Cain accused of sexual harassment

During Herman Cain’s tenure as the head of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s, at least two female employees complained to colleagues and senior association officials about inappropriate behavior by Cain, ultimately leaving their jobs at the trade group, multiple sources confirm to POLITICO.

The women complained of sexually suggestive behavior by Cain that made them angry and uncomfortable, the sources said, and they signed agreements with the restaurant group that gave them financial payouts to leave the association. The agreements also included language that bars the women from talking about their departures.

In a series of comments over the past 10 days, Cain and his campaign repeatedly declined to respond directly about whether he ever faced allegations of sexual harassment at the restaurant association. They have also declined to address questions about specific reporting confirming that there were financial settlements in two cases in which women leveled complaints.

POLITICO has confirmed the identities of the two female restaurant association employees who complained about Cain but, for privacy concerns, is not publishing their names.

Cain spokesman J.D. Gordon told POLITICO the candidate indicated to campaign officials that he was “vaguely familiar” with the charges and that the restaurant association’s general counsel had resolved the matter.

The latest statement came from Cain himself. In a tense sidewalk encounter Sunday morning outside the Washington bureau of CBS News — where the Republican contender had just completed an interview on “Face the Nation” — Cain evaded a series of questions about sexual harassment allegations.

Cain said he has “had thousands of people working for me” at different businesses over the years and could not comment “until I see some facts or some concrete evidence.” His campaign staff was given the name of one woman who complained last week, and it was repeated to Cain on Sunday. He responded, “I am not going to comment on that.”

He was then asked, “Have you ever been accused, sir, in your life of harassment by a woman?”

He breathed audibly, glared at the reporter and stayed silent for several seconds. After the question was repeated three times, he responded by asking the reporter, “Have you ever been accused of sexual harassment?”

Cain was president and CEO of the National Restaurant Association from late 1996 to mid-1999. POLITICO learned of the allegations against him, and over the course of several weeks, has put together accounts of what happened by talking to a lengthy roster of former board members, current and past staff and others familiar with the workings of the trade group at the time Cain was there.

In one case, POLITICO has seen documentation describing the allegations and showing that the restaurant association formally resolved the matter. Both women received separation packages that were in the five-figure range.

On the details of Cain’s allegedly inappropriate behavior with the two women, POLITICO has a half-dozen sources shedding light on different aspects of the complaints.

The sources — including the recollections of close associates and other documentation — describe episodes that left the women upset and offended. These incidents include conversations allegedly filled with innuendo or personal questions of a sexually suggestive nature, taking place at hotels during conferences, at other officially sanctioned restaurant association events and at the association’s offices. There were also descriptions of physical gestures that were not overtly sexual but that made women who experienced or witnessed them uncomfortable and that they regarded as improper in a professional relationship.

Peter Kilgore, who was the association’s general counsel in the 1990s, and remains in that position today, has declined to comment to POLITICO on whether any settlements existed, saying he cannot discuss personnel matters.

But one source closely familiar with Cain’s tenure in Washington confirmed that the claims related to allegations of sexual harassment — behavior that disturbed members of the board who became aware of it, as well as the source, who otherwise liked Cain.

“I happen to know there were sealed settlements reached in the plural. I think that anybody who thinks this was a one-time, one-person transgression would be mistaken,” this source said.

The first woman was identified to POLITICO by a former association board member, and her identity was confirmed by two additional sources.

The former board member recalled learning of the woman’s departure at a 1999 association board meeting and trade expo in Chicago.

“She was offered a financial package to leave the association, and she did,” said the former board member. “What I took offense at was that it was clear that rather than deal with the issue, there was an effort to hush it up. She was offered a way out to keep quiet.”

A second source with close ties to the restaurant association from that period said the woman revealed at the time that she had suffered what the source described as “an unwanted sexual advance” from Cain at a hotel where an event involving the group was taking place.

A third source said the woman has indicated to her current employer that she received a compensation package from the association and has warned the employer that she might be the subject of an embarrassing story involving a presidential candidate.

The second woman’s identity was confirmed by a source familiar with the association.
Rest of the story here.

Cain has managed to put his foot even further up his mouth.
Even if this isn't true, his image is going to be smeared even more.

Typical

This isn't news, nor is it an event. It's a childish mud slinging. Although if Cain gets elected, from god knows how, I will leave the country. If America is that f`ucking dumb...

He's just trying to ride the "vote for the black guy" train....

He's just trying to ride the "vote for the black guy" train....

Worked for Obama.

