Now that we know the identity of Woman #2 who had received a $45,000 payout from the National Restaurant Association in connection with allegations she made against Herman Cain, we can begin to assess the credibility of her as a person and therefore the credibility of her claims.
What do we find? She has a history of making claims and demanding large settlements when she doesn’t get what she wants. In the job she took after leaving the NRA she made similar complaints and sought significant concessions from her employer.
So having been introduced to the gravy train at the NRA she apparently decided that she was entitled to continue to extort her employers when they refused to give her what she wanted. It is now clear that Woman #2, who initially wanted to stay anonymous but has now come into the lime light, has a penchant for making easy money using trumped up allegations whenever she sees the opportunity. It is now clear why she was trying to stay anonymous: once her identity became public her history could be investigated and she would be seen for who she truly is.
And as for her threshold for making allegations of a sexual nature, she apparently considers a common internet joke that “men are like computers because to get their attention you have to turn them on” to be “sexually explicit“. Excuse me if I am not impressed.
When she was asked about the details of the complaint against her other employer, she indicated that she did not remember asking for all the things that her supervisors claim she demanded. This is different from Herman Cain claiming he doesn’t remember the details of her complaint against him? Not so much. Her complaint against her new employer was more recent than the allegations against Cain, and she was the one that made the demands.
One after one as we learn more about the character of the women making these 14 year old allegations we find that their credibility is severely lacking. When we examine the substance of the allegations we find the substance to be severely lacking.
Cain continues to be vindicated as the facts continue to emerge.
A woman who settled a sexual harassment complaint against GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain in 1999 complained three years later at her next job about unfair treatment, saying she should be allowed to work from home after a serious car accident and accusing a manager of circulating a sexually charged email, The Associated Press has learned.
Karen Kraushaar, 55, filed the complaint while working as a spokeswoman at the Immigration and Naturalization Service in the Justice Department in late 2002 or early 2003, with the assistance of her lawyer, Joel Bennett, who also handled her earlier sexual harassment complaint against Cain in 1999. Three former supervisors familiar with Kraushaar’s complaint, which did not include a claim of sexual harassment, described it for the AP under condition of anonymity because the matter was handled internally by the agency and was not public.
To settle the complaint at the immigration service, Kraushaar initially demanded thousands of dollars in payment, a reinstatement of leave she used after the accident earlier in 2002, promotion on the federal pay scale and a one-year fellowship to Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, according to a former supervisor familiar with the complaint. The promotion itself would have increased her annual salary between $12,000 and $16,000, according to salary tables in 2002 from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Kraushaar said Tuesday she did not remember details about the complaint and did not remember asking for a payment, a promotion or a Harvard fellowship. Bennett, her lawyer, declined to discuss the case with the AP, saying he considered it confidential. Kraushaar left her job at the immigration service after dropping the complaint in 2003, and she went to work at the Treasury Department.
Details of the workplace complaint that Kraushaar made at the immigration service are relevant because they could offer insights into how she responded to conflicts at work.
The complaint also cited as objectionable an email that a manager had circulated comparing computers to women and men, a former supervisor said. The complaint claimed that the email, based on humor widely circulated on the Internet, was sexually explicit, according to the supervisor, who did not have a copy of the email. The joke circulated online lists reasons men and women were like computers, including that men were like computers because “in order to get their attention, you have to turn them on.” Women were like computers because “even your smallest mistakes are stored in long-term memory for later retrieval.”
After a week of having his name dragged through the mud by liberal political operatives, Herman Cain emerges from the allegations unscathed and to a large extent vindicated. His upstanding character remains intact.
First, we have some lawyer who purports to represent one of the women who had made allegations in the 1990s against Cain running around all week blowing smoke and garnering headlines. He made a big deal about having the NRA let his client out of her confidentiality agreement so she could tell her side of the story. But when the NRA agreed to waive the confidentiality agreement, well, suddenly this woman doesn’t want to tell her side of the story. We are simply left with some muck raking lawyer sticking his nose where it is not wanted and engaging in all manner of libelous innuendo. When the time comes to put up or shut up, he’s got nothing but his own hot air. So his schtick is completely busted.
Second, the NRA makes it’s own statement on the situation wherein it clarifies that the agreement with this woman in no way acknowledges liability (on the part of the organization or Cain) with respect to the woman’s allegations and reiterates that Cain had disputed the charges at the time. This is completely consistent with Cain’s current denials of having harassed anyone.
Third, we also learn that the agreement with this woman does not even include Cain as a party to the agreement. It was made without his involvement or signature. It was strictly between the NRA and the woman.
