« | »

Shocker: New Cain Accuser Hires Gloria Allred

From the National Enquirer’s competitors, Radar Online:

New Woman Accusing Herman Cain Of Sexual Harassment Hires Gloria Allred

By Jen Heger, Radar Legal Editor
November 7, 2011

A new woman alleging sexual harassment by presidential hopeful Herman Cain will break her silence at a news conference with her powerhouse attorney Gloria Allred Monday afternoon in New York City, RadarOnline.com is exclusively reporting.

We will assume that this woman is not one of the two who received settlements from the National Restaurant Association. Nor is she the woman the AP claims to have dug up, who never filed a complaint.

Of course, it was only a matter of time before Gloria Allred showed up to make this circus complete. By the way, where is the NAACP? Why aren’t they defending Mr. Cain from this obvious lynching? (Just kidding, of course.)

The embattled GOP nominee has admitted that several women who worked at the National Restaurant Association during his tenure as president of the organization received settlements. Politico has reported that the settlements were given because of sexual harassment allegations.

Two lies in two sentences. Cain has only admitted to two allegations of harassment. One of the two NRA settlements was a severance settlement, not a sexual harassment settlement.

The woman, who will be the first to go public on Monday, sought Cain’s help with an employment issue and was allegedly sexually harassed by him. Allred and her client will discuss, in detail, what she alleges occurred with Cain

After they get their story straight and focus test what will work best, if Ms. Allred is going to do for Cain what she did for Meg Whitman. (Via her housekeeper.)

Still, is there no statute of limitations on sexual harassment suits?

During Cain’s employment at the National Restaurant Association, which was from 1996-1999, two women accused him of sexual harassment, and both received financial settlements, according to Politico, which first broke the story. The women aren’t able to to discuss the matter publicly because of terms of the agreement.

Another blatant lie. The NRA has lifted it confidentiality restrictions on the two women accusers back on Friday.

This article was posted by Steve on Monday, November 7th, 2011. Comments are currently closed.

13 Responses to “Shocker: New Cain Accuser Hires Gloria Allred”

  1. River0 says:

    Wherever this woman goes the blowflies of the media swarm around her and the stench. If substantial and tangible evidence isn’t produced soon, the Lamestream Media, Democrats hit groups, and the Soros funded crypto-Marxists will suffer a humiliating defeat. Cain will benefit enormously.

  2. jobeth says:

    I’m so sick and tired of this publicity whore Gloria Allred. What a piece of excrement. If her name is attached I know its all empty garbage.

    And I’m also sick of all these allegations of harassment.

    As I’ve said so many times before, It isn’t sexual harassment unless the word NO is not heeded. Otherwise its a simple pass.

    Ok…maybe she didn’t appreciate his pass. She says no and he leaves. Where’s the harassment?

    Harassment only happens if you are….ready?…HARASSED.

    Definition of HARASS
    transitive verb
    1a : exhaust, fatigue b (1) : to annoy persistently (2) : to create an unpleasant or hostile situation for especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct
    2: to worry and impede by repeated raids , harassed the enemy

  3. tranquil.night says:

    The pundit classand inteligentsia officially went braindead again. It’s jaw-dropping how many have just wanted to use this as an excuse to push Cain out, especially on our side. Principles and Truth be damned, you’re just embarassing us now Herman, go away, you’re not smart or serious enough for us anyway.

    For shame.

    • jobeth says:

      I noticed that too. Some of these are conservative pundits I’ve always admired. But you can actually see the “repub club” wagons circle. I’m guessing that since its Romney’s ‘turn’, the ‘club’ members are trying to protect their jewel.

      Anyone else running is only for table dressing to make it appear as if its a choice of the people. Its like the real face of what politics have become in the last 100 years is loosing its mask. In this day and age, they can’t control what goes out there.

      Media has always been in some one’s pocket. So its fairly easy to control. Its been a piece of cake to get the ‘boys’ out there to insert info on who they want or don’t want in order to place their person in the office of the moment.

      Up until the Internet and social sites, its been hard to fight mis-information and planted lies , and run it down to its source. By the time anyone got to the bottom of it, it would be far to late to avoid fatal damage to the target’s campaign.

      Its not working as easily today with the Internet being the main source of information to most of us. A place we can dig into the topic at hand…and at lightning speed.

