Cain on Foreign Policy

[Michael Tee]

<<...based on current reality, and FACTS, that's [the 80K settlement] chickenfeed . . . >>

Huh?  Based on "FACTS"  the 80K is chickenfeed?  Maybe I missed something here, but what "FACTS" have you got that say 80K is chickenfeed?  Inquiring minds demand to know.

<< . . . as Ami & Bt have already attested to>>

They didn't "attest" to anything, but merely offered their opinions as to 80K being chickenshit or not.  Ami in particular was talking through his ass, trying to make it appear that the discovery costs alone could dwarf the settlement.  That might be true in some cases, but certainly not in a "he said-she said" case with no documentary or physical evidence available and a full investigation by the employer, presumably complete with the statements of the various parties concerned, before them.  There was virtually nothing left to "discover" and any lawyer foolish enough to try to build further costs in discovering what had already been discovered could be made to pay the costs personally.  Considering that there was no evidence of serious mental trauma, and the worst we know of the effect on the victims was that they were made to feel "uncomfortable," with apparently zero physical contact, 40K each, more or less, is in fact a pretty hefty settlement.


<<Meaningless [that Cain signed nothing]in your OPINION, as well as your OPINION as to what they supposedly were probably doing.  You have no clue what they were doing . . . >>

With all due respect, I have considerable clue as to what they were doing, and you, on the other hand, have none.  Joel P. Bennett, who advised one of the victims, is a successful Washington DC attorney specializing in employment law (according to his website, 70% employee, 30% employer) and is not likely to have advised his client to take a chickenshit settlement.  He wouldn't have taken the case if it was baseless, because it wouldn't have been worth his while, and because it's he-says, she-says, there is no guarantee.  A schlepper fresh out of law school has some incentive to take a case like that on spec, but not a guy like Bennett.   God knows there are more than enough well-grounded sexual harrassment cases in the DC area to go around.  40K is not only a good solid recovery for a case that doesn't even go to discoveries, but is a solid indication that there was a huge exposure to a much bigger loss if the case had gone forward.

<<and is just as explained, if not more logically, in the desire to keep $$$'s and publicity to the association to a minimum>>

Well you're right about the publicity being kept to the minimum but 100% wrong about the $$$ - - 80K is hardly the minimum, I would expect that about 15K each plus a few months' severance pay (which Cain himself estimated at 3K or 4K max)  - - say about 20K per employee, or 40K max would have been the minimum that could have been expected had the case gone to trial.  In which case, 15K would have been eminently reasonable for harrassment that was limited to some verbal remarks in the course of hard drinking by all parties, where the maximum harm to the victims was a "feeling of discomfort."  The NRA's willingness to settle at twice the minimum, undoubtedly on the advice of experienced counsel, indicates to me that the accusations in both cases were far from "groundless" or "baseless."

<<IN YOUR OPINION [80K is small] MINUS ANY FACTS TO SUPPORT IT.  Current facts support precisely the opposite>>

Really, what "current facts" are you referring to?  Do you know any "current facts" that say women who are harrassed sexually during heavy drinking in public with their employers, but only by suggestive words, without groping or physical assaults,  without any mental trauma other than "discomfort," are usually awarded much more than 35K or 40K each?  WHERE ARE those "current facts?"  Inquiring minds need to know.

Quote from: Michael Tee on Today at 12:25:55 AM
<< . . .  while messers    Hello??  Media??>>

<<Now why on earth would that surprise you?   [that <<"happily married" Obama & Clinton got nary a touch of anythimg even remotely approacing such tenacious scrutiny>>] despite their associations with "Bill Ayers??  Jaunita Broaddrick?  Rev Wright?">>

<<It doesn't...they're Democrats.  They pretty much get a pass, at far more scandalous acts.   D'uh>>

So then I guess you wouldn't mind answering my original question, which you conveniently "forgot" to include when cutting and pasting my words as you did above, which was, "So how did you come to hear of the names of Bill Ayers, and the others, if not from the MSM?"

