[TheRealVille]

Herman Cain backtracked on a central part of his story about the sexual harassment allegations leveled against him in the 1990s, telling PBS and Fox News that he recalled details of a financial settlement with one of the women involved.

Changing his tune on the question of cash settlements was only the most glaring of several shifts in Cain’s comments Monday on the harassment charges leveled when he was president of the National Restaurant Association.

Cain told the PBS “NewsHour” that he recalled a financial “agreement” with a woman who accused him of inappropriate behavior at the National Restaurant Association.

Only hours before, Cain said he was unaware of any “settlement” related to sexual harassment – a reversal he attempted to explain away through verbal hair-splitting.

“I was aware that an agreement was reached. The word ‘settlement’ versus the word ‘agreement’ you know, I’m not sure what they called it. I know that there was some sort of agreement, but because it ended up being minimal, they didn’t have to bring it to me. My general counsel and the head of human resources had the authority to resolve this thing,” Cain said.

And in an interview with Fox host Greta Van Susteren that was previewed on the website of the Washington Examiner, Cain said the NRA “ended up settling for what would have been a termination settlement” with an employee who complained about Cain’s behavior.

“My general counsel said this started out where she and her lawyer were demanding a huge financial settlement,” Cain said, according to the Examiner. He told Van Susteren his accuser was given “maybe three months’ salary. I don’t remember. It might have been two months. I do remember my general counsel saying we didn’t pay all of the money they demanded.”

Those comments clashed dramatically with Cain’s repeated assertions earlier in the day that he was not aware of any settlements that had been reached with women who said they felt harassed by Cain.

In an appearance at the National Press Club, Cain acknowledged that he had been accused of harassment, but said he’d been “falsely accused” and was “unaware of any settlement.”

In an earlier Fox interview – his first television appearance since POLITICO reported on past allegations of inappropriate behavior toward female subordinates – Cain said he did not know anything about payments to women who worked at the NRA.

“If the restaurant association did a settlement, I wasn’t even aware of it and I hope it wasn’t for much,” Cain said. “If there was a settlement, it was handled by some of the other officers at the restaurant association.”

It’s difficult – if not impossible – to explain Cain’s reversal from earlier Monday, when he said he wasn’t familiar with cash payouts, period, with his later admission that he had discussed terms of settlement with the NRA’s general counsel.

In fact, Cain’s latest statements on Fox and PBS bear a close resemblance to his campaign’s first response to POLITICO when asked about harassment charges under his leadership. “This was settled amicably among all parties many years ago,” Cain’s spokesman told POLITICO over a week ago. He subsequently said he was not referring specifically to a legal settlement.

And while Cain has pushed back ferociously on the POLITICO story revealing that the NRA had settled two harassment complaints against Cain, there were still more questions than answers at day’s end about his story.

In his public appearances Monday, Cain said categorically that he had “never sexually harassed anyone.” But in the interview with PBS, Cain left some wiggle room on a question about whether he had ever behaved in an “inappropriate” way.

“In my opinion, no,” Cain told interviewer Judy Woodruff. “But as you would imagine, it’s in the eye of the person who thinks that maybe I crossed the line.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/67293.html

[TheRealVille]

Well let's see, Clinton was a slick talker, Obama is a slicker talker, and Romney is a slick talker. I've been slick talked enough. Cain not so much and Perry I believe gets shook up by the confrontational and direct assaults by Romney. I believe Perry is insulted and appalled by Romney's brazen attacks and the fact that these are carried out on national TV further exacerbates the rather tongue-tied, back on his heels, posture he has been pushed into on these debate forums. Therefore, he doesn't do well and stumbles.

The only thing I am disappointed in Perry about is his position on educating illegal immigrants on the taxpayer dime. The government can't legally carve out any group to give advantages to. No citizen is higher than his neighbor and therefore it's not justifiable to give things to any ethnic group, social, or political group or individuals. The government started giving people things back during the "Great Society" social giveaway program, which LB Johnson dreamed up and set in motion. At first America could afford to do that and since the average citizen wasn't crowded financially by the giveaways we just sailed along without a whimper and let it happen. Since the inception of the LBJ program, the problems of the listless and the indegent have been more or less purchased by the US Federal Government in that we have by law guaranteeed a safety net for these folks for life. Where once we could afford as a nation to finance the give away programs for these folks, the explosion of their ranks and the ever expanding scope of handouts (food, housing, clothing, medical-care, utilities and even cell phones) have grown to the point where we can no longer actually pay for all of it. Now we must borrow money starting in July of each year. Once we have borrowed money from countries all over the planet we can continue to give it away to the non working element of society. Of course, let's not forget to mention our sworn enemies of the arab world, dictators of South America etc. Sorry, I do go on.

