Another, "I didn't do it!"

[Steinhauer]

If Cain will sign an agreement to abolish the confidentiality agreement, she will go public. Stated in the link I provided. She CANNOT until Cain permits her to do so.

Let's straighten something out here. There is no confidentiality agreement being held over the heads of these women. That is seriously making me laugh that these attorneys are attempting to smear Cain even further, by claiming he is refusing to allow these women to come forward.

He even publicly expressed that he would like them to come forward to settle the matter once and for all.

Now, if you were to actually ask an attorney about confidentiality agreements (and I have), you would find that most employees of any corporation are required to sign one as a condition for their employment. Secondly, a "settlement" as you call it, is not $35,000. Not even close to a sexual harassment settlement. That is a severance package.

It seems more and more likely that a person screamed harassment to delay being fired, or to receive a very large cash "settlement" (which they did not receive - they received 3 month's salary).

Trying to claim this is all the proof one needs to verify there actually was sexual harassment cannot be further from the truth.

Besides, wouldn't the women even coming forward be in violation of an confidentiality agreement already? Hmmmm .... yeah - people are THAT stupid.

Spill the beans already ...

 

[saywhatkid]

Let's straighten something out here. There is no confidentiality agreement being held over the heads of these women. That is seriously making me laugh that these attorneys are attempting to smear Cain even further, by claiming he is refusing to allow these women to come forward.

He even publicly expressed that he would like them to come forward to settle the matter once and for all.

Now, if you were to actually ask an attorney about confidentiality agreements (and I have), you would find that most employees of any corporation are required to sign one as a condition for their employment. Secondly, a "settlement" as you call it, is not $35,000. Not even close to a sexual harassment settlement. That is a severance package.

It seems more and more likely that a person screamed harassment to delay being fired, or to receive a very large cash "settlement" (which they did not receive - they received 3 month's salary).

Trying to claim this is all the proof one needs to verify there actually was sexual harassment cannot be further from the truth.

Besides, wouldn't the women even coming forward be in violation of an confidentiality agreement already? Hmmmm .... yeah - people are THAT stupid.

Spill the beans already ...

Since they appear to have been in it for the money, perhaps their attorney advised them to hold out for a bigger payday with Barbara Walters or The Enquirer. Why give it away when they can sell it?

 

[Steinhauer]

Since they appear to have been in it for the money, perhaps their attorney advised them to hold out for a bigger payday with Barbara Walters or The Enquirer. Why give it away when they can sell it?

Yep.

Here is an interesting article about all the media circusing of Herman Cain, the author clearly does not support Cain, but it is very interesting to read nonetheless:

Four Reasons Why the Herman Cain Sexual-Harassment Story Will Probably Blow Over — And One Why It Might Not -- Daily Intel

 

[jillio]

Let's straighten something out here. There is no confidentiality agreement being held over the heads of these women. That is seriously making me laugh that these attorneys are attempting to smear Cain even further, by claiming he is refusing to allow these women to come forward.

He even publicly expressed that he would like them to come forward to settle the matter once and for all.

Now, if you were to actually ask an attorney about confidentiality agreements (and I have), you would find that most employees of any corporation are required to sign one as a condition for their employment. Secondly, a "settlement" as you call it, is not $35,000. Not even close to a sexual harassment settlement. That is a severance package.

It seems more and more likely that a person screamed harassment to delay being fired, or to receive a very large cash "settlement" (which they did not receive - they received 3 month's salary).

Trying to claim this is all the proof one needs to verify there actually was sexual harassment cannot be further from the truth.

Besides, wouldn't the women even coming forward be in violation of an confidentiality agreement already? Hmmmm .... yeah - people are THAT stupid.

Spill the beans already ...

Let's get something straight here. You need to learn to read. These women are bound by a confidentiality agreement as a part of the settlement they were paid. Lawyers have already confirmed that fact. If he wants them to come forward, he has to rescind the terms of the agreement.

 

[Steinhauer]

Let's get something straight here. You need to learn to read. These women are bound by a confidentiality agreement as a part of the settlement they were paid. Lawyers have already confirmed that fact. If he wants them to come forward, he has to rescind the terms of the agreement.

That confidentiality agreement certainly did not keep them from letting politico know about it.

Since confidentiality has already been breached ... Spill the beans. Cain publicly announced he wanted to face his accusers ... You can't get any more rescinding than that.

And $35,000 is NOT a settlement and attorneys do not give up on large paydays. If there was a legitimate sexual harassment claim, the "settlement" as you call it would have been exponentially more.

 

[jillio]

That confidentiality agreement certainly did not keep them from letting politico know about it.

Since confidentiality has already been breached ... Spill the beans. Cain publicly announced he wanted to face his accusers ... You can't get any more rescinding than that.

And $35,000 is NOT a settlement and attorneys do not give up on large paydays. If there was a legitimate sexual harassment claim, the "settlement" as you call it would have been exponentially more.

Politico was not given the details of the complaint. That is what they are forbidden from discussing.

It hasn't already been breached. You just haven't understood the details of he case.

$35,000 is a settlement when it is paid to settle a case so it does not go to court. I hope you aren't planning to go to law school anytime soon. You won't get past the application process.

 

[Steinhauer]

Politico was not given the details of the complaint. That is what they are forbidden from discussing.

It hasn't already been breached. You just haven't understood the details of he case.