The National Restaurant Association released a statement Friday confirming that over a decade ago, a female employee filed a formal complaint of sexual harassment against then-association head Herman Cain. Cain disputed the allegations at the time, according to the trade group.
The association told the woman’s attorney it is willing to waive the confidentiality agreement signed by the parties involved — although not by Cain himself — but her lawyer, Joel P. Bennett, said in his own statement Friday that the woman wishes to remain a private citizen and would not be revealing further details regarding her story.
“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,” NRA President and CEO Dawn Sweeney said.“Mr. Herman Cain disputed the allegations in the complaint.”
Sweeney said an agreement was reached “without an admission of liability,” and that Cain, now a GOP presidential candidate, was “not a party to the agreement.”
Since Politico reported Sunday night that two female employees of a trade group lodged sexual harassment claims against Cain years ago, the campaign has raked in $1.2 million, aides say, and the quirky and outspoken businessman has been a fixture on cable news.
A new Washington Post-ABC News poll published Friday shows him virtually tied with former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney for the lead in the race for the GOP nomination, with most Republicans shrugging off the allegations but sizeable minorities nevertheless saying the scandal could make them less likely to vote for him.
Fourth, we now have Politico publishing a piece which highlights that at the time of these allegations the entire restaurant industry was awash in such allegations in the wake of the Anita Hill allegations against Clarence Thomas. It was the hot issue of the day and everyone was treating it with super politically correct gloves which likely led to many such allegations being simply paid off to avoid any public exposure. In other words, the settlement was likely just a business decision at the time.
Finally, the Politico piece also highlights that while Herman Cain was CEO of the NRA he was very aware of the legal concerns raised by sexual harassment allegations and he and his organization where not only pro-active, but were industry leaders in combating the problem through the production of educational materials and encouraging association members to adopt formal policies against it. We now see that Herman Cain was actually part of the vanguard developing policies against such harassment in the workplace and which are present in most businesses today. This is hardly the pedigree of someone who does not take the issue seriously.
When sexual harassment complaints against Herman Cain unfolded at the National Restaurant Association in the late 1990s, the issue was all too familiar for the trade association.
In the wake of the televised 1991 Clarence Thomas Supreme Court confirmation hearings — and the widely publicized sexual harassment charges leveled against him by Anita Hill — American businesses had been hit by a wave of sexual harassment cases. And the restaurant industry, in particular, was hit especially hard.
Industry officials saw it coming — none other than Cain himself warned as long ago as 1991 that changes in federal law resulting from the hearings could cause problems for employers.
“This bill opens the door for opportunists who will use the legislation to make some money,” Cain, then CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, told Nation’s Restaurant News. “I’m certainly for civil rights, but I don’t know if this bill is fair because of what we’ll have to spend to defend ourselves in unwarranted cases.”
When it came to litigation and bad publicity, Scher said, the restaurant industry “faced some of the worst of it.”
Given the sheer size of the restaurant industry, a source familiar with the industry said, the number of cases in fiscal 1997 only represented about “a tenth of a percent of the workforce at the time.” But the broader issue of sexual harassment was nonetheless a serious enough concern that the NRA embarked on an effort to educate both its staffers and members on the issue, which included moves to implement sexual harassment policies and training.
With Cain at the helm as CEO in 1998, the association created a video to explain sexual harassment laws to its members – and created a sample sexual harassment policy for individual restaurants to use, according to a Chicago Tribune story at the time.
The NRA’s Educational Foundation began offering a training program for member restaurants called, “What’s the Big Deal? Sexual Harassment Prevention Program,” in addition to its ServSafe safety and alcohol training materials. Today, according to the ServSafe website, restaurants can purchase employee and manager training brochures, as well as DVDs to explain acceptable practices.
While the NRA could not confirm details of its policies to POLITICO, a 1999 article in the organization’s Restaurants USA magazine outlines the three key components of a successful sexual harassment policy for restaurants.
“It should clearly state that sexual harassment will not be tolerated; it should define what sexual harassment is; and it should tell employees exactly how to register a complaint,” the article says.
In the wake of two important harassment cases that made it to the Supreme Court in 1998, Kilgore — who handled the two settlements involving Cain for the association — told Restaurants USA, the NRA’s magazine, in 1999 that creating and distributing sexual harassment policies had become “mandatory now” in the wake of those decisions.
More constitution shredding by the Democrats. They accuse the Republicans of shredding the Constitution on a regular basis but it is they who regularly run afoul of its plain and clear intent. They do this by selective reading thereof. Dishonest and self-serving interpretations designed to meet their needs du jour.
The debate over the debt ceiling is no exception. They are selectively quoting the 14th Amendment to the Constitution to further their own political gains and shredding the Constitutional protections it provides in the process.
