now casting aspersions on his character and spreading rumors that never stood up to the facts” but did not deny the details of the report.

The Cain camp has subsequently denied some of the claims in the Politico’s report. (See the next post.)

“Fearing the message of Herman Cain who is shaking up the political landscape in Washington, Inside the Beltway media have begun to launch unsubstantiated personal attacks on Cain,” the campaign said in a statement. “Sadly, we’ve seen this movie played out before – a prominent Conservative targeted by liberals simply because they disagree with his politics.” …

Cain, who has been married to his wife Gloria for 43 years, did tell at least one campaign staffer this year about the possibility that claims of sexual harassment could surface, according to the aide. Cain, this person said, described a case in which he fired an employee in 1990s and the woman alleged sexual misconduct or harassment. Cain told the campaign staffer he had beaten the case and that the woman had paid for his legal fees. The aide had no further details

Note how far down in this piece this information has been buried by the Politico.

Information about the incidents was apparently closely held, even among association board members. But one woman’s complaint apparently did make its way to at least some figures on the governing board when, at an association event, one board member got word that a female employee had complained about Cain’s advances, according to a source who was at the event.

The source said the board member asked the woman directly about the episode and was told that Cain had invited her up to his suite at a prior association event

And that is what they are referring to as an unwanted sexual advance? Are we living in Victorian times?

This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Monday, October 31st, 2011. Comments are currently closed.

5 Responses to “2 Women Accused Cain Of ‘Sexual Behavior’”

  1. DW

    From Reuters

    Herman Cain accused of sexual harassment
    By Reuters

    WASHINGTON – Two women employees complained of sexually suggestive behaviour by Republican presidential contender Herman Cain when he headed the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s, Politico said Sunday.

    The women ultimately left the trade group after signing agreements that gave them financial payouts to leave the association and barred them from talking about their departures, the report said.

    Cain’s campaign called the allegations “unsubstantiated personal attacks.”

    The report could damage Cain’s surprisingly strong bid to win the Republican nomination to challenge President Barack Obama in 2012.

    Cain, the former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, has taken a lead in many opinion polls of Republicans in recent weeks despite never having held public office. A recent poll had him ahead of his main rival former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney in Iowa, which holds the first of a series of state-by-state contests to choose the Republican party’s candidate.

    Politico said at least two female employees, whom they have identified but decided not to name, complained to colleagues and senior association officials that inappropriate behaviour by Cain made them angry and uncomfortable.

    Full article:
    http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/US.....00896.html

    Gotta love the timing of this little “October surprise”…

    • tranquil.night

      It’s not the nature of the evidence, but the seriousness of the charge.

      Stacy McCain, (Cain camp) is catatonic: http://theothermccain.com/2011.....e-patriot/
      Erickson (Perry camp) is indignant and highly skeptical: http://www.redstate.com/erick/.....legations/
      Ace (undecided): thinks this is only the beginning: http://ace.mu.nu/archives/323213.php
      Riehl (the whole field sucks) is amused: http://www.riehlworldview.com/.....wreck.html

      The big question among the insiders is what GoP cadidate gave state-controlled Politico the knife to use to pop out of the shower curtain on the Cain campaign like a bad slasher flick. Whoever it was, the reason is undeniably because Cain has become a very real threat politically, so it was time to Palinize.

      I certainly hope Romney and Perry aren’t that ugly as to want to personally destroy a man whose only crime is rhetorically standing up in defense of his country, but I’m quite convinced this is the usual suspects on the Left. It follows the exact same pattern of what they’re trying to do to Rubio. It is absolutely non-tolerable to them for Conservatism to be represented by non-white guys.

      Rush has the right perspective and tone in all this as usual.

    • tranquil.night

      Oh, we were all thinking it, Rush just said it: a Clarence Thomas redux.

      Indeed there are no coincidences in politics.

  2. GetBackJack

    1. Democrat Party – 1800′s – Slavery and Lynching

    2. Late 1800′s, Democrats forced a Civil War over their insistence on slavery and lynchings

    3. After being responsible for 600,000+ dead Americans, untold injured and 1/4 of the nation laid waste by Democrat war-making, Democrats enact Jim Crow laws throughout the South

    4. FDR appoints two leaders of the Segregationist movement to the Supreme Court

    5. Senator Robert Byrd (D-VA) is infamous for being active in the Klan

    6. Throughout the South up through the 1970s, the Democratic Party was synonymous with the Klan.

    7. Earnest Hollings

    8. Media-Lynching Clarence Thomas

    9. Herman Cain? Meet The New Boss, Same As The Old Boss

    Once is happenstance
    Twice, coincidence
    Three times, enemy action or, so Sherlock Holmes said.

  3. jobeth

    Listening to Rush (I believe it was there) that someone put forth the thought that if this is coming from the dems and it probably is…it might be because Obalmy’s crowd will lose the race card if Cain wins the the repub nomination.

    I’m sure there is a lot more to it, but they had a good point. What WOULD they use if Cain wins…lol

    Gonna be and interesting…if not vital…election.

    Friends I know who have not voted in YEARS finally got the picture and are registering (rep). So maybe something good is happening.




« Front Page | To Top
« | »