Cain Did Not Sign Settlement, Accuser's Lawyer Says

[bonnie]

Cain Did Not Sign Settlement, Accuser's Lawyer Says

By

Jan Crawford

Herman Cain

UPDATED 11:24 a.m. ET

The settlement agreement between the National Restaurant Association and a woman who accused Herman Cain of sexual harassment was reached in September 1999--and was not signed by Cain himself, according to Joel Bennett, a lawyer for the woman.

Bennett, who has a copy of the settlement agreement, said four people signed it: the woman, two lawyers representing the association and Bennett himself.

Bennett said the agreement was resolved relatively quickly, about two or three months after she complained.

That means it may have been reached after Cain left the association, and Bennett said it's conceivable that Cain didn't even know about it.

Bennett also told CBS News Friday morning he is hoping to issue a public statement reaffirming the accuser's claim within hours, if the restaurant group agrees to ease the confidentiality agreement that was part of the deal.

Bennett plans to issue the statement in his name, not in his client's name. It will not identify her, nor will it detail specific events of sexual harassment or the amount of settlement.

"It will insist the complaints were in good faith, and she's going to stand by her complaints," Bennett told CBS News. "It's her response to Herman Cain's statements that the complaints are baseless."

Cain left the association June 30, 1999, according to the NRA. Under that timeline, Cain would have been gone when the settlement was reached--and may well have been gone when she filed the complaint.

Cain has insisted he only knew of one complaint, and says he knew of no legal settlements--only what he calls a severance agreement with one woman. This timeline could well bolster his claims.

When Cain ran to represent Georgia in the Senate four years later, he told his advisers there was one complaint against him at the Restaurant Association, and that it was "baseless." One former staffer on the Senate campaign told CBS News that he and other advisers in the campaign knew about that complaint and believed it was meritless, but thought it could crop up in possible opposition research.

[olger]

Anita Hill 2.0 ??

[Guest]

Yep.

[Tom Wetmore]

I predict a different outcome though...

[Dr. Shane]

I predict a different outcome though...

Let's hope so. Clarance Thomas has done a fine job on the Supreme Court. I don't think we would be so lucky with Cain in the White House.

[olger]

What's not to like about Herman Cain?

[Tom Wetmore]

mile wide, 1/2 inch deep...

[Guest]

1/2 inch deep? Sounds like you're talking about your man Obama.

Every republican out there trying to to win the nomination is infinitely more qualified than Obama, so if the MS media can destroy Cain on baseless charges where 6 days into the story, still nobody knows what he is really supposed to have done, then we'll just vote for the next guy. It doesn't even matter at this point who wins the nomination.

But how do you bring charges like these against somebody with out ANY details, or anybody willing to back up those details. They just threw the charge out there hoping that Cain would tell THEM what happened. If details have come out since yesterday then please show what they are, will you?

[bonnie]

1/2 inch deep? Sounds like you're talking about your man Obama.

Every republican out there trying to to win the nomination is infinitely more qualified than Obama, so if the MS media can destroy Cain on baseless charges where 6 days into the story, still nobody knows what he is really supposed to have done, then we'll just vote for the next guy. It doesn't even matter at this point who wins the nomination.

But how do you bring charges like these against somebody with out ANY details, or anybody willing to back up those details. They just threw the charge out there hoping that Cain would tell THEM what happened. If details have come out since yesterday then please show what they are, will you?

The dislike of Herman Cain is not because of sexual harrassment.

Have you noticed where Chris Dodd hangs out? HIs escapades with Ted Kennedy would have gotten any republican thrown out.

Cain challenges and makes a mockery out of the sacred cows of liberal politicians and their followers.Strip away the demand for more government control and the handouts required to keep it and you don't have a whole lot left.

[Guest]

Exactly...

[Tom Wetmore]

You are a funny man.

But what is really funny is that the vigor with which right-wingers are in denial about Cain in the face of this info is hauntingly similar to the reaction among left-wingers during the Clinton years.

Tammy Wynette sang it well, "Stand by your man..."

When it comes to these sorts of charges that get settled so quickly and at the $$ level it did, it is best summed up with the old saying, "Where there is smoke, there is fire." Trust me on this, employers do not fold so quickly (within a few months of the complaint) for the equivalent of a full years wages, as has been confirmed, unless there is some serious substance to it.

And that there were three reported similar claims fan the flames of that smokey fire.

[Guest]

Claims of what? Details please...

[Tom Wetmore]

The dislike of Herman Cain is not because of sexual harrassment...

Well knock me over with a feather! I whole-heartedly agree with you on that point. Shall we start with his 9-9-9 tax plan? Or his pathetic ignorance of even basic world events?

What I do like about him is exactly what Shane has already said. He is among the least likely to win against Obama. That is why the source of this whole story is coming from within the Republican party. They really would rather have a candidate that could actually win.

His populist appeal among hard-core right wingers could get the nomination, but it wouldn't get him elected since he has little appeal to the moderate majority and none to the left. Remember what happened in Delaware? Cain would be a redux on the national level.

[bonnie]

You are a funny man.

But what is really funny is that the vigor with which right-wingers are in denial about Cain in the face of this info is hauntingly similar to the reaction among left-wingers during the Clinton years.

[Dr. Shane]

Cain probably was guilty of sexual harassment - at least in the modern-day form. Old sexual harassment was when a superior would require sexual favors from a subordinate in order for them to keep their job, get a promotion, raise or some other sort of advancement. If the sexual favor was denied, the subordinate was punished. Modern sexual harassment often simply involves making a co-worker uncomfortable. Male firefighters posting pornographic pictures around the fire house or even in their lockers has been considered to be sexual harassment of female workers.

