One of Herman Cain's victims has asked through her lawyer that the permanent ban on her right to speak contained in the settlement agreement she had to sign to get compensation for Cain's mistreatment of her be lifted since Cain has been lying about what happened.
Oh, and Herman was slightly off about how many months of salary they paid his victim to go away. It wasn’t 3 months’ salary. It was 12 months. Only off by a factor of 4. But I’m sure his math on his “9-9-9” tax plan is right. After all, he carefully figured that one out on a napkin during a plane ride. Hey, you’re only talking about major tax and economic calculations for a $15 trillion economy there.
Now, do you pay a year’s salary to settle a nuisance suit? Hard-nosed blustery businessman Herman Cain, who “did nothing wrong” and “never harassed” anyone? (He was never even accused a couple of days ago, to hear him tell it then.)
Cain says he was “falsely accused” and the complaints were “baseless.” So the very pugnacious, aggressive Cain caved like a meek kitten and settled for a year’s pay!
And contrary to disinformation put out by the Cain campaign and various reactionaries running interference for him, it wasn’t a one-time “incident” that was a “misunderstanding” because the gregarious Cain likes to put his arm around people. It was a pattern of harassing conduct over a period of time. Obviously. ONE INCIDENT is NO BASIS FOR A LAWSUIT. There has to be a “hostile environment” created, or retaliation against the victim.
On the friendly forum of Murdoch’s Fox “News,” Cain hid behind his lawyers, saying he couldn’t comment about the woman’s lawyer’s contradiction of his account or the demand to unmuzzle his victim so she could speak [which would impinge on his freedom to lie], saying his campaign had to consult its lawyers. Ooh, decisive, bold leadership! Confident decision-maker! Hide behind your lawyers and handlers! (In fact he was on Fox TV both Monday and Tuesday. That I know of. He’s probably on every day.)
Meanwhile, the Restaurant Association’s chief flack (which Cain headed when the settlement for hush money was made in 1999) coyly says they would “respond as appropriate” if the victim’s lawyer requested they waive the lifetime speech ban on the woman designed to silence her unto the grave. Take a guess what their “appropriate” answer will be.
Cain is calling the whole imbroglio a “smear campaign.” What, there wasn’t a settlement? Cain has lied and said there wasn’t. In fact, he started off saying he knew nothing about even any accusations against him of harassment. He never harassed anyone, was one of his initial lies.
Like most reactionaries, Cain is an unethical, amoral sleazebag. Thus he never hesitates to lie. That sometimes trips up sociopaths- normal people hesitate before lying, and this hesitation saves them oftentimes from telling untenable lies. Cain changes lies like changing a shirt- just put on a new one every day, or even several a day. He’s so in love with himself, so narcissistic in his conviction that he’s a great salesman, he just wings it, figuring he can talk his way out of anything.
That’s only because in the past the people he lied to were either underlings who didn’t care contradict him, or people with no motivation to cross swords with him by letting him know they knew he was bullshitting.
But in terms of the GOP “grassroots,” this makes them support him even more strongly- because they are sexist dogs, for one thing, they hate “women’s lib,” which to them imposed the oppressive standard that one shouldn’t direct lewd comments at women or proposition employees, and they cynically have no moral standards, but just a permanent war standard- Us against Them. And “Us” are Good and “Them” (anyone not a Republican) is Evil. They think it’s fine to, say, Impeach Clinton because of a dailliance with Monica Lewinsky, or drive Anthony Weiner from office for tweeting saucy photos of himself to women recipients, but even MENTIONING Herman Cain’s sexual harassment is a “high tech lynching,” a plot, a conspiracy, an unconscionable assault by political enemies. They have no moral or ethical standard they apply neutrally to people regardless of political affiliation. There’s the people on Their Side and there’s The Enemy. (Or Enemies, of which there are many: Democrats, gays generally, feminists, “liberals,” “bureaucrats” except police, Muslims, ecologists, and on and on.)
No comments:
Post a Comment