Cain could be a breath of fresh air if he surrounds himself with the right people and has the good sense to listen to them on matters of foriegn policy and the military. Common sense wise, I just love him. I worry that he will not be all that in a national campaign but, if he's the Republican nominee I will certainly vote for him. However, he is a novice and not a true statesman and it is impossible to for see the kinds of blunders me may make if elected. Romney is just a republican in name only and he worries me because of that. I don't trust him and his record does not support his present position on a number of issues least of which is Romney-Care. If it comes down to Obama or Romney it's still a no brainer, ROMNEY!

Ron Paul scares me because he would whittle the military down to a little nub. I could live with Newt for sure but, he has a little baggage, bounced checks and bimbos.

Looks like Cain does his "slick talking" to women, in the form of sexual harassment.

[SKINNYPIG]

Looks like Cain does his "slick talking" to women, in the form of sexual harassment.

Looks like democrats are going to remain hypocrites. They defended slick Willy through his sexual escapades while claiming it had nothing to do with his job as President. I don't suppose Cain will get the same treatment huh?

[Hoot Gibson]

Looks like democrats are going to remain hypocrites. They defended slick Willy through his sexual escapades while claiming it had nothing to do with his job as President. I don't suppose Cain will get the same treatment huh?

I would applaud you for your keen insight into how liberals operate - but pointing out liberal hypocrisy is the type of operation that Captain Obvious was created to carry out. :biggrin:

But I agree with you 100 percent. I mean, who could have predicted that the Obama campaign would mobilize its army of paid and volunteer mud slingers against a black, conservative Republican?

[TheRealVille]

Looks like democrats are going to remain hypocrites. They defended slick Willy through his sexual escapades while claiming it had nothing to do with his job as President. I don't suppose Cain will get the same treatment huh?

Slick Willy's were consensual with Monica, Cain's were not. Big,big difference.

[Hoot Gibson]

Slick Willy's were consentual with Monica, Cain's were not. Big,big difference.

Who said anything about Monica? Did Juanita Broderick ask to be raped? Did Kathleen Willy or Paula Jones invite his abuse? Those allegations are better documented than the charges that you are making against Cain. Liberals never seemed to think those charges warranted any attention. Yet, let Clarence Thomas or Herman Cain start rising in position as conservative black men, liberals are ready to pounce on any allegations, regardless of how vague they may be.

[TheRealVille]

Who said anything about Monica? Did Juanita Broderick ask to be raped? Did Kathleen Willy or Paula Jones invite his abuse? Those allegations are better documented than the charges that you are making against Cain. Liberals never seemed to think those charges warranted any attention. Yet, let Clarence Thomas or Herman Cain start rising in position as conservative black men, liberals are ready to pounce on any allegations, regardless of how vague they may be.

Big difference Hoot. Was he ever convicted. The lawsuit was dismissed before trial on the grounds that Jones failed to demonstrate any damages. This isn't about Clinton, it's about Cain. You jump all over accusations against democrats, yet it's fine when it's against republicans. You still have two faces, as usual. BTW, Juanita says nothing happened, so how do you say he raped her?

In 1997, Broaddrick had filed a sworn affidavit with Paula Jones' lawyers, denying that Clinton had ever assaulted her: "During the 1992 Presidential campaign there were unfounded rumors and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies... These allegations are untrue ...."[1] In November 1998, Broaddrick contradicted her sworn statement in an interview with Dateline NBC.[2][3] The interview, broadcast in February 1999, centered around Broaddrick's accusation that Clinton had raped her on April 25, 1978, during his first campaign for the governorship of the U.S. state of Arkansas, at a time when Clinton was the Attorney General for the state.[citation needed]

[SKINNYPIG]

Big difference Hoot. Was he ever convicted. The lawsuit was dismissed before trial on the grounds that Jones failed to demonstrate any damages. This isn't about Clinton, it's about Cain. You jump all over accusations against democrats, yet it's fine when it's against republicans. You still have two faces, as usual.

