[News] Chocolate Walnut Ice Cream Meltdown...

Status
Not open for further replies.
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Gloria Allred. Amazing how she found an accuser willing to speak up, when politico couldn't. Even though the accuser in question doesn't want to sue....

... but then why hire a famous lawyer and go public?

Something about this just smells off.
 
sixpackshaker

sixpackshaker

Well the first two can't come forward, because of the confidentiality clause and the hush money that they took.

When Cain misspoke that the money given to the accusers was only two month's salary... he meant his two months equaling their yearly salary...:cool:
 
Adam

Adam

sixpackshaker said:
Well the first two can't come forward, because of the confidentiality clause and the hush money that they took.

When Cain misspoke that the money given to the accusers was only two month's salary... he meant his two months equaling their yearly salary...:cool:
Click to expand...
The NRA has allowed those first two to speak. They still aren't.
 
C

Chibibar

Adammon said:
The NRA has allowed those first two to speak. They still aren't.
Click to expand...
I think because it would ruin their reputation in the work they are in now.

The gag order is to protect the women. If there isn't one, then the file would be public record for anyone to see. They are sealed for the protection of the women. They don't want to speak now because it will do more damage to THEM than to Cain (at least from what I can understand)
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Chibibar said:
I think because it would ruin their reputation in the work they are in now.

The gag order is to protect the women. If there isn't one, then the file would be public record for anyone to see. They are sealed for the protection of the women. They don't want to speak now because it will do more damage to THEM than to Cain (at least from what I can understand)
Click to expand...
Pivotal to the US Legal system is the right to confront your accusers. Without that, this becomes barely more than slander.
 
C

Chibibar

GasBandit said:
Pivotal to the US Legal system is the right to confront your accusers. Without that, this becomes barely more than slander.
Click to expand...
well. I think the only two women who had a settlement (for whatever reason) maybe HAD something and it would have been damaging to Cain or NRA so the lawyers decide to settle and gag order, but I guess with Cain being ahead in the polls (or frontrunner whatever) these women feel that such a man should not be a candidate BUT now it comes down to which is more important

saving one's face (i.e. not coming forward themselves) or showing another true face (or at least facts on the case)

now other women? it could be true, it could be false, but it comes down to he say/she say, but at least two of the four women filed and have sealed records.
 
MindDetective

MindDetective

GasBandit said:
Pivotal to the US Legal system is the right to confront your accusers. Without that, this becomes barely more than slander.
Click to expand...
Both of those are legal terms, though. The right to confront means in a court of law. Slander and libel mean what is spoken has to be demonstrated as both false and damaging. None of that (probably) applies here. It would be like asking Cain to swear on a bible to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth while be interviewed on Fox News. It doesn't much matter since he isn't in a court of law.
 
sixpackshaker

sixpackshaker

GasBandit said:
Pivotal to the US Legal system is the right to confront your accusers. Without that, this becomes barely more than slander.
Click to expand...
This is already in the courts? Wow, I just thought the NRA rolled over on their former boss that left the same year that the first two accusers were paid off.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
MindDetective said:
Both of those are legal terms, though. The right to confront means in a court of law. Slander and libel mean what is spoken has to be demonstrated as both false and damaging. None of that (probably) applies here. It would be like asking Cain to swear on a bible to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth while be interviewed on Fox News. It doesn't much matter since he isn't in a court of law.
Click to expand...
I think it's obvious that "damaging" applies, and it's not like there hasn't been a precedent set of people being paid to just go away, regardless of veracity. This was supposedly in the 90s, after all, when everyone was still discovering that pretty much every single social interaction could be taken as harassment, and companies were erring on the side of caution.

Chibibar said:
well. I think the only two women who had a settlement (for whatever reason) maybe HAD something and it would have been damaging to Cain or NRA so the lawyers decide to settle and gag order, but I guess with Cain being ahead in the polls (or frontrunner whatever) these women feel that such a man should not be a candidate BUT now it comes down to which is more important saving one's face (i.e. not coming forward themselves) or showing another true face (or at least facts on the case)
Click to expand...
That's all very nice, but in my opinion trying to hide your own identity while trying to use the gravity of your accusation alone to affect the outcome of a presidential election surrenders your high ground pretty fast.
Added at: 17:03
sixpackshaker said:
This is already in the courts? Wow, I just thought the NRA rolled over on their former boss that left the same year that the first two accusers were paid off.
Click to expand...
If you ask me, there's an argument for it to end up in the courts - and not necessarily with Cain as the defendant.
 
MindDetective

MindDetective

GasBandit said:
Has it been proven to be a true accusation? Then by legal definition, it is false.
Click to expand...
Again, we're not in a court room. That aside, the evidence has to be considered before a verdict can be given. Sounds like you've made up your mind before court is in session, though.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
MindDetective said:
Again, we're not in a court room. That aside, the evidence has to be considered before a verdict can be given. Sounds like you've made up your mind before court is in session, though.
Click to expand...
I definitely have a preconceived notion - from observing anonymous parties attempt to influence an election without stepping into the light... seems like trying to have your cake and eat it too. With this latest accuser, at least there could be an investigation of the facts. With these others, I definitely have a disdain of the seventy-someodd stories run about them by a media absolutely ACHING to pick the republican's nominee for them.
 
C

Chibibar

I understand the settlement was out of court and it is possible NRA just do it to cover "their butt" in the 90s but you would think there will be more. Consider the court release the record (to a certain extent) it would be nice to see what was the accusation and resolution.
 
