The reasons someone would allege wrong doing by another are myriad, and the mere allegation proves nothing. Thus it is curious the intensity of interest on the part of the Politico for what otherwise would be the stuff of tabloid journalism. In their latest piece they confirm the following:
“Based upon the information currently available, we can confirm that more than a decade ago, in July 1999, Mr. Bennett’s client filed a formal internal complaint, in accordance with the Association’s existing policies prohibiting discrimination and harassment,” the group said in a statement.For my part, I'm with Ari Fleischer:
The group said that Cain disputed the allegations and that the settlement did not include “any admission of liability.”
“Mr. Cain was not a party to that agreement,” the association’s statement reads.
If Cain was the same type of skilled politician who has made Washington what it is has largely become -- an assemblage of smooth-talking, gifted experts in creating a massive debt that risks our future, while being seemingly incapable of doing anything about it other than blaming the other guy -- he might have acted differently.Exactly. Time will sort this little drama out, and if my hunch is right, we will end up discovering there is no 'there' there. Regardless, as a nation we still are in a huge amount of hurt. Let's see if we can't all try to focus on things a little more pressing.
But he's not an insider. He said what came naturally. He remembered more facts -- a very human development -- and said them. Scandal experts will tell you not to remember more information. Stick to your denial and say nothing else, they would advise. Cain didn't do that because he's not like that. He genuinely is different. And because he's different, he's being pilloried for how he has handled the allegations.