What's the point? Accused != Actually happened. There are tons of gold diggers out there that would gladly "report" a rich man at the top of their organization for something that is nearly impossible to prove. I have personally known one woman who blackmailed her boyfriend into giving her all of his paycheck in order to buy drugs, then reported him to the cops for domestic violence (cut her own arm with her own knife) so that he'd spend a few nights in jail when he refused. Whether or not the harrassment actually happened, it's often cheaper to payoff the accuser and make them sign something saying they'll shut up than to pay for any legal battle that might ensue.

As for his response to the reporter, it just sounds like a guy that has been nagged dozens of time to answer the same question (the frustrated sigh), purely because the ones asking it won't believe him if he denies it. They'll only ever be happy if he admits to it (once again, whether or not it actually happened), which he never will.

What's the point? Accused != Actually happened. There are tons of gold diggers out there that would gladly "report" a rich man at the top of their organization for something that is nearly impossible to prove. I have personally known one woman who blackmailed her boyfriend into giving her all of his paycheck in order to buy drugs, then reported him to the cops for domestic violence (cut her own arm with her own knife) so that he'd spend a few nights in jail when he refused. Whether or not the harrassment actually happened, it's often cheaper to payoff the accuser and make them sign something saying they'll shut up than to pay for any legal battle that might ensue.

As for his response to the reporter, it just sounds like a guy that has been nagged dozens of time to answer the same question (the frustrated sigh), purely because the ones asking it won't believe him if he denies it. They'll only ever be happy if he admits to it (once again, whether or not it actually happened), which he never will.

Yes, but you're describing exactly why even being accused is a blow.
It'll stick with him for the next 371 days. The news will bring up this case whenever it can because, hey, who doesn't love a good scandal?

Yes, but you're describing exactly why even being accused is a blow.
It'll stick with him for the next 371 days. The news will bring up this case whenever it can because, hey, who doesn't love a good scandal?

There's absolutely nothing anyone can do to prevent being ACCUSED. Furthermore, Accused != Actually happened. Therefore, this entire thing is silly and pointless.

I love how the left constantly drums up silly and pointless things when they have no substance.

I love how the left constantly drums up silly and pointless things when they have no substance.

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but they all do that, regardless of party.

There's absolutely nothing anyone can do to prevent being ACCUSED. Furthermore, Accused != Actually happened. Therefore, this entire thing is silly and pointless.

I love how the left constantly drums up silly and pointless things when they have no substance.

So fucking what if you can't do anything to prevent it.
It doesn't matter if it actually happened, it's merely the specter of having been accused.
That's what I'm trying to say.
And the right drums up silly bullshit just as much as the left does.
Well, it's the media in general.
It's why I prefer al Jazeera and BBC to American news.

Worked for Obama.

I think obama won because everyone figured mccain would die, then we'd have sarah P as pres.

..What's worse?

Although if Cain gets elected, from god knows how, I will leave the country. If America is that f`ucking dumb...

Judging by a lot of the current candidates, I think anything is possible in the U.S.

I love how the left constantly drums up silly and pointless things when they have no substance.

Lol you are silly. Assuming the people that worked for Cain were lefties.

I think obama won because everyone figured mccain would die, then we'd have sarah P as pres.

..What's worse?

hmm...probably about the same. Palin isn't too dangerous but is incredibly stupid and subject to erratic changes in policy based on something she saw on a cereal box or a Snapple lid. Obama is smart enough to be dangerous but won't do anything retarded.

hmm...probably about the same. Palin isn't too dangerous but is incredibly stupid and subject to erratic changes in policy based on something she saw on a cereal box or a Snapple lid. Obama is smart enough to be dangerous but won't do anything retarded.

I think her priorities would be all over the place. I'll vote for Obama again, at least it'll be consistant vs adding someone who feels entitled to try to start from square 1.

I'll vote for Obama again, at least it'll be consistant vs adding someone who feels entitled to try to start from square 1.

This. I'd also prefer to not move towards the possibility of rejoining the dark ages, combining church and state, or starting another war.

I think her priorities would be all over the place. I'll vote for Obama again, at least it'll be consistant vs adding someone who feels entitled to try to start from square 1.

I wish I could find someone worth voting for...I've never voted in my life, because my standards are too high to support any politician I've ever researched. It's not even a matter of finding the person I can relate with most, I've never found one I can even remotely support. ;_;

Does anyone else see a trend in basically every single politically charged Current Events thread here turning into the exact same discussion after a page or two?

Does anyone else see a trend in basically every single politically charged Current Events thread here turning into the exact same discussion after a page or two?

>Politically charged
>Political discussion
>Flaming

>Politically charged
>Political discussion
>Flaming

Basically yeah.
It all starts when KhainiWest posts...
DAMN TAX COLLECTORS