MindDetective

MindDetective

GasBandit said:
With these others, I definitely have a disdain of the seventy-someodd stories run about them by a media absolutely ACHING to pick the republican's nominee for them.
Click to expand...
Source? Because I just see the media as a bunch of gossips. It seems like the hens can cluck up a storm about whatever they like without needing a motivation behind it.
 
strawman

strawman

Chibibar said:
I think the two women ... HAD something ... so the lawyers decide to settle and gag order
Click to expand...
If the women had a case, they would NOT have settled for a measly year's salary. The fact that they did settle suggests that they thought they were better off settling. The fact that the lawyers offered that settlement indicates more that the company wasn't interested in justice and proving the case either way - they were merely trying to "contain" the situation before their PR image was hurt.

In other words, they had enough to cause the organization pain, but not enough to really drag them through the mud and extract millions.

It's unlikely, therefore, that the women had much.

Not that this proves he didn't harass them - I'm just trying to point out that your logic isn't the most likely explanation, though it's possible that it's correct, especially if the women were at risk of damaging their own reputation. For instance, they might have been lovers of his, but then things got out of control and he did harass them - in that case they might not want to reveal their entire situation publicly, but still want to get compensated for the harassment.

I'd say that only if they were risking personal damage could your statement hold water. Otherwise the best explanation is that they didn't have a strong case.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
MindDetective said:
Source? Because I just see the media as a bunch of gossips. It seems like the hens can cluck up a storm about whatever they like without needing a motivation behind it.
Click to expand...
I heard the 70-since-breaking number on the radio today, so I can't link it yet, but earlier in this thread I linked the 3-day figures, which were something like 50 vs 5.
 
strawman

strawman

Espy said:
Wow, the media really seems to have this guy tried and convicted.
Click to expand...
What else is there to talk about? The OWS protests aren't as violent as the media are hoping. No major world figure is newly dead or dying. The biggest recent news was the divorce of some stupid celebrity couple. I think the protestors should protest that - "You paid 10million for the wedding, the divorce should cost at least as much, and that money should go to the 99%!"
 
Tress

Tress

It's a sex scandal involving a candidate for president. I doubt they care if the stories they print are accurate or not. They just smell blood in the water.
 
MindDetective

MindDetective

GasBandit said:
I heard the 70-since-breaking number on the radio today, so I can't link it yet, but earlier in this thread I linked the 3-day figures, which were something like 50 vs 5.
Click to expand...
But the correlation doesn't imply the causation. It doesn't mean they are motivated to destroy the man, it just means they are gossipy journalists excited at the prospect of a scandal.
 
strawman

strawman

Anyone who steps up and presents themselves for the office is going to scrutinized and lambasted for months (and years if they're elected). They're prisoners. It's part and parcel of the whole public office gig. Phenomenal parliamentary powers, itty-bitty head-space.
 
strawman

strawman

So now people are treating allegations of hypothetical sexual harassment as news? The 5th woman essentially says she was asked to set up Cain and a female supporter for a dinner date and she declined, at which point he asked her out to dinner, and she went with him and several other friends to dinner.

Given his history, she was probably wise to go in a pack, and to decline setting him up with another woman, but this is the "fifth woman"? Allegations of suspicions of harassment that might have occurred if she had set him up on a date?

That's a stretch.
 
D

Dubyamn

stienman said:
If the women had a case, they would NOT have settled for a measly year's salary. The fact that they did settle suggests that they thought they were better off settling. The fact that the lawyers offered that settlement indicates more that the company wasn't interested in justice and proving the case either way - they were merely trying to "contain" the situation before their PR image was hurt.

In other words, they had enough to cause the organization pain, but not enough to really drag them through the mud and extract millions.

It's unlikely, therefore, that the women had much.

Not that this proves he didn't harass them - I'm just trying to point out that your logic isn't the most likely explanation, though it's possible that it's correct, especially if the women were at risk of damaging their own reputation. For instance, they might have been lovers of his, but then things got out of control and he did harass them - in that case they might not want to reveal their entire situation publicly, but still want to get compensated for the harassment.

I'd say that only if they were risking personal damage could your statement hold water. Otherwise the best explanation is that they didn't have a strong case.
Click to expand...
Honestly I don't think that the case being settled speaks at all about the merits of the case. Bringing suit against a corporation like the NRA is a long complex and expensive undertaking. The corporation will also drag the person's name through the mud however possible making it hard for the person bringing suit to find a new job. And even if they did win the amount they would get would be entirely up to the judge who probably wouldn't give a high punitive ruling unless it was found that it was a systemic problem. So it's entirely possible they had a slam dunk case that a person would take a year's salary and move on with their life.

On the other hand it's expensive for the Corporation as well and damaging to their PR so even if the case was garbage the corporation might just settle in order to keep the case out of the news and the fight off their bottom line.

As for damaging reputations look at Anita Hill. It's incredibly clear that she was sexually harassed by Clarence Thomas but during her testimony she was attacked by Democrat and Republican alike and afterwords she was criticized and doubted because she was "too composed" and no matter what else she has done with her life she will always be the woman who claimed Justice Thomas sexually harassed her. So I could see a woman holding back from talking openly about the incident.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
MindDetective said:
But the correlation doesn't imply the causation. It doesn't mean they are motivated to destroy the man, it just means they are gossipy journalists excited at the prospect of a scandal.
Click to expand...
If there had been a proportional response to democrat sex scandals, I'd agree with you.

Adammon said:
I'd say it's getting ridiculous, but we're long past that point.

Or, even better. The named accuser #4 hugging Cain last month at a Tea Party convention:

http://www.suntimes.com/8592168-417...him-during-tea-party-meeting-a-month-ago.html
Click to expand...
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA...
 
Espy

Espy

I say if you want to throw out allegations that could not only destroy someones presidential run but their life and marriage, you cannot remain anonymous.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top