Politico’s Alexander Burns trips himself up…
…but will anyone notice?
According to Burns, Herman Cain has been contradicting himself in his descriptions of what he remembers about the sexual harassment charges against him in the 90s [emphasis mine]:
Herman Cain once again revised his account of the sexual harassment allegations he battled in the 1990s, saying in a TV interview that he recalled there were additional “ridiculous” items in his accuser’s complaint, beyond the single incident he detailed Monday.
Cain said in Monday television appearances that he could remember only one specific incident in his accuser’s complaint. He described that episode again to Headline News this morning, saying it involved “putting my hand under my chin, standing near this lady, saying, ”˜Oh, you’re the same height as my wife.’”
But this time, Cain went on to say that there had been “a couple of other things” in the complaint filed during his time at the National Restaurant Association, though he claimed not to remember the specifics.
The complaint concerned “the gesture with the height thing and there were a couple of other things in there that I found absolutely ridiculous,” Cain said, as HLN’s Robin Meade cut in, asking him what “ridiculous” things he was referring to.
“I don’t even remember. They were so ridiculous, I don’t remember what they are,” Cain said.
And then there’s the following addition at the end of the article:
UPDATE: Christian Heinze points out that Cain mentioned in his interview with Greta Van Susteren yesterday that there had been additional “simple stuff” in the harassment complaint, but said he couldn’t recall the details. The National Restaurant Association’s general counsel “may have told me what incidents that she might have included in the claim, but all day today, as I’ve been getting beat up, I’ve been trying to recall what some of those things were and haven’t been able to recall a lot of them because that’s why they got dismissed,” Cain said on Fox. “It was no basis because it was simple stuff.”
So it turns out that Cain hasn’t changed his story here at all; there’s no there there to Burn’s article. The reader has to figure that out for him or herself, though; there’s no explicit mea culpa or retraction, just the update above.
Was Burns sloppy, or purposely misleading? I don’t know, but I vote the latter, on the basis of the tepid nature of the update. This sort of thing works; the hit usually has a longer life than the correction.
Clarence Thomas part 2.
I mentioned this in the CA state office today where I worked and the liberal lady next to me mentioned – is it like Monica Lewinski (sp)?
I replied:
Clarence Thomas and Herman Cain didn’t have their job yet when people used these kinds of charges to prevent them from getting their job. In Clarence Thomas’s case the charge was that he commented about a pubic hair on a coke can and that was enough to some to prevent Thomas from getting his job.
I told her. Bill Clinton had his job and there was an active court case due to Paula Jones. Bill Clinton committed perjury in the court case so it wasn’t about two consenting adults it was about committing perjury. The drumbeat of the press will do it’s thing though and mislead people.
It is INTERESTING that Cain had his biggest fundraising day yesterday. I’m tempted to give my first donation to a presedential candidate ever.
Since my conversion to conservatism in 1991 I haven’t given a dime to politics…
Since I joined the state of CA employment in 2009 however, I’ve given INVOLUNARILY to the DNC via the SEIU. Damn unamerican thugs!
How can I match the $80 per month being sucked out of my check to the DNC? I CAN’T!!!
There is no way I can match that.
It would be so nice to take this facism and shove it down JerryBrownSEIUHarryReidACLUBarrackObamaDNC’s throats (figuratively)… They should not have their hands in my wallet.
Baklava: I don’t like Clinton or what he did in the Lewinsky affair. I didn’t like it then (when I was a Democrat) either, and I don’t like it now; I’ve got a host of problems with it.
But he did not commit perjury.
I’ve discussed this on this blog before. Some day I may write a post about it. But to see the previous discussion, start here, and continue on with all the comments of mine about Clinton and perjury that follow on the comment thread.
Big Media says, “Why haven’t you responded the way I want to the claims I made up? You have to get your story–the one I wrote about you–straight.”
This episode does seem to be opening the split between our two broad factions. Media world is trying to drive a stake through Cain, and the blog world is moved to support Cain against the assault. He’s getting more strength sooner than if the allegations had not been trumped up.
Here’s <a href="http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=362249"Cain himself, the day before the non-sexual harassment story broke:
If Cain understands marketing the way I think he does, he knows all that matters is how *his* audience is responding. Dancing with Big Media is part of the process, but from the comments I am seeing, this episode has worked to his great advantage. Remember, 40% of the electorate is voting for Obama (or Hillary) no matter what happens today.
Baklava, look into going dues objector status. It limits where your dues go to, but it also limits some of your rights in the union.
Also, you will get a ration of trouble about it but screw them if they can’t take a joke.
BradnSA
BLET# 197
Fine. Clinton, as POTUS, was held in civil contempt for ‘evasive and misleading’ testimony. Fine. It was not deemed perjury. But perjury was a charge the judge could probably not swallow, for fear of initiating a major political cascade, and possibly a personal vendetta as well. This was a federal District judge in Arkansas, was it not?
