Herman Cain is toast.

[Joecooool]

Paid off not one, but two women who he had sexually harassed.

Exclusive: 2 women accused Herman Cain of inappropriate behavior - Jonathan Martin and Maggie Haberman and Anna Palmer and Kenneth P. Vogel - POLITICO.com

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by TxAg

Guilty till proven innocent eh?

Innocent people don't pay off those who accuse them of wrong doing.

[AC54ME]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Innocent people don't pay off those who accuse them of wrong doing.

First - "Innocent people" is who in your statement?

[Broken Wind]

I await the day Joe becomes toast.

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by TxAg

Don't worry. Joe won't post back because he knows he's about to get his azz handed to him for his statements.

Run rabbit run!

So go ahead and hand me my ass.

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by AC54ME

First - "Innocent people" is who in your statement?

I really have to explain this?

[AC54ME]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

I really have to explain this?

You made the statement "Innocent people don't pay off those who accuse them of wrong doing."

So I am attempting to determine exactly WHO you:

1. Reference as the "innocent people", and

2. Did they ("innocent people") "... pay off..."?

Awaiting your response.

[mike100]

Clarence Thomas survived the "Long Dong Silver" incident.

[78SA]

Was there any proof of guilt?

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by AC54ME

You made the statement "Innocent people don't pay off those who accuse them of wrong doing."

So I am attempting to determine exactly WHO you:

1. Reference as the "innocent people", and

2. Did they ("innocent people") "... pay off..."?

Awaiting your response.

You know exactly what I am talking about.

[jaxgator]

Once a formal charge had been launched, Cain said he directed his general counsel and the head of the human resources department to investigate.

"They then went and reviewed the formal charge, worked on the situation for several months, and came back and said, it's baseless. No facts, baseless," Cain said.

He added he did not recall the amount of the financial settlement, only that it was not large enough to warrant coming to his desk.

"It started out where she wanted a lot of money. I don't even remember what that amount was. But because it was baseless and it was shown that it was not true, she ended up leaving with several months severance, which would have been what she would have left with if we had involuntarily dismissed her," he said. "I don't know if it was three months, whether it was two months, it might have been six months. I don't think it was because of the way it was settled."

[Chris Fowler]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

You know exactly what I am talking about.

Your insinuation is that no corporation has ever looked at the cost to defend itself versus the cost of making something go away and decided not to defend itself because it was much cheaper to simply make the problem go away, regardless of guilt.

Did that happen here? I don't know.

Does that happen elsewhere? All the damn time.

[Scissors]

Of course, if it were the exact same story with the exact same facts, evidence, and articles, but with "Obama" instead of "Cain" the right would be all over it, and screaming "you lie" and "look at him try to spin this one".

Not saying he's guilty, of course, it's pretty common to have women pull this kind of stunt. When it comes to sexual misbehavior, the mere accusation is often taken at face value as fact by many.

[AC54ME]

Originally Posted by AC54ME
You made the statement "Innocent people don't pay off those who accuse them of wrong doing."

So I am attempting to determine exactly WHO you:

1. Reference as the "innocent people", and

2. Did they ("innocent people") "... pay off..."?

Awaiting your response.

Originally Posted by Joecooool

You know exactly what I am talking about.

Good - thus the following analysis of your statements will be without dispute:

1. Your inference is that Cain was the 'innocent' individual, thus culpable in any compensation paid. That is incorrect.

2. Cain paid NOTHING, ZERO, NADA. Apparently the Nat'l Restaurant Association paid something - possibly severance, but nothing to do with liability associated with this matter.

Apparently you have never been trained in HR, or Law. Had you it would be most apparent that if there was a valid, justifiable case of sexual harassment the 'lady's' (using the term loosely) would have sued via the court system.

Payment by corporations for these unjustified (in many instances) allegations is common place - in many instances it is cheaper to do so than going to court.

Bill Clinton paid (out of CONTRIBUTIONS from idiot supporters of his) over $850,000 to Monica - when PROOF positive existed there was not only sexual advance, but action(s).

Once again you have shown a lack of understanding of the Laws of the USA - but then that is to be expected from one wanting to overturn the Laws unless they benefit the communist/socialist desires.

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by TxAg

DING! DING! DING! WINNA!

I don't care what side of the political spectrum one is, this accusation immediately is an innocent until proven guilty situation. And that is 100% for the guy.

It also hurts people (men and women) who were legitimately sexually harassed.

It wasn't just one woman, it was TWO.

And how the hell do you know that these were not legitimate complaints?

Herman Cain was the head of the company at the time the hush money was paid out. He would have HAD to have known the payments were made.

[Joecooool]

More problems...

State firm's cash to Herman Cain may breach federal campaign, tax laws - JSOnline

[Stangkiller]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

More problems...

State firm's cash to Herman Cain may breach federal campaign, tax laws - JSOnline

this is just vetting the candidate...something they never did with Obama. I'm anxious to see how Cain handles these reports, and look forward to him moving past this still on top of the GOP.

Perry had to re-pay private jet owners a chit ton of cash recently....we all make mistakes, it's just how we handle them once they're identified.

[AC54ME]

Over at CNBC, count Larry Kudlow as equally unimpressed:
“There were also descriptions of physical gestures that were not overtly sexual but that made women who experienced or witnessed them uncomfortable and that they regarded as improper in a professional relationship.”

What does this mean?

The gestures weren’t overtly sexual, but the women were uncomfortable and believed the gestures were improper in a professional relationship. These are all second-hand testimonies from “close associates” of the female accusers, but I don’t know what standards are being talked about.

I mean, based on this sort of thing, anybody could think anything about almost anything. I’m not blasting the Politico people per se. I just don’t understand the meaning of what they’re reporting.

What appears evident at this point is that Politico might have had a seed of a legitimate story, but only if they were able to get first-hand accounts with the necessary detail to show that Cain was actually guilty of misconduct. They didn’t the first-hand accounts nor the details, not from Cain and not from the women involved. Instead, they ran with the vague, second-hand related accounts from more than a decade gone by. So far, that’s not impressing too many people, not Iowans, not Republicans, and not too many journalists, either.

Iowans oddly unmoved by vague, 12-year-old allegations about Cain « Hot Air

And another MAJOR fail for old Joe

[polarbear]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Innocent people don't pay off those who accuse them of wrong doing.

I've seen it happen- twice. After the second time, we made a point of hiring overweight, unattractive, middle-aged receptionists.

[sanchez]

This isn't that big a deal. Clinton used to whip his dick out at women all the time. Hell, he probably still does.