Cain Categorically Denies Allegations – Still No Proof He’s Lying(Updated)

Justifiably Righteous Indignation!

Here’s the funny part:  At this point, I’m inclined to believe him.  More, there is a backlash brewing among conservatives who suspect this has been a hatchet-job, and not necessarily directed by Democrats, and there is that segment within the conservative movement that is substantially ready to tell the media to kiss off.  I find it interesting because after ten days of accusations, rumors, and an uninterrupted stream of innuendo, we still have exactly nothing to suggest that this is more than a load of manure.   After more than a day having elapsed, Gloria Allred still hasn’t provided those alleged “sworn statements” to the public for examination.  If I were the purveyor of hamburgers, I would ask simply: “Where’s the beef?”

There is the so-called fifth accuser who isn’t actually accusing anything.  The media is referencing unnamed sources who are friends of unnamed accusers.  Most of the people involved in this “story,” apart from Bialek and Cain are unnamed.  Let me tell you what I suspect:

Last week, it was the idea of providing the notion of Herman Cain as a harasser.  When that failed to bring him down, and people basically questioned the entire “unnamed accusers” business, they dug up one willing to go on the record.  They trotted her out Monday, and now they have “established a pattern,” but a pattern of what?  I see a pattern of lies and deceit, but not on Herman Cain’s side of this.   What I see is a rush to convict Cain of exhibiting a “pattern” based on the accusations of one woman of increasingly dubious history and motives, brought to light by one of the worst ambulance-chasing celebrity attorneys in all recorded history.  Then we have the absolute spectacle of Karl Rove telling us that Allred adds credibility.  Again, I ask: In what sort of world does Karl Rove live that Gloria Allred’s involvement adds credibility to the claims of Bialek?

Add to this the utter absurdity of Touré appearing on MSNBC to talk about the “predatory black sexuality” of African-American men?  WHAT?  Am I to understand that this is to be the norm in media?  Are we really supposed to believe that the seriousness of the charge supersedes the validity of the evidence and testimony?  Ladies and gentlemen, I don’t pretend to know what’s inside Herman Cain’s head, and I don’t pretend to know what’s been going on over all these years, but here’s what I suspect:  I think they have to destroy Herman Cain, and I think they’re getting desperate.  I don’t think Cain was supposed to get this far.  I think he was intended to appeal to enough of the Tea Party folks to divide that wing of the party, but something happened on the way to an election:  Suddenly, Cain had become the persistent front-runner.

After all that had been put into the task of securing the nomination for somebody else, Herman Cain had suddenly become a real obstacle, and worse, he began to believe he could win.   This is the reason Cain must be destroyed, but frankly, the longer this goes on, the more we fail to vet Romney.  Look.  We’ve paid scant attention to anything else for these last ten days.  Nobody benefits more from this entire episode than Mitt Romney, except perhaps for Obama, who knows he can beat dear Willard without difficulty.  Cain, in contrast, scares the crap out of Obama.

Let me reiterate:  We still have no evidence of note, and nothing of legal substance.   Herman Cain’s press conference was a sharp rebuke to the media.  That will not deter the media.  It was also a stern warning.  I think conservatives have had enough.  The senseless smears of Palin that were almost criminally contrived, and of other conservatives over the years all set the stage for this situation.  Conservatives will resist this nonsense because they have finally realized they must, because dirt is dirt, and if we’re going to have any integrity at all, we must admit that they can scowl and posture, but they still haven’t shown us anything that convicts Cain, or even substantially harms him.  What we’ve been presented is a load of innuendo.  As of this moment, there is nothing.  Nothing that merits tossing Herman Cain overboard.  Nothing at all to suggest a “pattern of abuses,” other than the abuse of Cain’s record and character and reputation.

You can come here and tell me you believe Bialek, but what evidence do you offer, apart from “feelings” and “instinct” and “intuition?”  Notice that all of these are emotion-bound concepts, and yet if you rely solely on your mind, and the available evidence, what must you conclude based only upon that which is demonstrable at this time?  What must you conclude?