What was Cain "convicted" of? You calling someone two faced is laughable.

[Hoot Gibson]

Big difference Hoot. Was he ever convicted. The lawsuit was dismissed before trial on the grounds that Jones failed to demonstrate any damages. This isn't about Clinton, it's about Cain. You jump all over accusations against democrats, yet it's fine when it's against republicans. You still have two faces, as usual.

Fool. Clinton settled out of court with Paula Jones. He paid her and her attorneys $850,000. Does that change your opinion? Of course not. Herman Cain is a conservative black man running to unseat a black socialist from the most powerful office in the world. You are right. This is not about Clinton. It is about the hypocrisy and racism of the loony left.

[TheRealVille]

Idiot. Clinton isn't running for President, Cain is. BTW, Juanita says nothing happened, so how do you say he raped her?

In 1997, Broaddrick had filed a sworn affidavit with Paula Jones' lawyers, denying that Clinton had ever assaulted her: "During the 1992 Presidential campaign there were unfounded rumors and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies... These allegations are untrue ...."[1] In November 1998, Broaddrick contradicted her sworn statement in an interview with Dateline NBC.[2][3] The interview, broadcast in February 1999, centered around Broaddrick's accusation that Clinton had raped her on April 25, 1978, during his first campaign for the governorship of the U.S. state of Arkansas, at a time when Clinton was the Attorney General for the state.[citation needed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juanita_Broaddrick

[TheRealVille]

What was Cain "convicted" of? You calling someone two faced is laughable.

But, he paid them off. Clinton isn't running for President, Cain is.

[Hoot Gibson]

But, he paid them off. Clinton isn't running for President, Cain is.

The telling point here is that you cannot bring yourself to condemn Clinton for the same thing that you believe (or not) that Cain has done. I am just pointing out your hypocrisy and doing a pretty good job of it if I do say so myself. Obama is running for president and I still have never seen one single post in which you have criticized him for one single thing. Yet, you claim that you might vote for Romney if he gets the Republican nomination. I don't believe you and your participation in this hypocritical smear of Cain is just one of many reasons why.

[SKINNYPIG]

But, he paid them off. Clinton isn't running for President, Cain is.

"He" didn't pay anyone of. According to him there was an investigation and the accusations were deemed baseless. If the organization decided to pay it may have been to just end it.

I don't know if Cain sexually harrassed anyone, there isn't enough evidence to prove yay or nay IMO. Not defending, nor am I condeming at this point.

Your mind is obviously made up...Cain is a pervert because someone paid someone...Slick willy is an angel because Monica let him have it and those other women were just liars.

One of your faces is plain to see today.

[SKINNYPIG]

"He" didn't pay anyone of. According to him there was an investigation and the accusations were deemed baseless. If the organization decided to pay it may have been to just end it.

I don't know if Cain sexually harrassed anyone, there isn't enough evidence to prove yay or nay IMO. Not defending, nor am I condeming at this point.

Your mind is obviously made up...Cain is a pervert because someone paid someone...Slick willy is an angel because Monica let him have it and those other women were just liars.

One of your faces is plain to see today.

Let me re-phrase something. BOTH of your faces are plain to see today.

[TheRealVille]

The telling point here is that you cannot bring yourself to condemn Clinton for the same thing that you believe (or not) that Cain has done. I am just pointing out your hypocrisy and doing a pretty good job of it if I do say so myself. Obama is running for president and I still have never seen one single post in which you have criticized him for one single thing. Yet, you claim that you might vote for Romney if he gets the Republican nomination. I don't believe you and your participation in this hypocritical smear of Cain is just one of many reasons why.

Clinton has nothing to do with this. The point is, you call democrats hypocrites, all the while you people are just as bad. I didn't see any of you that bring up every scandal that democrats have, bring up this one on Cain.

[TheRealVille]

"He" didn't pay anyone of. According to him there was an investigation and the accusations were deemed baseless. If the organization decided to pay it may have been to just end it.

I don't know if Cain sexually harrassed anyone, there isn't enough evidence to prove yay or nay IMO. Not defending, nor am I condeming at this point.