[Plane]

............in a "he said-she said" case with no documentary or physical evidence available and a full investigation by the employer, presumably complete with the statements of the various parties concerned, before them.  There was virtually nothing left to "discover" and any lawyer foolish enough to try to build further costs in discovering what had already been discovered could be made to pay the costs personally.  Considering that there was no evidence of serious mental trauma, and the worst we know of the effect on the victims was that they were made to feel "uncomfortable," with apparently zero physical contact, 40K each, more or less, is in fact a pretty hefty settlement.

........

     Wow , words only?

      What can a guy say that means that much?

[BT]

That might be true in some cases, but certainly not in a "he said-she said" case with no documentary or physical evidence available and a full investigation by the employer, presumably complete with the statements of the various parties concerned, before them.

So Joel P. Bennett would take the investigation report by the company as gospel even though the company would be a defendant in any case going forward? No offense to Mr. Bennett but if that were his advice, that we wouldn't conduct our own investigation, i would be lawyer shopping in a NY Minute.

[Michael Tee]

<<Wow , words only?

      <<What can a guy say that means that much?>>

He's not "a guy," he's the head of the organization she works for.  There's a certain amount of trust that is broken, because an employer-employee or boss-worker relationship implies a certain bond of mutual respect and consideration and when that bond is broken, the words from the superior in the relationship can hurt a lot more than if they came from some schmuck she passes on the street or briefly encounters on the subway.

These cases are based on what a jury will award in most cases - - the employer trying to strike the jury, the employee usually wanting a jury - - but the best test of this is to put yourself on that jury:  suppose you yourself are in the jury box with five of your peers (civil jury = 6 in most states) and this babe appears before you with her tale of woe - - we were out celebrating something, some drinking going on and the head of my organization said I had nice tits which I admit did not send me into a state of shock and twelve years of psychiatry but God-damn it I am a self-respecting married woman and I found this pretty fucking offensive.  Cain of course denies the whole thing, nothing happened, I just told her she and my wife are the same height, BFD.  You listen to both and you figure, this babe is not magnifying her damages by claiming all kinds of outrageous groping and over-the-top traumatization, so she's not going to get rich out of this and Cain is a horn-dog like all men are only maybe more so and she's got a lot to lose from going public with this, being called a lying whore being only the start of it, and she tells one straight story start to finish, whereas Cain, he changes his story every time he's asked another question; so-- bottom line, you believe the "she-said" and you don't believe the "he-said."

So now, you're on the jury, you bought her story but not his, and the issue is damages.  YOU ARE THE JUDGE.   The judge tells you that you are required by law to award damages that in your opinion are appropriate to the amount of hurt that she has suffered.  You think it all over, they were drinking and probably kidding around, he says what he says, she admits to feeling nothing more than "discomfort" - - no traumatization, nothing that requires the services of a shrink or even a counsellor, she's still married to the same hubby - - what do YOU think are appropriate damages, Mr. Juror - -  $40K?  Give me a fucking break!  Would you, as sirs and BT argue, feel that 40K is chickenshit compared to the outrageous harm that she suffered, and give her, what?  100K as appropriate damages?  250K?  500K?

40K IMHO is a very hefty settlement to atone for the harm done, even if 3 or 4K of that is the three months' wages that Cain said her 3 months' wages were worth.

The notion that 80K for these two babes is "chickenshit" is just ludicrous.  That was a very hefty settlement that the Restaurant Association made on Cain's behalf and it certainly would NOT have been made if they felt that the accusations were totally baseless.  They or more likely their insurers have adequate resources to defend baseless claims, the cost of which is certainly not a factor in defending an 80K claim, which is "chickenshit" in the eyes of nobody but a deluded right-wing ideologue.

[Michael Tee]

<<So Joel P. Bennett would take the investigation report by the company as gospel even though the company would be a defendant in any case going forward? No offense to Mr. Bennett but if that were his advice, that we wouldn't conduct our own investigation, i would be lawyer shopping in a NY Minute. >>

Uh, no, Bennett would not take the company's investigation report as gospel.  He'd take it as a kind of road map or guide to the facts.  He'd gain a pretty good overview of the common ground, how long the vic had been with the company, what her daily duties were, what pre-incident contact she'd had with Herm the Perv and the nature of their relationship, where the event took place where the harrassment occurred, who else had been present etc. etc. etc.

