The New York Times reports that (emphasis mine):
Adding to the pressure on Mr. Cain, a lawyer for the second woman called on the restaurant association to release her from a confidentiality agreement signed as part of her settlement, raising the prospect that she could publicly dispute Mr. Cain’s account of what happened. The lawyer said the confidentiality agreement had left her unable to respond to Mr. Cain’s denials of any inappropriate behavior toward the women.
“He’s basically saying: ‘I never harassed anyone. These claims have no merit,’ ” said the lawyer, Joel P. Bennett of Washington, who represented the woman in her initial agreement. “And I’m sure my client would have a comeback to that.”
Mr. Cain signed the same confidentiality clause that the accuser signed. Mr. Cain has widely and publicly disparaged the claims of the accuser, and has belatedly provided details about some of the alleged abuse. The accuser has, meanwhile, remained silent in compliance with the agreement.
I think Mr. Bennett, the lawyer for the accused, should sue Mr. Cain for violating the confidentiality clause he signed. He is harming the reputation of the accuser, and the agreement leaves her in a position where she cannot respond.
This would-be President can’t remember or can’t tell the truth about significant events in an organization he led (and nobody can tell me that a one year severance package for a sex-harassment settlement is not significant). Now, it seems, he also cannot abide by the terms of a contract he himself was a party to.
The fact that this incompetent liar is a major candidate for the GOP speaks volumes for the despicable condition of the GOP.
during the Edwards’ and Weiner picadilloes. At worst, Herman is just pulling a Bill Clinton.
The initial issue with Herman Cain was harassment, not infidelity. The subsequent issue has been his offensive duplicity about what happened.
None of Mr. Edwards, Mr. Weiner, nor Mr. Clinton had entered confidential settlement agreements for similar charges, and the situations are not comparable.
of “conflation” whenever your hypocrisy becomes apparent. To overlook “offensive duplicity” on the part of your democrat idols shows a limited intellectual capacity on your part.
1) Very few situations in life are fully comparable (or have you noticed?)
2) Did you expect Herman to say nothing after the statements from Politico?
enough with blame the liberals charade. This is all right wing nuts eating their own. If you think anyone one the Democratic side had anything to do with this you are crazy. We are all enjoying the the bizarre speeches and debate. Seems like every time one of these idiots talks, Obama’s poll numbers go up. Why would we mess with that?
Nice try, no one is buying it.
Perry Consultant
I have good Armenian friends. I worked for an Armenian family while I was in college. They were all decent people. None of them engaged in mindless name calling. None of them shared your devotion to a political party that has been taken over by a disgraced ideology – a party that was once the party of great men like Dwight Eisenhower, Leverett Saltonstal, Ed Brooke, Silvio Conte, Elliot Richardson – none of whom would be welcome in the Republican party today.
I find your monicker an offense to decent Armenians.
The question of whether or not Herman Cain’s problem is comparable to, for example, Bill Clinton’s, has nothing to do with political persuasion (or national identity).
Are you seriously arguing that charges of sexual harassment by a CEO are comparable to, for example, marital infidelity of a candidate? Distasteful or not, adultery is not a crime.
Please explain why Mr. Cain should be allowed to disparage the accusations and the women making them, while those women should remain silent. It seems to me that either both should be allowed to speak or neither.
pay off Paula Jones?
Bill Clinton did not make a settlement and then claim to have forgotten about it. The fiasco with Paula Jones was most certainly not kept confidential.
The issue here is the duplicity of Herman Cain in responding to legitimate inquiries about two settlements that all parties now agree did take place.
Do you agree that the accusers of Herman Cain are entitled to be as forthcoming in their claims as Paula Jones was?
and here comes another one.
Of course, you don’t actually know that. And it may well be an incorrect assumption. My guess is that both Cain and the Restaurant Association will eventually conclude that they have no choice but to waive the clause.
I make the assumption that the confidentiality clause is mutual and mutually binding on all parties — is that rash?
Personally, I have a hard time finding fault with someone standing up and saying the allegations are false. Are you really asking him to sit silently and take the hits without a response on the basis of a legal technicality?
Are you really asking the accuser to sit silently and take hits without a response on the basis of a “legal technicality”?
I don’t see why it is any more permissible for Herman Cain to label the accusations false (and demean the accusers in the process) than for the women to tell their side of the story.
Surely this clause is bi-lateral, whether or not Herman Cain himself actually executed it.
here you would know that I am not a republican, nor do I defend their foolishness. I do believe, however, in fair play towards all political views. And what is good for the goose, as they say, is good for the gander.
Your generalities about Armenians are rididulous and demeaning. To think that a group of people all think alike is an insult–though what can one expect from a person who represents a party that treats all minorities as though they belong to the plantation.
I simply stated that not all Armenians share your views, in other words that they do not all “think alike.” Since you include “Armenian” in your monicker, I think that needs to be made clear.
Your postings have sounded very Republican to me. I stand corrected if you are not actually a Republican.
I don’t know of any political party in America that treats all minorities “as though they belong to the plantation.” That is a ridiculous statement.
I saw nothing in either your post or the article to which you linked that demean the accuser. Simply saying the accusations are false is not in itself demeaning. If he said, “Yeah, but that woman was a (insert favorite EB3 term for woman here)” that would be demeaning. That being said, it certainly would not bother me now that the door has been opened for her to speak up as well, though personally I see this as a sideshow to a candidacy which itself always should have been treated as a sideshow anyway, IMO.
Herman Cain has, in addition to calling the claims false, made references to a “witch hunt”, has suggested this has racist overtones, and repeatedly said “nothing happened” (until pinned down by more facts).
All of these, taken together, add up to disparagement in my book. I suggest you spend some time with women who have brought similar charges if you’d like more insight into the question of what happens to a woman who has the courage to bring charges against a powerful man.