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.
On the bright side, Mr. Cain has raised a lot of money since the anonymous accusations began.
ReplyDeleteOn a brighter side, it got people to finally start talking about all the bullshit that has been going on in the corporate world with harassment claims and phony victimization--and the parasitic mechanism and industry that has grown up around this to make it all happen-- since the 1990s. If something is done to shut that down and make sure that only real victims of sexual harassment get accesss to redress then something good can come of all of this.
ReplyDeleteThe real irony here is that the same people that gave "birth" to this whole scam were the ones doing backflips to defend Bill Clinton when he was actually stuffing the beef down an intern's throat--and much more.
In the last several days I have read the stories of people that knew the details of claims made against them and their companies, and stories from "victims" who now confess that their "trauma" was overplayed to get a quick payoff because they were looking to move to a new firm and had a friend or a relative that was a lawyer, and stories from lawyers who defend against such actions today and insurance companies that really control the whole process because they eventually pick up the tab. I've learned that the cost of just reading a lawsuit and getting a first impression is around $5-$6,000 in a major city. And the cost of just bringing it in to a court room is around $250,000.
I've read that insurance companies jump at the chance for any five-figure settlement regardless of basis or facts. I've learned that putting your hand under your chin and saying your wife is that tall is grounds for someone getting around $50,000 in compensation. I had thought that only happens when you put your hand ten inches above
your crotch. Live and learn.