I agree with Tom, where there is smoke there is normally fire. And it may well be a racial thing. When I served in the Army, the black soldiers (both male and female) would talk in a way that would cause most of them to get reported for sexual harassment in the civilian world. Black rap music is filled with sexually-charged lyrics that are very offensive. Cain very well may have made comments or gestures that offended White, Asian or Hispanic women that would have been no big deal to a Black woman. We don't know what happened but the settlements tell us something went down.

But that all aside. Cain has no political experience. He doesn't know how to get things passed and into law. His 9-9-9 plan is ridiculous. He doesn't stand a chance against Obama in the general election.

[Tom Wetmore]

The wealthy and big business would be more favorable to the 9-9-9 plan because they would likely pay less in taxes. But that tax burden (Cain claims it as being revenue neutral which means it has to be made up form somewhere else.) will shift to lower and middle income tax payers who will pay more in taxes than they are currently. The hardest hit by this are those with low incomes, primarily because of the 9% sales tax. Consumption taxes hit low income the hardest because they typically have little or no discretionary money so that most of their income is spent on consumables which would be taxed.

[bonnie]

Cain probably was guilty of sexual harassment - at least in the modern-day form. Old sexual harassment was when a superior would require sexual favors from a subordinate in order for them to keep their job, get a promotion, raise or some other sort of advancement. If the sexual favor was denied, the subordinate was punished. Modern sexual harassment often simply involves making a co-worker uncomfortable. Male firefighters posting pornographic pictures around the fire house or even in their lockers has been considered to be sexual harassment of female workers.

[Dr. Shane]

The hardest hit by this are those with low incomes, primarily because of the 9% sales tax. Consumption taxes hit low income the hardest because they typically have little or no discretionary money so that most of their income is spent on consumables which would be taxed.

Of course this is true. However remember that Cain is doing away with the Social Security tax so even low income workers will net 7.5% more and should get a 7.5% raise from their boss. That is one thing Cain is counting on. So while they would be paying 9% sales tax their earnings would go up 15% - in theory. However they would have to pay a flat 9% income tax which before they did not (because of their low income).

What is really *suppose to* make the 9-9-9 plan revenue neutral is an expanding economy. Cain is counting on his 9-9-9 plan to boost the economy so much that more revenues come in from economic expansions.

There are too many assumptions in the plan (like employers giving the 7.5% raise and booming economic expansion) for someone to be serious about it. I don't think Cain ever expected it to be taken seriously. I think he was just trying to make a name for himself. When this is all over I think he hopes to get a radio show with a larger audience than before or perhaps even a TV show on FOXNews or Fox Business.

[Dr. Shane]

You voted for a man without experience

Indeed I did. Need I remind you what my choices were? If the Republicans nominate another McCain, I'll vote for Obama again.

[Guest]

In the case with Clinton there was a name to the accuser and specifics,nothing similar about this. Previous years of the same behavior,Paula Jones and others came forward with their name and specifics.The Clinton group degraded them and referred to some as trailer trash.

You are wrong about the denial of the right. I have not heard anyone in the beginning say,"Cain is innocent and the women are lying"

The way this was brought out,the lack of facts,the I want to tell my story,then OOPS,I don't want to tell my story,I will say I stand by the story I won't repeat,the facts I won't give were the truth,and above all you will not know who I am

is what caused a great deal of doubt.

We still have no idea.We do know in the beginning she said it was not anything of a sexual nature but she felt uncomfortable. What is that?

You are exactly right.

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: bonnie

You voted for a man without experience

Indeed I did. Need I remind you what my choices were? If the Republicans nominate another McCain, I'll vote for Obama again.

McCain may have been only marginally a step above Obama,he could not have been quite the disaster Obama has been and will continue to be. McCain at his worst would have been better than Obama on his best day.

As far as I can tell you prefer watered down democrats,disguised as conservatives.Your choice. I want someone that knows what he believes and will stand behind that.

[Dr. Shane]

McCain would have done everything that Pelosi and Reed wanted him to do and when things went wrong, McCain would have been blamed for it. The Democrats would have picked up more seats in the House and Senate in 2010 and would now be getting ready to take the White House. I voted for Obama and we avoided all of that. Thank me.

The President has to be someone that can reach across the aisle and get things done. Obama has been a total and complete failure in that regard. Obama is petty and partisan. Even now, he is claiming all his failures are due to a do-nothing Congress. So what he is really telling us is that he can't be a good President without a Democrat-controlled Congress. Since Republicans control the House, if we believe what Obama is saying, we need to get rid of him because he can't reach across the aisle and work with Republicans.

Gingrich has done that. Perry has done that. Romney has done that. Huntsman has done that. I have complete confidence that any of those four can do a good job but I have doubts about Gingrich being able to get elected.

[bonnie]

McCain would have done everything that Pelosi and Reed wanted him to do and when things went wrong, McCain would have been blamed for it. The Democrats would have picked up more seats in the House and Senate in 2010 and would now be getting ready to take the White House. I voted for Obama and we avoided all of that. Thank me.

[Dr. Shane]

Politics is all about compromise. Obama doesn't get that. Reagan did. Clinton did. GW Bush did. They all had second terms. I can't see Obama's cry-me-a-river re-election campaign pulling it off unless they run against a pathetic Republican.