There'd probably be a lot of common ground on which all interviewed witnesses would have agreed.  So that when the discoveries took place, you might need only three hours of discoveries and 175 pages of transcript instead of two weeks of discoveries and thousands of pages of transcripts.  Simple questions such as "Do you agree now with the facts as you stated them then?" of course giving the witness the opportunity of reviewing his or anyone else's statement from the record of the previous investigation would shave hours off discovery times.  If any lawyer had been stupid enough to waste the discovery on the re-discovery of facts previously known and not in contest, he or she would very likely be stuck with the wasted costs personally.

[BT]

Actually Mikey, in your zest to harm the negro, for daring to think for himself, thus being worthy of the racist slur Uncle Tom, your are forgetting one simple fact.

The NRA was a party to any complaint going forward. And it would be easy to show that they fostered an atmosphere where sexual harassment either by deed or by misinterpreted words, because they were in the hospitality industry and as such they often held gatherings where alcohol was consumed in a much more relaxed atmosphere than a normal workplace and where men and women of various degrees of power relationships would be gathered in a party atmosphere.

The NRA was wise to settle for so small an amount and Bennett was wise for making the quick buck.

[Xavier_Onassis]

They or more likely their insurers have adequate resources to defend baseless claims, the cost of which is certainly not a factor in defending an 80K claim, which is "chickenshit" in the eyes of nobody but a deluded right-wing ideologue.
========================================
I agree, except I would use the word "chickenfeed".

"Chickenshit" normally refers to a person or an opinion.

They would not have offered such a large sum for nothing.

Cain has handled this about as poorly as possible, first saying there was nothing, then quibbling about the word "settlement" vs "Agreement" (what is the difference?) now remembering more and more of what he obviously had never forgotten.

He is incompetent at handling his own campaign, he would be incompetent at handling the presidency.

I say "would be", because he will never get the nomination, even if he wins it in the Bizarro Land of sirs

[BT]

Per Bennett, Cain was not a signatory to the agreement nor was it likely that he was still at the NRA when the complaint was settled.

[Michael Tee]

<<The NRA was a party to any complaint going forward. And it would be easy to show that they fostered an atmosphere where sexual harassment either by deed or by misinterpreted words, because they were in the hospitality industry and as such they often held gatherings where alcohol was consumed in a much more relaxed atmosphere than a normal workplace and where men and women of various degrees of power relationships would be gathered in a party atmosphere. >>

With all due respect, BT, if having parties with alcohol and mixed company was fostering sexual harassment, every fucking organization in the country would be guilty of fostering sexual harassment.

[BT]

With all due respect, BT, if having parties with alcohol and mixed company was fostering sexual harassment, every fucking organization in the country would be guilty of fostering sexual harassment.

Which is probably why a lot of complaints originate from company gatherings in non office settings. Christmas parties, company picnics etc.

inhibitions are lowered, smiles are misinterpreted etc.

[Michael Tee]

<<Per Bennett, Cain was not a signatory to the agreement nor was it likely that he was still at the NRA when the complaint was settled. >>

Cain's signature on the document or not on means squat.  It was the victims who were suing Cain, not the other way round.  Their signature was required on the settlement, since they had to acknowledge the payment, pledge non-disclosure and forswear further action against Cain or the association.  Since Cain wasn't suing the victims, and wasn't being paid off for anything, his signature to the agreement wasn't necessary.  What the victims wanted from the association, the association itself could sign for - - payment of settlement funds, non-retaliation, the provision of letters of reference and the terms thereof, etc.  Cain's signature at that point, since he was then out of the association, would have meant jack-shit.

It's also interesting that Cain was gone by the time the settlement was reached, meaning of course that the alleged motivation for the settlement (protection of the association's good name) was a joke.  Had anyone, say a prospective female hire, expressed concern about sexual harassment at the NRA, the stock response could have been, "Yeah, we DID have a sexual harassment problem and its name was Herm the Perv Cain, but it's nothing you have to worry about because we fixed the problem and Herm the Perv is now gone."