Their latest theory seems to be that a single cherry picked phrase from the 14th Amendment somehow gives Obama the power to ignore the law and place himself as the supreme authority over the national coffers. To wit they cherry pick the following:
Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
So what exactly is the plain meaning of the highlighted phrases? Simply put, all this says is that there is a national debt and that people cannot simply argue it out of existence. It simply says that the United States Government is authorized to take on debt to meet it’s obligations. That’s it. Period.
This says nothing about who determines when and how much debt can and should be taken on by that government. The problem here is the Democrat slight of hand which is at play. Note that no one has questioned the “validity of the public debt“. No one is arguing that the government cannot take on such debt. No one is arguing that the debt does not exist. And most assuredly no one is suggesting that the debt which has already been taken on should not be repaid with full interest.
It is a straw man argument meant to distract honest citizens from the reality of the situation.
So if this passage is not indicating who is in control of what debt is taken on and when, then how are we to know who the Constitution invests that power in? Well, the Constitution includes a passage to address that very question. This is a passage that the Democrats are selectively ignoring when they make this argument. There is a fifth clause to the 14th Amendment which quite clearly addresses this point:
Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
This seems quite plain in its meaning. It is the Congress who is invested with the authority to control the public debt via appropriate legislation. Legislation like that which establishes the debt ceiling that the Democrats seek to circumvent and whose actions are clearly in conflict with the plain meaning and intent of the text of the 14th Amendment.
Once again we see the Obama Administration for what it clearly is: a rogue and out of control group of Constitution Shredding Cowboys with no respect for the rule of law or for duly authorized Constitutional authority.
It is another shameful day for Democrats.
But it’s not clear that Congress can constitutionally impose a debt ceiling on the President. The debt limit we have now is the legacy of a 1939 law designed to allow the Treasury flexibility to borrow up to a certain limit. But Geithner and a number of constitutional scholars have questioned whether Congress can prevent the president from paying obligations that the government has already incurred. That’s because a passage in the Fourteenth Amendment—designed to prevent Southern politicians from repudiating Civil War debts—stipulates that “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law… shall not be questioned.” What exactly that means is a complicated legal question, but as Jonathan Chait writes, the clause was intended to prevent politicians from using the threat of default for political leverage—which is exactly what Republicans are doing now.
Once again we see that Obama is nothing but George W. Bush on steroids. The Democrats decried Bush’s policies as having “shredded the Constitution”. Now we see Obama once again picking up where Bush left off and going even further.
Obama is out spending Bush. Obama lied about closing Gitmo. And now Obama is expanding the FBI’s ability to spy on innocent Americans with little or no oversight. Not even the flimsiest of safeguards.
One now has to ask, “where are all the outraged Democrats?“
The FBI sought Monday to downplay its expanded surveillance powers for agents as civil liberty groups sounded an alarm that the new rules not only make it easier for agents to investigate suspects but give them startling leeway to spy on ordinary Americans.
The changes are expected to be outlined in a new edition of the Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide, a lengthy 2008 document detailing how far agents can go in tracking suspects. They will expand the use of techniques ranging from dispatching surveillance teams to digging through trash cans.
Civil liberties groups were briefed on the policy changes in May, and came out of the meeting worried the changes would allow agents to investigate innocent people, with less oversight than before.
“It’s the government saying we can know all about your private life, but you can’t know what the government is doing,” Michael German, a former FBI agent now working with the American Civil Liberties Union, told FoxNews.com.
New York Democrat Representative Anthony Weiner has been tap dancing around a recent incident involving his twitter account.
DANA BASH, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: That’s right. And really, the developments have just been us trying to get some answers from Congressman Weiner.
The back-story very quickly here, of course, is that over the weekend, there was allegedly a lewd picture that went out on his Twitter account which he quickly said was something that was resulting from a hack, that somebody had hacked his Twitter account. He put out a couple of statements over the last few days saying it was a distraction, saying it was a prank, saying that he had gotten a lawyer to figure out whether there should be any criminal or civil action taken. But there were a lot of questions about this. For example, whether or not or why he apparently was in contact or following a woman, a 21-year-old college student in Seattle, who was the alleged recipient of this tweet. So I want to you look at this exchange. Congressman Weiner, for the second time today, Wolf, came out and was very open, he said, about wanting to stand before the cameras and talk to reporters. The problem is he didn’t answer questions.
Weiner then goes on to repeatedly try to push an obviously rehearsed rif that he felt was going to magically make the questions stop:
BASH: Congressman, could you just ask — answer point blank, you say that you were hacked, which is potentially a crime.
So why haven’t you asked the Capitol Police for any law enforcement to investigate?
