Dixie, you sure have been quiet about the meltdown of your canidate Cain... Whatsup?

In an interview with Greta van Susteren on Fox News Monday, Cain described the first woman, who is the subject of this story, as “a longer-term employee” who “worked in our governmental affairs department and she worked in the function that managed our political action committee.”

Cain said he didn’t see her much, beyond “casually running into her, like I would run into everybody” in the association’s Washington office.

And he asserted: “I have no knowledge that she made a formal complaint or accusation or anything like that.”

Cain also said Tuesday on Fox News that he is “absolutely sure” he didn’t ask the women that were the subject of the POLITICO story to come to his hotel room.

But the sources describe how the woman recounted her allegations against Cain to two members of the restaurant association’s board – sources who include an acquaintance of the woman’s and a person who attended the restaurant association meeting at which the woman lodged her complaint.

The sources say the woman told them Cain invited her to his hotel room at the event, and that both the context and the way Cain phrased the invitation made her feel extremely uncomfortable, even incensed.

After her complaint, Kilgore – who is still serving as the association’s legal counsel today – found out about it and looked into it, according to someone familiar with the association.

Yet, about 10 association board members serving at the time said they were never told of any investigation – or even complaints against Cain.

He resigned as president of the NRA effective June 30, 1999, before his three-year term was up, yet these board members say they were never fully informed as to why.


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/67581_Page2.html#ixzz1cgaz2Fv9
 
Jarod said:
Before today I had never heard of Politico. I dont care who the origional source was unless it was a false report.
Click to expand...

except you were claiming the original source was Republicans......now that you know it was Democrats you no longer care?......
 
apple0154 said:
Let's put it this way. When someone asks an inappropriate question about something that is none of their business one is not obliged to give a truthful answer.
Click to expand...

So rather then telling them it's none of their business, it's better to lie!!

And there we have the underlying basis for all Liberal thinking.
Thanks
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
You might want to recheck what falls under the definitiuon of sexual harassment; unless you're giving the liberal definition.
Click to expand...

The legal defination is...

1) Creating a hostile work enviorment.
2) Allowing a hostile work enviroment after someone has complained or you otherwise knew about it.
3) Demoting someone or not promoting someone because they refused your sexual advance.
 
Ogling soneome who does not work for you or with you is not sexual harrassment.
 
Ogling is simply proof that you haven't died.....

just last week as I was leaving the courthouse a new member of the prosecuting attorney's staff was hurrying into the building, apparently worried about being late for a hearing.....her most outstanding qualifications were in considerably more motion than the rest of her and I was struggling greatly with whether I was now sufficiently old enough to simply enjoy the view or if I was still required to be politically correct and steadfastly examine the carpeting in front of me as I met her in the hall......

I probably wasn't discreet enough......the security guard joked as I left that he saw my jaw drop from a hundred feet away.....
 
Last edited:
apple0154 said:
Let's put it this way. When someone asks an inappropriate question about something that is none of their business one is not obliged to give a truthful answer.
Click to expand...

Why don't we put it the way that it is? If a Grand Jury in a Federal court asks you a pertinent question material to the case, you are obligated by oath, to tell the truth, otherwise it is known as "perjury" and you can be imprisoned for it. Had Jay Leno asked Bill Clinton if he ever had sex with Monica, then it's not Jay Leno's business, and you are correct, he is not entitled to a truthful answer, but that wasn't the case with Clinton, he was called to give sworn testimony in a lawsuit, and his testimony was crucial to the case. HE LIED UNDER OATH! Now... if you or I had done what Clinton did, we would still be sitting in Federal prison.
 
Dixie said:
Okay, let's remove ourselves from Liberal La-la-Land for a minute, and rejoin reality... a "sexual harassment allegation" can result over something as insignificant and innocent as a compliment or nice gesture. I know this first hand, because someone I personally know, had to go through it. The guy is stone cold in love with his wife and would NEVER cheat, the idea never crossed his mind... there was a fairly attractive receptionist who worked for a company who was his client, and he talked to her almost daily, when he visited his client. She had recently been dumped by her boyfriend on Valentines Day, of all days...a story she shared with him on her own. He really felt sorry for her more than anything, and so he sent her some flowers and a card, the card had a poem about life...some inspirational crap... nothing romantic. The next day, his supervisor called him into the office to discuss a "sexual harassment" incident. Obviously, he had done nothing inappropriate, he thought he was being considerate and nice, nothing more... she interpreted it as "sexual harassment" and lodged a complaint. His supervisor explained, there was nothing he could do, he was obligated to follow up. There was never a charge made, the guy didn't get fired, and I don't know if the woman ever got paid off or whatnot, but it was a bunch of trumped up bullshit about nothing, all because he tried to do something nice for someone he felt sympathy for. I'm not saying this is the case with Cain, I don't know the details, but to automatically jump to the conclusion that Cain did something inappropriate on the basis someone claimed "sexual harassment" is absurd and patently unfair.