      But to go back to the pundits, I’m seeing people I respected seem to all be gathering to help these accusations against Cain be believed. The level of people who would normally not be required to step into the actual mud. That used to be only for the invisible workers.

      The fact that the well known media pundits on the right, are taking a ‘circle the wagon’ stance, tells me even they are padding their own professional nests over any kind of ‘America first’ thoughts. Not surprising…except who we’re seeing having to do it. Now that the great unwashed are beginning to get enough information to think for them self. Horrors, the train is leaving the tracks!

      All this makes me really question anything these pundits have said now, and I’m wondering if this stuff really DID come from the right. Maybe not a particular campaign but from the ‘machine’ as a whole, to protect their chosen one.

      I might add here, IMHO, Romney is a ‘put your finger in the wind” RINO.
      Just exactly the kind of candidate who knows how to go along to get along. And dammit!! Its his time to be the candidate (last sentence is a big sarc)

      I’m beginning to pencil in a date for our funeral, if we can’t get this country fixed, and in a hurry.

      Politics are like pealing a rotten onion. Looks fine on the outside but with every layer we peal, it gets nastier and stinks worse.

      Kinda makes you wonder if there is something to the Iuminate…sheeesh!

      With that, I’m outta here to go “Carpe Deim”

    • tranquil.night says:

      Meant to tell you that you really carpe’d that post, Jo.

      Your point about Romney and his establishment allies is particularly going to be relevant as we move forward and this thing continues to heat up.

      The group of particular interest to me within the establishment is what Levin calls The Democracy Project, or what were formerly known as the NeoCons, represented by Kristol, Rove, Krauthammer, Jen Rubin@WaPo, and others. The people who’ve overseen our domestic and global security apparatus in the past decade (which was also a massive excersize in Big Government). I think they’re two distinct premises now, that of yesterday’s NeoConservatism and today’s Democracy Project. NeoConservatism was about alerting America to the danger we face from the Islamofascists. The Democracy Project is more about this Leftist global humanitarian idealism that gets employed right before we help mobs topple stable regional allies and get replaced by hostiles.

      I’m very worried about it frankly. Our candidates still have yet to fine-tune the details of their FoPo worldview, which I sense is muddled amongst the movement as a whole. The two clearest defined visions are Paulonian Isolationism and The Democracy Project. That’s not good.

      Romney is showing signs now of extensive training in the Neocon platitudes which rightly win over Patriots who rightly believe we should have the best equipped and supported military in the world. That’s not quite what we get though with this bunch at the vanguard. Instead, even though we’re spending oodles on defense, we still can’t crank anything out through the massively ever-expanding bureaucracy.

      Sadly, that’s to whom I suspect these Democracy Project Republicans are loyal.

    • proreason says:

      Let’s be more specific jobeth, even though I’m not certain this is what you mean.

      Rush, Sean and Levin have a vested financial interest in pushing Herman Cain. He and his rise and subsequent troubles increase the traffic for their shows. I’m not saying that is the only reason they push him, but it’s something to think about.

      And there is an even darker side that I wouldn’t even bring up if somebody else hadn’t already. Their audiences have grown hugely with Obama in office.

      It may even be subconscious, but given the painfully obvious weaknesses in Mr Cain’s campaign, I believe that we are not being well served by the big three. Hannity was doing very well until the suspicious charges against Cain appeared. Now Sean is over the line as well.

      They cannot be any more certain about Herman Cain than we can be. But their bias is obvious.

      It has also occured to me that Cain agrees right down the line with every position of the big three, once he reaches the final correction to his earlier remarks. Does anybody else in the world agree with EVERYTHING they say. And might that not be a useful strategy for somebody who wanted to become a right wing darling.

    • tranquil.night says:

      I’m kinda scratching my head here, not quite sure what to make of all that. Guess I always intrinsically trust that their motives are as motivated by wanting to save the country as much or more than their. personal ambitions. I never thought that those had to be mutually exclusive, I figured that’s what makes them successful. I’m no expert though.

      Maybe my bias also comes from that I still think Herm would do better in the general than Mittens. And listening to the narratives of talk radio is serving him better than his advisors are, heh.

    • proreason says:

      tn, just because you agree with them doesn’t mean they can’t be biased. I agree with them probably as much as you do.

      They clearly are biased, and their bias is pushing the highest risk candidate in the most important election, probably since 1860. If Obama hadn’t won, Cain might well be the least qualified serious presidential candidate in history. He is certainly high on the list. Repeat; 2012 is the most important election since 1860.

