Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Cain, Sexual Harassment Lawsuits, etc  (Read 415 times)

Offline thedrunkenmonkey

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2,520
  • Renown: +0/-0
  • Inebriated Simian (Skype: thedrunkenmonkey)
    • View Profile
    • Mah Bloggy
Cain, Sexual Harassment Lawsuits, etc
« on: November 02, 2011, 04:52:50 PM »
I've been watching Herman Cain for a while, and I want to admit my biases before going forward.

I think he's a flaming idiot who translated his "success" as the CEO of a pizza chain and his work at an industry association into a presidential bid.

I think he allowed himself to become the "black candidate" of the Republican party without anyone really paying a lot of attention to his credentials or his background, and I believe he tried to make his bid for presidency based almost solely upon the fact that Barack Obama broke the race barrier when he didn't have the support himself to do it.

I believe his tax policies are the work of someone else who's pulling his puppet strings - evidenced by the fact that he's been more of a waffle on his tax plan than anyone else out there.

I also believe he, out of all the other Republican candidates, represents the stupidest presidential candidate since George W. Bush.

Now, that said...

I also want to know what folks think about the allegations of sexual harassment. Today Cain has said that he believes himself to be the target of a smear campaign by Rick Perry's campaign, and in an interview with Charles Krauthammer, has said the attack was racially motivated against him.

Cain has played the race card AND said "They're trying to lynch me" in the same two days.

However, he's also impugned the behavior and the credibility of the women who received salary settlements from the Restaraunt Association of America and were under court order not to speak about the incident as a result of the settlement.

So here's my questions:

1. Is race a factor in these allegations?
2. If someone verbally attacks the accusers, and Cain is actually under court order himself NOT to talk about the incident, does his violation of the gag order mean that the accusers are able to come forward?
3. And finally, (because I'm fully aware that this is unfortunately how media companies work) does the acceptance of money to provide exclusive interview rights to a news media organization negate these women's experiences with Cain/

My thoughts basically boil down to more questions.

1. Herman, if there's no truth to the allegations, why was there a settlement in the first place?
2. Why did you lie directly to the American people, the reporters, the public, your own party about this happening?
3. Why did you try to deny this happened when the story first broke? Why did you not say anything when, ten days before publication, Politico told you it was going forward with the story?
4. Why are you accusing a former campaign worker on the Perry ticket of smearing you after joining the Perry campaign two weeks ago when to confirm such a story, the reporters had to be working on this for upwards of four months?
5. And if there is no truth to the story, why NOT tell the RAA they can lift the gag order and the women who accused you tell their side of the story - when you've essentially called them lying sluts?
Logged
You are TOO my monkey.

Offline catfishncod

  • Rhymesmith
  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 1,088
  • Renown: +3/-0
  • Impatiens mediocritas
    • View Profile
Re: Cain, Sexual Harassment Lawsuits, etc
« Reply #1 on: November 03, 2011, 12:07:28 AM »
Quote from: thedrunkenmonkey on November 02, 2011, 04:52:50 PM
I believe his tax policies are the work of someone else who's pulling his puppet strings - evidenced by the fact that he's been more of a waffle on his tax plan than anyone else out there.

Oh, it's quite well established that he's connected to the Koch brothers and has Steve Forbes as an advisor. So flat taxism comes naturally to him -- he's completely an advocate for the 1%, and anyone who stops and really looks can find that out.

Quote
I also believe he, out of all the other Republican candidates, represents the stupidest presidential candidate since George W. Bush.

Really? Even stupider than Rick Perry? I ask because Perry is the more obvious comparison to W., coming from the same environment, and so is more obviously stupider than W... Perry is also even worse at debating than Cain, and his ideas of strategy are effectively those of his Celtic ancestors, i.e., charge and charge and charge again, making as much noise as possible, in hopes that bullying and looking scary are enough to dismay the enemy. It seems to have been sufficient to become Governor of Texas, but the Peter Principle is fiercely in effect here. (Anyone disciplined can make mincemeat of him, just as the Roman Army made mincemeat of the Celts.) If this weren't the weakest Republican field in living memory, Perry would be laughed off the stage... but then MOST of the field should be laughed off the stage, and eventually will be. At least Cain can answer a question.

Quote
1. Is race a factor in these allegations?

Cain is of the generation where race is considered a factor in anything they say or do. He came of age during civil rights, when your entire identity became wrapped up in your race. From that perspective, anything you said or did reflected on your race... and so it became easy to believe that anything anyone said or did in relation to you reflected on your race.

