Another anonymous charge?

[whell]

...and ain't this special. One of the other "anonymous" accusers currently works in the Obama Treasury Dept.

http://www.thedaily.com/page/2011/11...n-accuser-1-3/

[piece-itpete]

Originally Posted by merrylander

My mother once told me that I was to treat all women as ladies. When I asked "What if she is not a lady?" She said "You still treat them as ladies because you are a gentleman>". Can't say as I have always adhered to her advice, but I do try.

QFT!

Originally Posted by merrylander

.... Seat belts are immaterial as even if there were shoulder belts they only restrict forward motion in an abrupt halt.

ROTFLMAO!!!!

Pete

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by whell

...and ain't this special. One of the other "anonymous" accusers currently works in the Obama Treasury Dept.

http://www.thedaily.com/page/2011/11...n-accuser-1-3/

And before that she worked in the Bush administration. Overall the cited article provides significant support to her credibility. Did you forget to mention that when pointing out how special the article is.?

Regards,

D-Ray

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by whell

One can also conjecture based on available data. According to the public record:

- she appears to have difficulty holding a job
- she appears to have issues with marital relations and possibly fidelity, including some question by a former husband about the paternity of their son.
- two bankrupticies suggests difficulty with finances. Of course, financial issues have been known to impact behavior and judgement.
- she's no stranger to the legal system
- she only divulged her "issue" with Mr. Cain to her fiance three days ago. It does leave one with qustions about her timing and motivation.



They'll likey get some pointers from James Carville's playbook. Something like: "It looks like Gloria Allred dragged $20.00 through a trailer park."

I think you just made my point quite whell.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Oerets]

Originally Posted by whell

You're right, Barney. It really a private matter between two adults so its none of our business.

Not if it was against her will, which it sounds to me to be in all the cases so far. My point was all the uproar with Clinton's consensual misdeeds by the same group who now have little to say about non-consensual acts or try to rationalize or make excuses. But what should one expect from a group who feel superior and entitled because of the power they have over the powerless.

Originally Posted by merrylander

Remember also that in Clinton's case she had told a friend in California that she was going to DC to "Earn her presidential knee pads". There is a difference between consensual and non-consensual.

The problem Clinton had was the lie not the act. Being totally unrelated to the Clinton's is why IMHO. Maybe the place it happen too!
But most husbands will lie when confronted with the same situation would be my guess. My $00.02 .....

Barney

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by painter

Having had a couple experiences myself back in the 50's ( when it was common to overlook) I became aware and was able to recognize when the next one was coming.
I cannot judge this woman. I can tell you it feels degrading to have it happen.

Having said that...If they were driving in his car (supposedly wearing seat belts) how could this happen? OR if they had stopped the car...would they not have had to undo the belts?

She then asked him to drive her to her hotel. So the act didn't happen in front of the hotel. perhaps in the parking lot of the restaurant? was the place of the act mentioned?
Just curious...D-Ray???

I'm sorry you had to put up with that crap.

The accounts of the story I have seen are that the alleged misconduct occurred near that National Restaurant Association. Cain had suggested that he show her the offices after they had dinner.

It is interesting to see the Cain campaign's response. Cain has made statement during the campaign after admitting that he did not have facts to back them up. He is now questioning whether Ms. Bialek was paid money or offered a job in return for coming forward with her statement, but has not indicated that he has facts to back that up either.

Regards,

D-Ray

[finnbow]

What I find interesting/shady about Cain's response was that early last week he insisted he never had been accused of sexual harassment, nor had he ever been involved in any settlement based upon sexual harassment.

Then a few days later, he accuses someone now on the Romney campaign staff who had previously worked for him of leaking the story about the NRA harassment cases to Politico. He claimed to have briefed the fellow on the details of the harassment case in the past. How can you brief a staff member on the details of a case that you claim never occurred?

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by JJIII

Sounds like you have already convicted the man.

Well she is the only one so far that was not bound by any agreement not to speak. But she is not alone, plus there was the reporter who claimed to have witnessed an incident.

[JJIII]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Well she is the only one so far that was not bound by any agreement not to speak. But she is not alone, plus there was the reporter who claimed to have witnessed an incident.

These things are notoriously slow to come to a conclusion. I think we need to wait a little while and see just where it goes.

[whell]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

And before that she worked in the Bush administration. Overall the cited article provides significant support to her credibility. Did you forget to mention that when pointing out how special the article is.?

Regards,

D-Ray

I didn't forget to mention it. I've got you for that!