There’s no doubt in my mind that if Herman Cain is guilty of any of this, we’ll know in short order, but there’s also little doubt in my mind that he’s probably innocent of the “serious charges.”  I am no longer going to listen to discussions of the “seriousness of the charges,” not because I believe that such conduct as has been alleged isn’t serious, but because I know that charges are just that, but precisely nothing more, and until they are substantiated by evidence and testimony of credible witnesses, they are only charges.  I have yet to see any of either quantity.  I’m still waiting for Allred to release the statements.  What are the odds that we will never see these alleged statements?

You can watch the press conference, in three parts below:

Leave a comment ?

8 Responses to Cain Categorically Denies Allegations – Still No Proof He’s Lying(Updated)

  1. Bob Lambert says:

    You have to be kidding. Why did no one ask him about seeing this women 3 months ago? She wispered in his ear for 2 to 3 min. at a speech he was going to give. If his memory is that bad he shouldn't be running. Why is no one asking for the records at the NRA to be reveiled so we can see just what the charges are and we could determine for ourselves if they were baseless. He could do this if he was honest. The chance that all these women are lying is rediculas, plane and simple. Some people are really drinking the cool aid if they buy into "I don'e even know her." Their is a trail somewhere of credit cards, hotel reservations somewhere. The truth will survive.

    • MarkAmerica says:

      The problem is Bob, that you must substantiate all of this. Go ahead. Dig. Investigate. Dig some more. Show me evidence. This is still a country in which a person is innocent until proven guilty, but even in the court of public opinion, smears are losing their impact. We have watched this for much too long. If Cain turns out to be guilty based on evidence, I will join the chorus demanding he step aside, but I will not do so on the basis of accusations. Bialek's credibility is under severe attention at this point. The reason is simple: There's no evidence to substantiate any of this yet. Now, as for your conclusion that there is "strength in numbers" regarding credibility, that would be true if, but only IF we were being offered evidence. Where is the evidence? Why won't Allred release the "sworn statements"??? That's what I want to know, for starters.

    • To Mr. Lambert:
      It is ridiculous to assert that four or five, or ten or 15 women or men or children could or would not lie to support or shoot down an idea. We watch people do it every day on the news–the people who are lying are politicians and what they are doing is called "demagoguery" which is a more polite and Harvard-acceptable word for lying than "lie". Nancy Pelosi lies, Joe Biden lies, John Boehner lies. And they all do it to pursue a particular agenda. If 100 senators and their counterparts in the House will lie smooth as silk, why on Earth would you think that four women who either themselves, or their lawyers have some axe to grind, would not lie? Nobody in their right mind could look at Gloria Allred and say she is impartial and has no agenda but pursuing honesty. Please!! If she is impartial, then I'm a virgin (mother of 7 here!!)

      As for the documents you mentioned and Mr. Cain not making them public (reveal btw–reveil would be to veil something again, to cover it up, and I gather you would not be in favor of that): He can't! They're not his, and he signed a confidentiality agreement. He cannot expose anymore than he has, and really, probably shouldn't have said as much as he did!

      The idea that these women could not all be lying is ridiculous, plain and simple. Your call for credit card receipts, hotel bills, etc., makes it pretty clear that like so many other people, you have already convicted Mr. Cain, and are ready to put him before a firing squad with the smoking gun you're just sure there has to be, before he ever receives a fair trial. Of course, there can't ever be a fair trial for this–it's all he-said-she-said. It's a shame to convict and execute a fellow based on unsubstantiated accounts, don't you think? It's ridiculous to suggest that he could ever be fairly treated in the media, plain and simple. I would suggest that you get a grip on yourself and put down that leftist flavored Kool-Aid you're apparently sipping . And get a spell checker, o.k.?

      • Bob Lambert says:

        First Misty you should know this. I’m 70 years old and have been a strong Conservative all my life. So calling me a Lefty makes you wrong again. The documents the NRA has on the complaint was not signed by Cain by his own admission, he had left the NRA at the time the investigation was complete which makes you wrong again. It isn’t he-said-she-said it’s he-said-she-said-she-said-she-said-she-said which makes you wrong again.

        Glen Beck interviewed a women reporter from Chicago on his radio show who gave a first hand visual of Sharon B. walking up to Cain, one month ago and give him a quick hug then whisper in his ear for two to three minuets then walk away. I would say this is very strong evidence that his denial of not even remembering her is false.