I honestly have no idea if race was a factor in the decision to bring forward these allegations. I'm not a mindreader and I have no idea who decided to air all this. What I do know is that Cain, like many people his age both black and non-black, will never believe it couldn't have been a factor.

Quote
1. Herman, if there's no truth to the allegations, why was there a settlement in the first place?

Because that's usually easier than fighting it in court. Usually issue #1 is to keep it out of the court of public opinion: even if you successfully defend yourself, people will remember the accusation, and the mere existence of the accusation makes people think the probability of guilt is > 0%. That's as far as most people will get; very few will take the time to dig in the details and find out it was all bull.

Quote
2. Why did you lie directly to the American people, the reporters, the public, your own party about this happening?
3. Why did you try to deny this happened when the story first broke? Why did you not say anything when, ten days before publication, Politico told you it was going forward with the story?

Better questions, ones that I can't answer.

Quote
4. Why are you accusing a former campaign worker on the Perry ticket of smearing you after joining the Perry campaign two weeks ago when to confirm such a story, the reporters had to be working on this for upwards of four months?

Because why pass up an opportunity to smear a rival AND deflect attention?

Quote
5. And if there is no truth to the story, why NOT tell the RAA they can lift the gag order and the women who accused you tell their side of the story - when you've essentially called them lying sluts?

Oh come on. You know the answer to this. Because he's an idiot.
Logged
--Catfish 'n Cod
A proto-pair-o-docs: "I'm not normal -- I'm a medical studentalmost-resident!"
It's the (lack of) thought that counts. --K

Offline thedrunkenmonkey

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2,520
  • Renown: +0/-0
  • Inebriated Simian (Skype: thedrunkenmonkey)
    • View Profile
    • Mah Bloggy
Re: Cain, Sexual Harassment Lawsuits, etc
« Reply #2 on: November 04, 2011, 11:35:58 AM »
Well, the idiot thing I can see, but to be fair, I'm not seeing a lot of mental wunderkind coming out of the Republican party these days. I am seeing a whole bunch of people whose appeal seems to be less about their ability as leaders and more about their marketability.

Incidentally, Mrs. Monkey pointed out that most of the time when an agreement is reached and a nondisclosure occurs, it's intended to make sure that the victim can't come back later and sue the pants off the company (not the exec) who was responsible. It's protectionism and it's made to lock down future liability for the company as a result of the incident.

When I said "That's just not fair" she looked at me like I'd dropped in from the Planet Stupid, and noted that it's not fair for a reason - that people in power who apply this kind of protectionism are doing it to protect their golden geese, not to apply justice. Unfortunately it happens to a lot of women and they aren't protected in kind from the accusations of the other side.

So legally Cain is free to say they're lying sluts, golddiggers, that he didn't know anything, etc, etc, etc. It's not in violation of any law because they set it up like that.

That really just rustles my anus hairs.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2011, 11:39:23 AM by thedrunkenmonkey »
Logged
You are TOO my monkey.

Offline catfishncod

  • Rhymesmith
  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 1,088
  • Renown: +3/-0
  • Impatiens mediocritas
    • View Profile
Re: Cain, Sexual Harassment Lawsuits, etc
« Reply #3 on: November 04, 2011, 12:28:45 PM »
Quote from: thedrunkenmonkey on November 04, 2011, 11:35:58 AM
Well, the idiot thing I can see, but to be fair, I'm not seeing a lot of mental wunderkind coming out of the Republican party these days.

It's sort of hard to do so when anti-intellectualism is considered part of the cultural underpinning of your party, when the opposition is derided as "eggheads", and when you cast out anyone smart enough, principled enough, or with enough guts to ask penetrating questions. (Except Ron Paul, who is considered harmless.)

Quote
I am seeing a whole bunch of people whose appeal seems to be less about their ability as leaders and more about their marketability.

Hey, government is a business, right? And Republican CEOs in the private sector are exactly the same: it really doesn't matter if you actually ARE skilled as long as you can SELL yourself as skillful. For example: Jon Corzine was "skilled" enough to make a profit off betting the farm at MF Global and losing. He made such a great presentation, and his resume was really impressive. Who cares if he's a screwup? Several billion in in losses is just the price of experience!

Quote
Incidentally, Mrs. Monkey pointed out that most of the time when an agreement is reached and a nondisclosure occurs, it's intended to make sure that the victim can't come back later and sue the pants off the company (not the exec) who was responsible. It's protectionism and it's made to lock down future liability for the company as a result of the incident.

When I said "That's just not fair" she looked at me like I'd dropped in from the Planet Stupid, and noted that it's not fair for a reason - that people in power who apply this kind of protectionism are doing it to protect their golden geese, not to apply justice. Unfortunately it happens to a lot of women and they aren't protected in kind from the accusations of the other side.

