[emphasis by bubba]
seems the military has changed significantly since my era. it appears that accepting troops to perform duty has now become discretionary
and as the investigating officer, what information did you learn which enabled you to absolutely conclude that their allegation of sexual harassment was baseless?I once was the investigating officer on a sexual harassment claim. a couple of female soldiers accused their SGT of giving them crappy duty assignments because they wouldn't date him. My investigation revealed that these two idiots were just lazy, worthless POS that NOBODY on post wanted working for them, so their SGT was doing the best he could to find any assignment that would take them. They turned around and filed an EO complaint against me, claiming that the only reason I ruled in their SGT's favor was because they were black. I had been going to let the whole thing drop...but when they tried to be little bitches about it, I simply took their sworn statements and charged them both with violating article 107 of the UCMJ (filing a false official statement/report). They both were reduced one pay grade in rank, given 45 days additional duty and fined half a month's pay for two months. I made it a point every evening to drive by the warehouse where they were scraping old paint off the walls and wave to them.
and as the investigating officer, what information did you learn which enabled you to absolutely conclude that their allegation of sexual harassment was baseless?
I don't see how this is even an issue. how many women came forward and accused Bill Clinton of harassing, molesting or outright raping them and we were told that what he does in his personal life is none of our business?
just seems a bit hypocritical to try to assassinate Cain's character over something that may or may not have happened a decade ago.
Your knee just got hit again with that little rubber hammer.
I don't see how this is even an issue. how many women came forward and accused Bill Clinton of harassing, molesting or outright raping them and we were told that what he does in his personal life is none of our business?
just seems a bit hypocritical to try to assassinate Cain's character over something that may or may not have happened a decade ago.
put in perspective of the timeline:
at the time these two were accusing Cain of harassment...Clinton was allegedly raping Paula Jones
IOW, you cannot refute the point.
"sauce for the goose, Mr. Saavik"
A week into this there was one...no...two...now three allegations of some form of sexual misconduct. The allegations came from the Romney camp...no...wait...the Perry camp...no..no...it came from Rahm Immaneul...
OK...its just becoming a little silly. We dont know if these folks were legitimately harassed or just disgruntled former employees going for a paycheck. We really know very little about anything. The only thing I know FOR SURE and that has swayed my opinion somewhat (and again...I wouldnt have voted for him anyway) is HIS response...which has been very much not stellar. If it comes out that he was/is just a flirtatious type that had people mistake his behaviors rightly or wrongly, then I could probably over look that. Im betting we all have done things that could be taken a certain way. But his public comments were not "well...I know there were some folks that misinterpreted some things...nothing untoward was ever met...Im sorry they took it the wrong way and those have been settled-no harm, no foul, press on" then I would be fine. But thats not what his response has been. Regardless of what actually happened, I dont dance on what the meaning of 'is' is, and when someone says 'I dont know' or 'I dont remember' or point blank I have NEVER done anything untoward....well...you damn sure better be squeaky clean.
The National Restaurant Association on Friday confirmed that it granted a financial settlement to a woman after she filed a sexual harassment complaint against Herman Cain in 1999.
The trade group also freed her from her confidentiality agreement, although her attorney said she doesn’t intend to speak publicly on the matter. “Notwithstanding the Association’s ongoing policy of maintaining the privacy of all personnel matters, we have advised [her attorney] that we are willing to waive the confidentiality of this matter and permit [Joel] Bennett’s client to comment,” Dawn Sweeney, president of the National Restaurant Association, said Friday in a news release.
Bennett, the attorney for the woman, on Thursday submitted a request to release her from the agreement.
The association announced its decision just as Bennett was telling reporters that the complaint against Cain involved “more than one incident” that, in the woman’s opinion, qualified as sexual harassment.
“My client stands by the complaint that she made,” he said.
Bennett declined to give additional details about the nature of the incidents, citing the woman’s desire to stay out of the spotlight.
...
“Based upon the information currently available, we can confirm that more than a decade ago, in July 1999, Mr. Bennett’s client filed a formal internal complaint, in accordance with the Association’s existing policies prohibiting discrimination and harassment. Mr. Herman Cain disputed the allegations in the complaint. The Association and Mr. Bennett’s client subsequently entered into an agreement to resolve the matter, without any admission of liability. Mr. Cain was not a party to that agreement.”
I would feel better about the situation if the women themselves came forward, and didn't hide behind attorneys and confidentiality agreements. I also have questions about THEIR character as they agreed to keep the issues confidential in exchange for money and then sought ways around that by using attorneys to speak for them. In my mind they have already broken the spirit of the agreements, if not the letter, and should return the money.Looks like a third woman has come forward: BBC News - Third woman claims inappropriate behaviour from Cain
In this you are absolutely correct. And the group that supports Cain may be reduced by a little, but that doesn't matter. In fact sexual harassment by someone in power illustrates how they will behave in other similar situations in the future and that behavior is in alignment with his supporters. He'll be the Boss.We have already agreed that even if it did happen, sexual harrassment doesn't disqualify one from being president.
I would feel better about the situation if the women themselves came forward, and didn't hide behind attorneys and confidentiality agreements. I also have questions about THEIR character as they agreed to keep the issues confidential in exchange for money and then sought ways around that by using attorneys to speak for them. In my mind they have already broken the spirit of the agreements, if not the letter, and should return the money.
I would suggest that, if they have attorneys speaking for them, they have not kept the agreement. To me, keeping the agreement is not responding at all. Just letting it hang out there for speculation.They have kept to the agreement. As for who brought this up is unknown. Cain believes it was the Perry camp and Perry camp thinks it the Romney camp.
What is known that Cain has had to back track so many times in this revelation. Probably the most irriatating thing to the women is to listen to Cain now say that he only said one was tall as his wife and put his hand up in the air. I think there was a little more to that and Cain knows it.
At first his convenient lack of memory of any such harrassment claim is so over the board bogus. I kind of think most people would remember something like that. He has bumbled and danced around this issue so much I hate to picture him as president and dealing with someone as sharp and hard as Putnin. Putnin would eat him up for breakfast.
He isn't a serious candidate? That's news to me.
Still news to you?He isn't a serious candidate? That's news to me.
The clip is awful, but yes, Cain is a serious candidate. The question is whether he will now be taken seriously after this.
He won't be. He's done an exceptionally poor job of controlling the damage.
Of course, what goes down in the Republican camp never ceases to amaze me, so you never know.
Yes, I agree. The story here is not the accusations, but Cain's inability to deal with this situation. I have heard a few of his speeches lately about the subject, and they were pretty good, but it was too little too late. That was already a week after being asked if he had ever sexually harassed anyone and he said, "No, I have never harassed anyone outside of the restaurant association" or some nonsense like that.
All he had to do is say, "that depends on what the definition of 'is' is". Clinton showed him the playbook already! Cmon Cain!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?