        Not looking at the few facts that are available should not close your mind to the truth. Were you defending Weiner at first too, I doubt it. Asking for documents that will tell the truth is something you should be in favor of. Personnel I think he is not being truthful and just because he has an “R” after his name does not mean I should be looking the other way.

        When I see my side of the isle do the same BS as the other side does it makes me very unhappy.

        Being condescending to me doesn’t advance you cause either.

  2. mchill says:

    Unsubstantiated accusations are rumors, nothing more…the problem is that this is the 'exact' time the Cain campaign needs to be teaching the american electorate about the 'hidden' taxes that are jacking up the price of all goods they purchase, except for imported goods.

    9 – 9 – 9 makes perfect sense, but it is not understood perfectly, at least not yet. When people can understand that it is not other people, or the wealthy, or corporations that are paying these taxes in the end at retail level – No matter how progressive your tax plan is…it is Consumers who
    pay the tax in the end, and it is Workers who pay with their jobs because
    labor/and taxes combined are less overseas.

    America deserves better than the 'political' solutions being offered by the Professional Politicians at this time.

    @Karl Rove – the day of this style of Political Assasination is over – pull your head out of your ASS, and clean your ears out

    From the American People – we the people – WE will judge Mr Cain,
    WE will weigh his character in the balance. YOU can sit down and STFU
    = IF you have facts yourself to raise the level of the accusations(rumors)
    to the level of facts on the table WE will listen, otherwise STFU

    -mchill/tampa fla

  3. bigmamas52 says:

    Mr. Lambert…..let me share a story with you. In 1994 I attended a law enforcement conference in Chicago. The class was being led by a Lt. in the Cook County SO. After class I had questions on what was going to be on the test the next day. He said he'd be happy to help, could I come to his hotel room in an hour, just down the hall from mine. Being no shrinking violet, and not suspecting anything I agreed. I asked if it would be ok to bring my 18 yr old pregnant daughter and it was. We went to his room, he started off with small talk and offering both of us a drink, even though she was underage and pregnant. After 30 minutes I tried to redirect the conversation to the test, brought out my papers, the book, etc. At that point he started hitting on me and my daughter. There was nothing hidden or mistaken about it, he proposed a 3 way between us and started removing his clothes. At that point I was in shock and mainly concerned about getting my daughter out of there. I stood up to leave, walked to the door, at which point he blocked the door, put his arms around my daughter and told her how sexy she was pregnant. I kneed him in the groin, got around him, pushed my daughter out the door. As we walked back to our room he came out in the hall in his shorts, drink in hand and called us a variety of names. Luckily there was another patron in the hall that witnessed that.

    Two days later when I returned to my department I was still bothered by it, but even with the blatant harassment I did not want to say anything. I've worked around men all my life and the fact is both men and women say things in the workplace that by the Feminist movement would be considered harassment. It is the nature of human beings, of opposite sexes, that work closely together. However I told my supervisor who encouraged me to file a harassment case within LE command. Her point was, if he was willing to do that to me and my daughter, he had probably done this before and would do it again and the next woman might not be as strong as I was. I did and after an internal investigation in Cook County he was fired and I received a letter of apology from the Sheriff. I didn't sue for money, my point for filing was to keep other women from having to experience the same thing.

    So my point of this story is…..all these so-called "victims" either settled for paltry sums and/or remain anonymous or won't or can't provide any details, any proof of their claims. If Cain was supposedly SO bad, such a serial harasser, were all these women so selfish that they didn't consider that he would continue to do this? The NRA is a major organization, they cannot afford to keep someone in a high profile position if the claims were so aggregious as they are claiming. Just as the CCSO could not afford to keep a person at such a high position after what he did. These are not stupid people, their legal department would know the detriment to the organization if they kept Cain on and he continued this behavior.

    As far as the most recent accuser….she does not stand up to the smell test. Her accusations are horrendous….you mean to tell me if all that really happened she doesn't say squat until 14 YEARS later, when he just happens to be running for president. She goes to an event a month ago, gives him a warm hug (as attested to by the reporter that was there), and speaks to him. I can tell you unequivocally there is no way on God's green earth I'd go near that LT. today or any other day after what he did. Cain on the other hand meets thousands of people every day, I'm sure many hug him and whisper in his ear. Do you really think he remembers every one of them or even any of them?