$35,000 is a settlement when it is paid to settle a case so it does not go to court. I hope you aren't planning to go to law school anytime soon. You won't get past the application process.

I understand completely. If confidentiality has not been breached, why does the average Joe know about it?

 

[saywhatkid]

I understand completely. If confidentiality has not been breached, why does the average Joe know about it?

Ask Cain. He suspects Perry of the breaching.

 

[jillio]

I understand completely. If confidentiality has not been breached, why does the average Joe know about it?

Do you know details of the case. No. All you know is the case existed. They were not prohibited from saying the case existed. They were prohibited from discussing details of the case.

See, you didn't understand.

 

[Steinhauer]

Do you know details of the case. No. All you know is the case existed. They were not prohibited from saying the case existed. They were prohibited from discussing details of the case.

See, you didn't understand.

Nope, I still understand ... As well as have details of the case. The only thing being kept "confidential" is the identity of the women. One of which you claimed was coming forward and going public (you misrepresented the facts yet again).

Cain made a public demand that they come forward. I believe he even said he had the right to face his accusers.

Cain said he never sexually harassed anyone. He also claimed there was a severance deal made with one woman that he knew about. At the time, the number was 2, and now it is 3. He never said money was never given. Again, you are misrepresenting.

Has Lynch mob written all over it. So far, I am not convinced either way, but since you are claiming that there are no details, why would you be so quick to incriminate someone who is presumed innocent?

 

[saywhatkid]

Nope, I still understand ... As well as have details of the case. The only thing being kept "confidential" is the identity of the women. One of which you claimed was coming forward and going public (you misrepresented the facts yet again).

Cain made a public demand that they come forward.

How courageous of him! "Come on now, we paid you off, made you sign legal documents; now step forward and break the agreement!"

 

[Cheetah]

Nope, I still understand ... As well as have details of the case. The only thing being kept "confidential" is the identity of the women. One of which you claimed was coming forward and going public (you misrepresented the facts yet again).

Cain made a public demand that they come forward.

Cain said he never sexually harassed anyone. He also claimed there was a severance deal made with one woman that he knew about. At the time, the number was 2, and now it is 3. He never said money was never given. Again, you are misrepresenting.

Has Lynch mob written all over it. So far, I am not convinced either way, but since you are claiming that there are no details, why would you be so quick to incriminate someone who is presumed innocent?

Please correct me if I am wrong... There are 3 women and two have confidentiality agreements preventing disclosure. A third stated she will come forward and has no such agreement in place.

Am I understanding the fact here right?

 

[Steinhauer]

How courageous of him! "Come on now, we paid you off, made you sign legal documents; now step forward and break the agreement!"

How manipulative and sneaky .... The agreement has already been broken.

 

[Steinhauer]

Please correct me if I am wrong... There are 3 women and two have confidentiality agreements preventing disclosure. A third stated she will come forward and has no such agreement in place.

Am I understanding the fact here right?

One stated, through her attorney, that she will not be coming forward because she does not want to become another "Anita Hill". She made no mention of breaking a confidentiality agreement. That bluff has already been called out.

 

[saywhatkid]

How manipulative and sneaky .... The agreement has already been broken.

Yes. Because Perry spilled the beans. You cannot accept that your wonderful GOP is not flawless. Turns out that they are composed of the same type of people they warned us about.

Not gonna get into this with you. It bores me, frankly.

 

[Reba]

A third one has come forward. One of the first two is very willing to come forward with the complete story. Cain is preventing it.

She's willing to pay back the severance money?

 

[Reba]

He would have had more credibility if he had just said, "Yes, this happened, and I am deeply ashamed of my behavior at the time, and have learned to change the way I approach women." But, nooooo. He denies it.

What if it didn't happen? What if there was no sexual harassment?

 

[saywhatkid]

She's willing to pay back the severance money?

That is what I am trying to say also. Why do people think that they got their checks, looked at them, and decided to go to the press and blow the deal?

 

[jillio]

Nope, I still understand ... As well as have details of the case. The only thing being kept "confidential" is the identity of the women. One of which you claimed was coming forward and going public (you misrepresented the facts yet again).

Cain made a public demand that they come forward. I believe he even said he had the right to face his accusers.

Cain said he never sexually harassed anyone. He also claimed there was a severance deal made with one woman that he knew about. At the time, the number was 2, and now it is 3. He never said money was never given. Again, you are misrepresenting.

Has Lynch mob written all over it. So far, I am not convinced either way, but since you are claiming that there are no details, why would you be so quick to incriminate someone who is presumed innocent?

Again, you are wrong. The women who received the settlement were forbidden by the agreement to discuss the details of the case with the public.

Two women brought charges legally. Those two women were given a settlement. The third did not bring legal charges, but is now saying that she, as well, was sexually harrassed.

Yes, he did. He said a settlement was not paid. Then he re-spoke, and said if a settlement was paid, he knew nothing about it. Now he is admitting knowing.

But that's okay. Nothing to be done about your willful ignorance. If you are going to defend someone, one would think that you would at least be familiar with the case so you could defend him on some viable principle. Instead, you are just like Cain. "IT NEVER HAPPENED".

 

[jillio]

What if it didn't happen? What if there was no sexual harassment?

If there was no sexual harrassment, then he shouldn't have a problem rescinding the part of the agreement that states the complaintants can't discuss the details publicly. It would vindicate him.