This surfaced from the Perry camp. One of Perry's top advisers worked for Cain during his 2004 Senate run, and had just recently joined the Perry team. Cain had briefed him on the incident in 2004, so he certainly had the information. Perry has had serious trouble gaining traction and catching Romney, and the more debates he flubbed, the more Herman Cain began to emerge as the challenger to Romney which Perry had hoped to be, so it all makes perfect political sense that it came from Perry.

And as for the "handling" of this, please do tell us, what exactly IS the appropriate way to handle such a thing? People keep saying Cain hasn't handled this well... but what the hell is he supposed to do? Suspend his campaign, stop talking about his 999 plan or any of his ideas, and focus intensely for the next two weeks on merely answering the same silly redundant questions about this, over and over again? Some of you brilliant political Einsteins tell me, what would YOU have done differently here? The way I see it, Cain has handled it appropriately, he issued the statement that the allegations are false, he did nothing inappropriate, and there is nothing to this. There is nothing more he can say or do about it, and it's best he get back on message and not allow this to become a distraction. That is what he has done... so, how has he "handled it poorly?"
Click to expand...

It all depends on what was said or "gestured", etc. Right now it is all speculation, and that is likely one of the reasons that he's still getting donations, etc. It appears to be a witch hunt, especially when people compare to how Clinton was treated with Paula Jones and Juanita Broderick as compared to this.

I'm interested to see how this falls out. As I said, if he survives this he'll be inoculated, nearly impervious, to any other attacks. He may be handling it perfectly. We won't know until it is in the past.
 
Dixie said:
Why don't we put it the way that it is? If a Grand Jury in a Federal court asks you a pertinent question material to the case, you are obligated by oath, to tell the truth, otherwise it is known as "perjury" and you can be imprisoned for it. Had Jay Leno asked Bill Clinton if he ever had sex with Monica, then it's not Jay Leno's business, and you are correct, he is not entitled to a truthful answer, but that wasn't the case with Clinton, he was called to give sworn testimony in a lawsuit, and his testimony was crucial to the case. HE LIED UNDER OATH! Now... if you or I had done what Clinton did, we would still be sitting in Federal prison.
Click to expand...

Explain to me how President Clinton's testamony about Monica Lewinsky crutial to the Paula Jones case? President Clinton was not in front of a Grand Jury.
 
Jarod said:
Explain to me how President Clinton's testamony about Monica Lewinsky crutial to the Paula Jones case? President Clinton was not in front of a Grand Jury.
Click to expand...

Yes, the testimony he lied under oath in, was before a grand jury. It was crucial to the case because it showed a pattern of sexual misconduct, which supported the allegations made by Paula Jones.
 
Damocles said:
It all depends on what was said or "gestured", etc. Right now it is all speculation, and that is likely one of the reasons that he's still getting donations, etc. It appears to be a witch hunt, especially when people compare to how Clinton was treated with Paula Jones and Juanita Broderick as compared to this.

I'm interested to see how this falls out. As I said, if he survives this he'll be inoculated, nearly impervious, to any other attacks. He may be handling it perfectly. We won't know until it is in the past.
Click to expand...

I agree, and I am still curious as to why people keep saying he "hasn't handled this well" or whatever... seems to me, he has handled it as best he could, and as well as any of us would have handled it... certainly better than Anthony Weiner handled his situation. Cain responded to the allegations, and the only thing he had to recant, was the part about the woman being paid, which he claims he was unaware of. But even that has been clarified by Cain... what else can he do?

I'm with Dick Morris on this, Cain just needs to wait this out and let it pass, the news cycle will take care of that. Barring any further information we don't know about, this thing will be forgotten in another few weeks. I think almost every major candidate for president, has to go through something like this... or so it seems. With McCain, you remember, he supposedly had inappropriate relations with a lobbyist, with Bush it was his National Guard record, with Kerry it was his purple hearts, with Clinton it was Gennifer Flowers and the draft....etc...etc...etc. You can go back to the days of FDR or even further back to Andrew Jackson... there has always been 'scandals' and such... allegations... innuendo... it usually doesn't 'derail' a candidacy. Now, this might pull some 'evangelical' votes away from Cain and give them to Santorum... but I think his core base of supporters are, like you say, reinvigorated by this, and willing to support him even more. It may turn out to be, ironically, the best thing that could have ever happened to Cain.
 
Dixie said:
Yes, the testimony he lied under oath in, was before a grand jury. It was crucial to the case because it showed a pattern of sexual misconduct, which supported the allegations made by Paula Jones.
Click to expand...

A pattern of misconduct is not admissable as propensity evidence.


Federal Rule of Evidence 404
(b) Other crimes, wrongs, or acts

Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top