    Bottom line, there are real cases of harassment out there as evidenced by mine. But in most cases what is called harassment nowadays is defined as ANY interraction between a man and a woman that in most cases is totally innocent. We all need to put on our big boy/girl panties and stop acting like children. Unless and until ACTUAL proof of any of these claims is brought forward it is unfair and not beneficial to conservatives to bring Cain down bases on accusations with no substantiation.

    Please keep an open mind. I'm sure in your 70 years you have or have seen other men and women in the workplace that had interractions that may have been considered flirtatious but actually was just their respective personalities and/or was innocent in it's nature. Don't condemn this man on word of mouth. You wouldn't want it done to you, don't to it to another human. You can not support Cain on policy, that's your right, but don't not support him on what these women have said.

    Sorry for such a long post Mark, but this has been so frustrating to me, as someone who actually expererienced this behavior, to see a man taken down on little or no facts.

  4. Mr. Lambert, I regret that you found my gentle ribbing over your minor spelling errors offensive and I apologize for having given offense.

    I must disagree with you on the subject of the photograph. The photo you linked appears to be Ms. Amy Jacobson, one of the DJ's at WIND radio, and the woman who was interviewed by Mr. Beck. You may see a very clear picture of her here: which although it is only a head and neck shot, makes it quite evident that her face better matches the width and shape of the face in the photo you linked.

    While Ms. Jacobson and Ms. Bialek do look a great deal alike, Ms. Jacobson is quite a bit less heavy than Ms. Bialek, which is clear from looking at a comparison of their faces. The woman in the picture you linked to is quite trim in comparison to Ms. Bialek. I find it difficult to believe that the woman in the photo you linked could have bulked up what appears to be two sizes in expansion, between October 24th and her national news debut on November 7th. Please understand, I am a "very generously proportioned" woman (did I mention mother of 7?) so I mean no disrespect to her on this score in any way. However, the difference in size appears quite notable. Also, the hair is quite different; same sort of color, but Ms. Bialek's hair has quite a bit more curl in it than Ms. Jacobson's. This could be achieved with a curling iron of course, but there's still the issue of the size of her body and shape of her face, to include the bane of my personal physical shape, the double chin. I really don't mean to tear into Ms. Bialek because she is bigger than a size two, I'm simply stating that there are very notable size difference between Ms. Bialek and the woman in the photo, who appears to me anyway, to be much more alike in size to Ms. Jacobson. There are actually a number of others who've already made note of this in the blogosphere. This is opinion only.

    That aside, another opinion of mine: Mr. Cain undoubtedly takes numerous photos with numerous people at these events. My opinion is that it is silly to expect him to remember all of them. I'd be surprised if he remembers above 10% of them, many of whom wish to bend his ear and tell him something that seems urgent or important.

    As for facts, Mr. Lambert. Here are the facts as I understand them.

    1—While Mr. Cain was president of the NRA, he was officially accused in two instances of sexual harassment. The accusers were dealt with internally, legal agreements were made, signed, severences or settlements were paid. Mr. Cain denied any wrong doing at that time. Mr. Cain's position was unaffected, he was not dismissed, demoted, took no pay cuts, and was not quietly removed by a board of directors. He did leave, but to date, the understanding of that in the media, is that he left voluntarily because he was ready to move on to other projects.

    2—Mr. Cain has been accused by Ms. Bialek of terrible behavior which amounts to a sexual assault. She did not make this assertion in 1997, when this event is supposed to have occurred, but waited until 2011, when Mr. Cain is running for president.

    3—Bialek states that she went to Mr. Cain to see about a job–getting her old job back, or help getting another. If he had in any way sexually harassed or assaulted her at that time, coming forward at that moment would have garaunteed her either a job back, a new job, or a very HEFTY cash settlement from the NRA, Mr. Cain, or both. And Mr. Cain would have been disgraced, and likely drummed out of the NRA. As it is she said nothing for 14 years.

    (Points 2 and 3 both beg the question: WHY?)

    4—Word has now come out that the other two women, who were anonymous until they were outed by the media, are both people with connections the the Beltway. One of them is known to have filed harassment (discrimination, not sexual) and other mistreatment charges at her next job, along with a gimme-list a yard long as a pay-off. Her demands were not met, and she eventually dropped the case.