Behold the extra rights of the 1% and corporate "persons" in action. But to be fair, a company can't control the actions of every last employee and shouldn't be held responsible for, say, Cain being a jerk. They can be held responsible, though, for not firing him. What this really represents is the rest of company choosing to protect Cain... because they could just as easily signed the exact same nondisclosure agreement and then quietly pointed him to the door.

Quote
So legally Cain is free to say they're lying sluts, golddiggers, that he didn't know anything, etc, etc, etc. It's not in violation of any law because they set it up like that.

That's... not my understanding. I thought that nondisclosure means nondisclosure, and that Cain's speech meant they're free to respond. The deal is off, the contract broken. If the deal actually says that Cain can say whatever he wants with no penalties while the ladies are still gagged, then their lawyers should be tried for malpractice for setting up a deal that be broken with impunity.
Logged
--Catfish 'n Cod
A proto-pair-o-docs: "I'm not normal -- I'm a medical studentalmost-resident!"
It's the (lack of) thought that counts. --K

Offline thedrunkenmonkey

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2,520
  • Renown: +0/-0
  • Inebriated Simian (Skype: thedrunkenmonkey)
    • View Profile
    • Mah Bloggy
Re: Cain, Sexual Harassment Lawsuits, etc
« Reply #4 on: November 04, 2011, 12:37:49 PM »
Quote from: catfishncod on November 04, 2011, 12:28:45 PM
That's... not my understanding. I thought that nondisclosure means nondisclosure, and that Cain's speech meant they're free to respond. The deal is off, the contract broken. If the deal actually says that Cain can say whatever he wants with no penalties while the ladies are still gagged, then their lawyers should be tried for malpractice for setting up a deal that be broken with impunity.
`

Yeah, that's what I thought too, but as part of these kinds of settlements it's only contingent on the parties in the settlement. I don't think Cain was actually cited or legally bound as a party in the agreements, so he's not bound by the same restrictions they are.

I'm also not sure the malpractice would stick - it's not like the lawyers blinded the women as a result of the surgery, and if the women were, at that time, satisfied with the agreement there's no legal basis for miscarriage of justice or legal incompetence unless the women were defendants.

But I don't know from law, I just watch CSI, and they almost always get the people who committed murder to cop to it by the end of the show.

The woman who didn't get a settlement, however, is sure talking pretty loudly...
« Last Edit: November 04, 2011, 12:40:02 PM by thedrunkenmonkey »
Logged
You are TOO my monkey.

Offline catfishncod

  • Rhymesmith
  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 1,088
  • Renown: +3/-0
  • Impatiens mediocritas
    • View Profile
Re: Cain, Sexual Harassment Lawsuits, etc
« Reply #5 on: November 04, 2011, 02:18:19 PM »
Quote from: thedrunkenmonkey on November 04, 2011, 12:37:49 PM
Yeah, that's what I thought too, but as part of these kinds of settlements it's only contingent on the parties in the settlement. I don't think Cain was actually cited or legally bound as a party in the agreements, so he's not bound by the same restrictions they are.

He didn't have to be identified by name in the filed papers, but he surely was mentioned. Again, if he wasn't a party to it, the lawyer didn't do his/her job. Cain certainly wasn't acting as an officer of the company when he pinched their butts or whatever. The company's only interest is that misrepresented himself as acting as an officer of the company, i.e., he was using the company as a tool of coercion. To let him not only run free but be able to say anything... I would have said, "no deal, going to court". The whole point is to keep this out of the papers. If Cain gets to say whatever he wants, publicly, what's the point -- not just from the woman's perspective, but from the company's perspective?

(That said, Cain's story is that he told someone in his confidence privately, who then made it public. If that were true [which I doubt] Cain then has a claim against his advisor for breach of ethics, but the other parties don't have a claim against Cain, as he didn't personally break the rules.)

Quote
I'm also not sure the malpractice would stick - it's not like the lawyers blinded the women as a result of the surgery, and if the women were, at that time, satisfied with the agreement there's no legal basis for miscarriage of justice or legal incompetence unless the women were defendants.

There's legal basis; you just would have a hard time proving it. Being a poor lawyer is not a crime, but violating the canons of law (which including doing the utmost on your client's behalf) can get you disbarred.

Quote
The woman who didn't get a settlement, however, is sure talking pretty loudly...

Good!
Logged
--Catfish 'n Cod
A proto-pair-o-docs: "I'm not normal -- I'm a medical studentalmost-resident!"
It's the (lack of) thought that counts. --K
Pages: [1]