As a matter of interest, has anyone inquired into the strange particulars of the old Hermster leaving the Association before any of the sexual harassment claims naming him as the sole harasser were settled, and what connection, if any, there was between the Perv leaving his position as head of the association and the sexual harassment charges laid against him?  Inquiring minds need to know.

[BT]

It was the victims who were suing Cain, not the other way round.

No lawsuit(s) were filed. If one had been filed the complaints would be public record.

Did you know Cain briefly ran for President in 2000. Leaving summer of 99 would fit in with that objective.

[Michael Tee]

<<No lawsuit(s) were filed. If one had been filed the complaints would be public record. >>

My mistake.  I knew of course that no lawsuit had been filed.  I wrote "sued" or "suing" when I should have kept the reference to the lower level of a complaint before action is filed in court.  Thanks for the correction.

<<Did you know Cain briefly ran for President in 2000. Leaving summer of 99 would fit in with that objective. >>

It would also fit in with the NRA solving its sexual harassment/sexual predator problem by them telling Cain he had to go, and Cain, rather than staying to fight the charges, making up some half-assed attempt at running for President to cover his hasty exit from the top job at NRA.

Does anyone know how much of an effort he actually made at running for President in the 2000 elections, when he began to invest time and money in it, how much of his own money and how much supporters' money was put into this "campaign" and how it compares in seriousness of intent with the campaigns of the other candidates?

This guy, in addition to his Tomming, which is bad enough, is starting to look like utter sleaze.  What if he used supporters' money to finance a phony, short-lived "run for President" purely to mask his being turfed at the NRA for his creepy sexual harassment of two female employees?  Why the hell doesn't anyone REALLY investigate Uncle Tom here to see what he's really all about?

[BT]

<<No lawsuit(s) were filed. If one had been filed the complaints would be public record. >>

My mistake.  I knew of course that no lawsuit had been filed.  I wrote "sued" or "suing" when I should have kept the reference to the lower level of a complaint before action is filed in court.  Thanks for the correction.

<<Did you know Cain briefly ran for President in 2000. Leaving summer of 99 would fit in with that objective. >>

It would also fit in with the NRA solving its sexual harassment/sexual predator problem by them telling Cain he had to go, and Cain, rather than staying to fight the charges, making up some half-assed attempt at running for President to cover his hasty exit from the top job at NRA.

Does anyone know how much of an effort he actually made at running for President in the 2000 elections, when he began to invest time and money in it, how much of his own money and how much supporters' money was put into this "campaign" and how it compares in seriousness of intent with the campaigns of the other candidates?

This guy, in addition to his Tomming, which is bad enough, is starting to look like utter sleaze.  What if he used supporters' money to finance a phony, short-lived "run for President" purely to mask his being turfed at the NRA for his creepy sexual harassment of two female employees?  Why the hell doesn't anyone REALLY investigate Uncle Tom here to see what he's really all about?

In 2000, Cain filed to run for President, before dropping out and endorsing Steve Forbes.   Looks like it was shortlived. He was national  Co-Chair for Steve Forbes .

Probably another way racists will think he stepped off the plantation.

[Michael Tee]

<<Probably another way racists will think he stepped off the plantation. >>

When the so-called "plantation" is actually the home of all the civil rights leaders who courageously fought for black people's civil rights, at the very real risk of their own lives, the hollowness and the basic childish dishonesty of the "off the plantation" mantra of the racists who use it becomes even more obvious and transparent.

Yeah, he stepped off the "plantation" of the struggle for black people's rights, and he joined Mr. Charley.  A more despicable betrayal is hard to find, although Vidkum Quisling's comes close.  And yeah, there IS a name for it, quisling for the Norwegians, and Uncle Tom for U.S. blacks.  And no, neither name is "racist."  It comes from the legitimate anger of the anti-racists of the world, against not only racists but the cowardly traitors to their own people who collaborate with them.  "Plantation" my ass!!