For us non-lawyers, it was tantamount to perjury. That is the bottom line, legalistic quibbles aside.
You can use Neo’s link to Politico, then use the link to Burns at the Politico site and leave an email message.
I hope foxmarks is right and Herman Cain is much crafty than he is given credit for. Kind of like another outlier who used the media.
“A lie will go half way round the world before the truth gets its pants on” Mark Twain
Don Carlos: if you don’t want to use the legal definition of a legal term, then refrain from using the term. “Perjury” is a legal term of precision. Please don’t be like Humpty Dumpty:
If you want to say “Clinton lied” then fine, say it. But he did not commit perjury, and you can’t define perjury as you wish.
I have a story that’s much like the issue of “what is perjury” issue and illustrates the importance of words. The issue was the definition of the word “dismiss.” Legally, dismissal of a lawsuit must meet requirements, and a court has the power to dismiss an action only if it determines it is vexatious, brought in bad faith, or when there has been a failure to prosecute it within a reasonable time.
There was a case I observed which moved from an administrative court to a state court. In the administrative jurisdiction, at one point, an official had “dismissed” the case, but it was revived and went on to an administrative hearing which was won.
The Defendant appealed to the state court for a “trial de novo,” which is the Defendant’s right. First thing the Defendant did in the state jurisdiction was claim the case had been “dismissed” by the official and asked the court to recognize the dismissal in a motion called a judgment on the pleadings. Defendant argued the Plaintiff was playing “semantics” by pointing to the legal definition of the word. In his too casual approach, Defendant tried to convince the court that the fact the word “dismiss” was in the notes of the administrative official, then the case was dismissed.
Judge wasn’t too happy with the Defendant for bringing a pretty weak argument, and Plaintiff was glad that court’s adhere, and strictly, to legal definitions.
Clinton may or may not have committed perjury; it’s an issue for debate, but Clinton did use his understanding of what it means to commit perjury to manipulate and frustrate the judicial process. He may have outsmarted the process to escape a final finding of perjury. But one wonders, if there had been a keener inquisitor, would the result have been clearer?
Interesting. Thank you.
My opinion is he did. But I’m not a legal expert. I’m a common sense guy.
Uhh, Neo, I did not use the word ‘perjury’re Clinton, nor did I intend to assert actual perjury by him. In my leftfooted way I was trying to convey, to explain, the commoner’s view of Clinton’s testimony. I too like precision in language. So give me a break, in your best lawyerly fashion, and give me a fair reading.
I see the NYT ala Maureen Dowd has picked up the “changed his story” narrative. Her incredible screed claims,
“He has contradicted himself even more risibly on his memory of the harassment charges than he has on his abortion position.”
followed by
“At first, he said he wasn’t aware of the five-figure settlement to one woman; then, suddenly, he was aware. Instead of the meaning of “is,” Cain tried to parse the meaning of “settlement” versus “agreement.” He still claims he doesn’t remember the other five-figure settlement to another woman.”
Here’s a question to Dowd: Is it a contradiction to say, “I don’t remember” then later to say, “Now, I remember?” Whose memory isn’t jogged by recalling related events, looking at notes, reviewing the history, and being told other facts. But this defense is too complex for most people too busy to pay this the proper attention it needs. This is how the media manipulates and slanders good and decent people. The real rakes, like Kerry and Edwards, get all the defense that left thinking can provide.
There are, among others, two points that make the accusations against Cain suspicious. First, why was he not named as a Defendant. Probably because as a Defendant he would not have settled. Second, why didn’t the Association remove or punish Cain.
Dowd mentions a $35,000 settlement. I wonder if that included attorney fees, which would indicate this already small settlement was only token and the Plaintiff’s counsel thought it was loser and would not fight for it.
I hope both sides agree to full disclosure and we can see all the documents. I’d like to know the truth because I think it would exonerate Cain. I don’t think Cain is, in Dowd’s words, “another powerful man who crossed the line and then, when caught, tried to blame the women.”
the hit usually has a longer life than the correction.
which is why their strategy is to hit first regardless of validity… to remove the idea you have to reinforce it by thinking about it… so the first ideas are the hardest to remove… ergo. fire first, fire hard, and let em ride… this is power acquisition, not a high school debate with rules!!!
all you ahve to do is read george kennans long telegram to get the mentality… (or make something else up to explain it)
its tactics and strategy with the idea that what used to be invalid to do for moral reasons, is no longer invalid and that anything that works is ok…
the population is still playing by the old rules and think that despite their declarations that they are not playing by them, they are assumed to be playing by them.
so the battle between a lie and the truth is seen as the battle between two truths… not a one is valid the other isnt and why are we paying attention to invalid… its the nicer truth that wins.. .
so if you say sexual liberation will lead to more and better literature, respect for women and such…
you sound great as your offering naughty candy and the permission to be dirty as now its ok…
and the opposition who is playing by the old rules of respecting the individual? they HAVE to claim that it will lead to what it has led to… which is none of the things that the liars said.
guess who won the battle
and by doing that, and letting them win that way… they redefined what was permissible, and what was ok to do!!!!