Your mind is obviously made up...Cain is a pervert because someone paid someone...Slick willy is an angel because Monica let him have it and those other women were just liars.

One of your faces is plain to see today.

I didn't say Clinton was and angel. If one of you people that bring every little thing on democrats, had brought up this scandal on Cain, you wouldn't have heard a peep from me.

[Hoot Gibson]

Clinton has nothing to do with this. The point is, you call democrats hypocrites, all the while you people are just as bad. I didn't see any of you that bring up every scandal that democrats have, bring up this one on Cain.

When I see a real person step forward and make an accusation, then I will have something on which to evaluate the allegations. All that has been presented so far is vague, unattributed accusations that supposedly originated from two women who accepted confidential settlements and agreed to keep the terms of the agreements private.

If the two women do exist and have leaked the information contrary to the alleged settlement agreement, then they should refund the money and step into the light and make their accusations. As long as they remain nameless and faceless, I will doubt the smear mongers' account of events.

It does not really matter much to me. If Republicans run somebody with a pulse against Obama, then they will get my vote. I recognize desperate campaign tactics when I see them and Obama is getting desperate very, very early in this campaign.

[Hoot Gibson]

I didn't say Clinton was and angel. If one of you people that bring every little thing on democrats, had brought up this scandal on Cain, you wouldn't have heard a peep from me.

You think a credible rape allegation is a little thing?

[TheRealVille]

You think a credible rape allegation is a little thing?

The lady you said he raped, said that he didn't.

[TheRealVille]

When I see a real person step forward and make an accusation, then I will have something on which to evaluate the allegations. All that has been presented so far is vague, unattributed accusations that supposedly originated from two women who accepted confidential settlements and agreed to keep the terms of the agreements private.

If the two women do exist and have leaked the information contrary to the alleged settlement agreement, then they should refund the money and step into the light and make their accusations. As long as they remain nameless and faceless, I will doubt the smear mongers' account of events.

It does not really matter much to me. If Republicans run somebody with a pulse against Obama, then they will get my vote. I recognize desperate campaign tactics when I see them and Obama is getting desperate very, very early in this campaign.

Yea, that's how you handle all the democrat stories. You post them so damn fast, you are waaaayyyyyy ahead of any credible sources. nicker:

[Hoot Gibson]

The lady you said he raped, said that he didn't.

She said that he did and she said it on national television.

[TheRealVille]

She said that he did and she said it on national television.

She said he did, she said he didn't. That makes her a liar and unbelievable. Nuff said.

[Hoot Gibson]

She said he did, she said he didn't. That makes her a liar and unbelievable. Nuff said.

All women who accuse liberals of rape and harassment are liars and all who accuse conservatives of the same are truth tellers. I understand what you are saying. Except in this case, we don't even know the names of the alleged accusers, do we? But you have all the information that you need to run with it like a fool. nicker:

[TheRealVille]

All women who accuse liberals of rape and harassment are liars and all who accuse conservatives of the same are truth tellers. I understand what you are saying. Except in this case, we don't even know the names of the alleged accusers, do we? But you have all the information that you need to run with it like a fool. nicker:

Cain himself said he was accused of sexual harassment.

[Hoot Gibson]

Cain himself said he was accused of sexual harassment.

And an unsubstantiated accusation is good enough for you, right?

[TheRealVille]

And an unsubstantiated accusation is good enough for you, right?

He admitted that he was accused of it, and they got paid off, thats a pretty good assessment as I see it.

[Hoot Gibson]

He admitted that he was accused of it, and they got paid off, thats a pretty good assessment as I see it.

I have no idea what happened in this case and neither do you. The difference is that I am honest enough to admit it. Maybe Cain is guilty of worse than has been suggested. Or maybe the women in question were gold diggers who were let go with severance pay. Until and if the details of whatever settlement was made, assuming that one does exist, are made public all we have to go on are the second or third hand accounts of faceless, nameless rumor mongers.

[nky]

When did Herman Cain Commit perjury?

[TheRealVille]

He admitted that he was accused of it, and they got paid off, thats a pretty good assessment as I see it.

He is also saying now, that what he did could be could be considered by some, as "crossing the line".

[bigben]

Yeah hes a threat