WEINER: Look, this was a prank that I’ve now been talking about for a couple of days. I am not going to allow it to decide what I talk about for the next week or the next two weeks. And so I’m not going to be giving you anything more about that today. I think I’ve been pretty responsive to you in the past.
BASH: But — but with respect, you’re here, which we — which we appreciate, but you’re not answering the questions.
Can you just say why you haven’t asked law enforcement to investigate what you are alleging is a crime?
WEINER: You — you know, Dana, if I was giving a speech to 45,000 people and someone in the back of the room threw a pie or yelled out an insult, would I spent the next two hours responding to that?
[Reporters continue to press for an answer]
WEINER: Sir — permit me — permit me — do you guys want me to finish my answer?
QUESTION: Yes, this ques — this anywhere.
QUESTION: did you send it or not?
WEINER: If I were giving a speech to 45,000 people and someone in the back threw a pie or yelled out an insult, I would not spend the next two hours of my speech responding to that pie or that insult. I would return to the things that I want to talk about to the audience that I wanted to talk to –
QUESTION: all you have to do is say no with respect –
WEINER: — and that is what I intend to do at this point.
Representative Weiner was completely oblivious to how guilty this exchange actually made him look. He repeatedly refused to answer legitimate and direct questions. He was evasive throughout the entire exchange. His on-point message that he was trying to assert was that he wasn’t going to cooperate with the reporters by talking about it any more. He had work to do and he wasn’t going to allow this to distract him from it.
Now segue to questions being posed to the Democrat leadership:
Top Democrats in the House are giving no credence to those looking to find a real scandal.
California’s Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader, stuck to her party’s main legislative focus Thursday — “Medicare, Medicare, Medicare.” When questioned as to whether the situation was turning into a distraction, Pelosi replied “That’s your problem. If that’s what’s important to you, then that’s what you’ll report. That’s not what’s important to us.”
Nancy gives the same prepared response, in essence. We’re not going to answer your questions about this. It is all a distraction.
Obviously there was some backroom discussion somewhere prior to this exchange about how to damage control Weinergate. Representative Weiner was obviously unable to handle the public relations aspects of this on his own because his attempts to do so were only raising more questions. Deeply embarrassing questions. Questions that the Democrats and Weiner in particular did not want reporters digging into. And to make matters worse, Weiner’s own behavior was only making him look more guilty.
So the Democrats obviously decided that the best strategy was to simply clam up. Everyone all the way up to Nancy Pelosi and probably beyond are now all going to be singing from the same coordinated handbook to try and contain this situation. [Aside: Isn't this the same strategy that Obama is now following regarding inquiries into the circumstances surrounding the Osama bin Laden killing? To simply stop releasing any additional information?]
I don’t know if Wiener was hacked, or not. I don’t know if the photo was of him, or not. But what IS clear is that Weiner has something to hide here and that’s why the reporters are continuing to press the issue. If he was hacked, as he claims, then why downplay the need for a formal investigation into that hacking. It is a serious crime. For some reason Weiner doesn’t want the FBI or the Capital Police to be looking into his twitter account. So the real question here is, what does Weiner have to hide?
Even Chris Matthews thinks that Weinergate is an embarassment to the Democrat party, possibly of a magnitude of sufficient proportions that it may cost the Democrats seats in upcoming elections.
In fact, Matthews thinks it’s even possible that Republicans can successfully attack the whole Democratic party over Weiner’s behavior and retain control of the House of Representatives as a result.
In her usual delightful style, Ann Coulter weighs in on Weinergate making the point that by calling the incident a hacking Weiner may have unleashed the need for a formal investigation … something that Wiener is now claiming vociferously that he does not want:
Weiner isn’t a celebrity: He’s a CONGRESSMAN. Whoever can hack into his Twitter account may be able to hack into other congressmen’s accounts — or into Weiner’s briefing files from, say, the Department of Defense.
(Indeed, unless the alleged hacker is arrested, who knows how many Anthony Weiner penis shots could start circulating on Twitter?)
But when one of Weiner’s colleagues, Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., requested a congressional investigation into cybersecurity based on Weiner’s self-proclaimed computer attack on his Twitter account, Weiner denounced and insulted Stearns.
The best Weiner can do now is try to take his utterly humiliating penis photo out of the realm of criminal law by eliding “hacked” into “pranked.” Legally, it’s not clear what the difference is.
He’s stuck angrily announcing that he wants to move on, there’s important work to be done, and calling a CNN reporter a “jackass” merely for asking if Weiner sent the penis photo or not.
For a guy who’s suddenly taking the position that this was all just a harmless prank, he seemed pretty bent out of shape at that CNN press conference. If that condition persists for more than four hours, congressman, consult your doctor.