    Here are a few facts, that while not related to the current event, are very pertinent to any discussion of these Accusations:

    5—An Accusation is NOT the same as evidence.

    6—A primary principle of law is that innocence is presumed until guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is proven. This is known as Ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit , ("The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof." from A dictionary of American and English law, 1883, pg 434) and although it is not explicitly written into the Constitution, it is presumed to be in effect from the 5th, (don't have to testify against yourself, and receive due process of law before conviction or punishment) 6th (speedy trial, with impartial jury to include witnesses in one's own favor) and 14th (no deprivation of life, liberty and property without due process of law, and equal protection under the law) Amedments. The principle of Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat is also very clear that the burden of proof is on the accuser. This is because the accused cannot prove a negative, that is, that nothing happened. So the ball of proof is in the court of the accuser. Please keep in mind, that this is the case in every court of law in the United States. The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused, and the accused must be presumed innocent until the prosecution proves otherwise.

    7—Mr . Cain has been accused. There is no evidence onlyaccusations. People who've known Mr. Cain for most of his adult life have stated that these accusations do not reflect in any way the man that they know.

    I pray you will not find it unkindly condescending of me to provide two important definitions.

    Accusation: 1. a charge of wrongdoing; imputation of guilt or blame.
    2. the specific offense charged.
    3. the act of accusing or state of being accused.

    Evidence: 1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
    2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign.
    3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.
    (Definitions from

    8—The women have made accusations. While their words may be considered testimonials, they have not given testimony in the sense that they are witnesses. There has been no filing, they have not taken oaths, they are not at any risk for perjury or contempt of court. At the time I am writing this, none of the women are interested in or willing to file an official complaint, either civil or criminal, against Mr. Cain. They are in no jeopardy of having to testify under oath with the benefits and consequences that would accompany such a filing.

    This is why I say that this whole mess boils down to a he-said-she-said event. At the time of this writing, there has been no proof, no evidence, no willingness to take this into a court of law and have it heard by an impartial jury, (assuming one could find an impartial jury at this point,) only accusations. And accusations are not the same as evidence, or guilt.

    FACT: Mr. Cain has not been extended the courtesies of the principle of “innocent until proven guilty”, nor any kind of due process. He been presumed guilty since the first allegation surfaced.

    Opinion: A great portion of the United States has had a collective knee-jerk, deep-gut reaction to these accusations. My opinion is that the reason he has not been granted the presumption of innocence until his guilt is proven or disproven is two fold. One, we are all quite aware that the media is biased against conservatives, so anything that in any way slams a conservative, particularly one so very popular, is like a gift wrapped in shiny gold paper with a perfect red bow on top to the left-biased media. The second, in my opinion is that sexual misconduct is the “Sacred Cow” of all accusations; once an individual claims sexual harassment, their honesty becomes an assumed fact, and the guilt of the accused becomes an assumed fact. If one dares question the veracity of the accusations, then one is immediately presumed to be be a woman hater, or some other such nonsense. If one believes that the accused is innocent because there has been no definitive proof, then one is considered not only a woman hater, but a “bot” or “Kool-Aid drinker”, who will mindlessly support the accused, no matter what.

    If I were in Mr. Cain's shoes (and I have suffered being falsely accused a number of times, in all of which situations I was eventually exonerated.) I would want desperately to be given the benefit of the doubt (defined as: A favorable judgement given in the absence of full evidence.) I believe that Mr. Cain, just like all people, just like you, just like me, is entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty and should be afforded the benefit of the doubt. As I said in my first response to Mr. Lambert's comments, it is a not only a shame, but a crime to convict, and execute this or any person's character based on accusations that cannot be substantiated with solid evidence. Considering the lack of solid evidence (video or audio recordings, pictures, something tangible and able to be viewed or heard which would be convincing of the alleged actions) there is no PROOF that Mr. Cain did anything wrong.

    Fact: Mr. Cain is being flogged in the media. Opinion: He has been dragged into a trial in the court of a paparazi driven media circus, that is overhwelmingly biased against him. The media lynching he is suffering is revolting.

    Let me be clear, if it does turn out that Mr. Cain is not the man of decent, honest character that I believe him to be, I will, with great regret, turn all my support away from him, and likely be angry with him for his duplicity. But until there is solid PROOF, I will remain as I have been, a loyal Herman Cain supporter.