      I also believe that the problem with Cain’s shifting positions is because his tendancy under pressure in an interview is to spit out what he really believes, rather than his calculated belief. a) impossible to prove, b) I don’t expect anybody to be with me right down the line, c) Cain is every bit the politician they all are…except Cain doesn’t have a voting track record. d) we should be suspicious about all of them.

      Where is the suspicion about Herman Cain from Rush, Sean and Levin? Where is the discussion of his duties at the KC Fed and discussions of his approval of Greenspan? Where is the discussion of how closing underperforming pizza parlors aligns with the responsibilities of a president? Where is the discussion of why he is the only candidate in recent memory who has hidden his wife? Where is the discussion of the turmoil that his complex 3-stage tax plan will cause, with every changing winners and losers? Where is the discussion of how a tax plan that raises taxes on 80-85% of the country while lowering taxes on dramatically on the wealthiest people can possibly make the proponent electable? Where is the discussion of how a tax plan that Cain swears is tax revenue neutral can possible spur the economy 5% (to the early claim of 10%)…might one assume that the spurring would more likely come from deregulation and support for small businesses than the tax plan? Where is the discussion of his universally acknowledged disinterest and lack of knowledge about foreign affairs? Where is the discussion of why he left the NRA? and on and on and on.

      If the country was in good shape, it might be worth taking a chance on a different kind of candidate. Where is a discussion of what the times really call for and an analysis of the relative strengths and weaknesses of the candidates we have, rather than the idolization of the one most likely to lose and least equipped to make a difference in the country?

      You won’t hear those discussions on the shows of the big three. They have their man. Why?

    • tranquil.night says:

      I can’t answer for them obviously. To what extent I can, only Sean is a journalist, but doesn’t finely comb through each candidate’s history looking for past areas of disagreement as much as he concerns himself with present ideas and the common areas of disagreement that get talked about by other chatterers.

      Levin is anti-Romney/establishment, pro-Conservatives, by admission IN THE PRIMARY. Much more virulently so than Rush.

      Inasmuch as I’ve been able to follow them, they’ve been giving Perry a fair shake and praise where due while noting those areas of disagreement with the base, they’ve rightly been talking up Newt lately. They still talk about Bachmann and Santorum even though they’re political non-factors.

      They’re the Conservative Knights of Ideological Purity. They’re biased and so am I. I want to reestablish Conservatism and see it on the ascendancy, on top of beating Obama.

      Do the Big 3 have an obligation to trash one of our own to intentionally try and tank his poll numbers because we all see obvious areas where Cain has issues? What’s the line here and what does this say about what we think about our voters?

    • proreason says:

      I’m not trashing Cain. I’ve said that the accusations against him are unproven and that 5 times .00001 is still nothing. I have said that he is an accomplished person with great sucesses in his life. I’m trashing his candidacy, mostly because of his plan, of which I am contemptuous, but also because of his lack of knowledge about many of the most important issues of the day.

      I just don’t think the talkers have their eyes open about Mr Cain, and as someone who is sceptical by nature, I wonder about THEIR motives for doing so.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Fair enough, yes, you’ve have always been consistent and fair to Cain personally. Forgive that obtuse choice of word: “trash.” If I may again though, I think they see this and their own roles in it through a different perspective.


      For instance: I believe Sean is about to announce he is hosting another longform debate between Newt and Cain specifically on their tax plans. 9-9-9 is going to get grilled. Sean wouldn’t set that up if he was trying to influence the process towards Cain.

  4. Mithrandir says:

    Anita Hill started this whole thing. It’s all about looks, you know? Because if Clarence Thomas looked like Denzel Washington, this would have never happened! She’d be all, “Oh, stop it, Clarence, you nasty! Your fine self!” So, what’s sexual harrassment, when an ugly man wants some? “Oh, he ugly! Call the police! Call the authority!”–Chris Rock

    And you will also notice that, DEMOCRAT MORALITY IS: ‘THAT WHICH FURTHERS THE DEMOCRAT PARTY’. –that’s all you need to understand with these people. Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky, Obama-Rev. Wright….it doesn’t help further the party, so it’s ignored.

  5. proreason says:

    This lie detection software says Cain didn’t lie in his presser and that the woman lied in hers.


« Front Page | To Top
« | »