[spamminator again]
if anyone actually read the william reich post, they may realize that he and the others basically defined naz ism as the end result of judeo chris tian thought… and that all the sexual repressions and so on come from that… (not from an idea of wanting to be judged for things other than sex)
so when you read, you read that in order to be socialisrt and not on the right and fascist.. one has to be desirous of a matriarchy… effeminate… that homosexuality and the other taboos are there because of the repression of the fascism that reaches its culmination in nazism..
and so the only way to avoid that is to do the antithetical thing… and sexu alize, sexu alize and purposefully do the unthi nkable… and so, decons truct the society that will cu lmin ate in n azism/fascis m..
and so insure its culmin atino in what they refer to as a (progressive communist) DIONYSIAN utopia…
the SADDEST part is that as crazy as all this thinking sounds to normal people who still have common sense and think cognitive dissonance is bad, not a mosquito…
is that htey dont realize that the peioole they vote for, and suppport blindly DO beleive all tis and belive that it gives them the greater moral right to violate all morals to achieve this wackaloon end.. including experimenting on kids in schools through pedagogy, indoctrination instead of education, the destruction of morality (Which is seen to culminate in religious nazism, over atheist Dionysian)
it was not the common man who lived post modern.. (he just liked some of the art)… it was not the common man who decided that platos retreat or the trapeze club was a way to live (but sociopaths dont mind sharing what they dont care about or have empathy for)…
the common man believes in the morals that they dont… which is why the common man (or woman) is despised..
its why cain is hated… he is seen as a nazi front as he represents the cultural things that they, through these lines of thought, have concluded lead to the oppresison.
now remember in their world view, the soviets and maoists didnt do anything. ie. the horrors are made up… but they are smarter than to declare the holocaust didnt happen and gain the hate for it.
morals would say be honest in showing who you are… amorals, the new way, would be to portray yourself as something else if what you are is not to be liked by the people your gaming.
so all that social theory, and study? its all about how to game the machine called human.
how to trick the machines into doing what you want them to do, and negate their individual will… (like femi nism does…)
everything from the big lie
revisioned history
shoot first to be first in the worst
accuse others of what you do to equalize
(And leave no clean high ground)
be certain of the whole thing through the logic of the people i point out, and so certain that all the things that morals are su pposed to halt, and ethics… become mut able.
all with the unde rsta nding that those who follo w the old ru les dont want to be rude and call them what they ARE…
and that their contem pora ries will defend the indefensible when appr oached impol itely. and part of that
imp ropriety is to try not to think the worst of someones wants, goals and desires, but to give them a out…
[AND spamminator STINKS!!!!]
this is all great among a set of so-ci-al people who follow the same moral code…
this is even grea ter for the par as iti cal power hungry sex ual sad ist pol itico…
ESPECIALLY if the popu lation doesnt get the actual game…
[AND spamminator STINKS!!!!]
ie.thecommonarebusyplayingo ldmaidandgofish,againstcutthroatpo ker(withhouseadvantage!!!!)
untiltheonesplayingoldmaidequalizeandfightfirewithfire,orputthefireoutbyholdingpeopletoRESULTSnotintents…
thecommonmoremoralwilllosetotheuncommonandamoral..
foramoralityistheantithesistomorality…
[ANDspamminatorSTINKS!!!!]
itwontpostunlessifindorbreakupwhateveritisthatscausingit
freedom of speech as long as what you say doesn’t contain forbidden words, and or can be combined into a forbidden word in parts…
eventually all speech will be banned because advertisers insist on using English or some native language…
I could take these charges more seriously if they weren’t coming from people who voted for Bill Clinton. Twice. Or if they came from people whose politico-economic philosophy wasn’t, in essence, legalized looting.
I cannot wrap my brain around the gull of the female who gets 5 figures for hearing something labeled as ‘inappropriate’ from Cain.
Why?
Because I’ve been employed non-stop since 1986 and everywhere I’ve worked I’ve worked in a “fun” atmosphere where we all feel free to have fun in the workplace.
Of course nobody is ‘groping’ one another…
But I have had females rub against me innocently and say to me suggestive comments. Have I ever felt that I need 5 figures to get me by? No. To me it makes the work environment funner. We are all adults and can figure out how to TELL SOMEBODY – “hey that’s enough now”. Speak up! Say “no” if you don’t like something.
One time a female told me that she didn’t like that I said the word “fellow” coworkers.
I replied that fellow as an adjective was not male in this case. She just simply disagreed.
I learned never to talk to that woman unless it was required.