The Herman Cain Sexual Harassment Accusation - The Way I See It

Though I have believed Herman Cain right from the start on this sexual accusation situation, it was nice to hear him speak on the entire issue in a CNN interview posted online. 

After you view the CNN video, to the right, see if you come away thinking the way that I do on this. 
Twelve years ago a woman accused Herman Cain of sexual harassment, while they both worked with the National Restaurant Association. He headed it up.

There was an internal investigation that Herman Cain did not handle. The woman did not prove her case. What she deemed to be sexual harassment, was not sexual harassment.

Herman Cain was found by the association to be innocent. And the woman left involuntarily and received severance pay, as an agreement to leave and to drop her false accusation.
The supposed "settlement" that is now being talked about, was the severance pay from the association. It was not a settlement for sexual harassment, as hush money.  
At the time (in so many words), Cain was told that the woman's allegation was found to be unfounded and that an "agreement" was made with her. The agreement appears to have been, that she would no longer work there and get several months of severance pay, something that Cain said was common for people who left involuntarily to receive upon leaving the association. So it is quite understandable why he would not have viewed the money as a sexual harassment "settlement," but rather an agreement.
Had Herman Cain really sexually harassed the woman and caused the association to have had to pay out tons of "hush" money to keep the woman quiet, it stands to reason that he would have lost his position there, not her. It also stands to reason that the association would not just hand such a woman severance pay, unless she agreed to not harm them with furthering the false accusation.

It appears from the CNN interview that Cain did not give it much thought after the agreement was made. One can assume that this is a fairly big association, which Cain says he was only at for 2 1/2 years, himself. Then here it is Twelve years after the situation, close to ten years since Cain was with the association, he is running for president and he gets hit with an accusation of two women accusing him. The online news source, Politico, gave him 10 days to tell his side of the accusations that Politico said were by two anonymous women.

Does he really have to answer to anonymous accusations? How does one do that?

Keeping in mind that the situation that proved to be a false accusation Twelve years ago, ended with an agreement. Cain would have been wrong to have just assumed that the woman from that situation was one of the anonymous women accusing him today. It appears to me, that all he knew was that he had not sexually harassed any women and said so when asked. Then once it became evident that one of the women was that woman from Twelve years ago, he then commented on her. And he commented the best that he could recall.
In doing so, Herman Cain did not claim that the details that he was shown of the complaint, back Twelve years ago did not happen. In so many words, he said in the CNN interview that the details did not amount to sexual harassment. Telling a woman that she is as tall as your wife is not sexual harassment. And that is the one main thing he can recall the complaint saying. The rest of the complaint was just as ridiculous, he recalls thinking at the time. He did not commit the full complaint to memory. 
I believe that letting the woman go with severance pay was a good way for the association to handle the situation, considering that she was claiming that things were sexual harassment, when they were not. --Clearly she was a nut, and they wanted her gone with little to no incident. That sure seems logical to me.  
If the woman had such little morals, as to go after a man for money with a claim of sexual harassment on the grounds of him saying she was the height of his wife (and other things of such a ridiculous nature), she clearly would have no problem taking money from someone wanting to sabotage his run for office. And now she is using her lawyer to break that agreement that she made for that severance pay.

The woman's Lawyer, Joel P. Bennett, is speaking out on her behalf. He is saying she wants to tell her story, and he is trying to make severance pay look like a settlement. By claiming such, he is implying that it means guilt. 

I believe Herman Cain, that he did not do a thing to that woman. And there is not even any hint as to who the supposed second woman is. I believe that this is just one giant smear campaign, to hurt his campaign. You view the CNN video, and see what you think.

Debra J.M. Smith -  11-02-11


View Archives:
Click Here


 Debra J.M. Smith