Contact UsFacebookTwitterRSS FeedShare
Cain cannot seem to keep it in his pants
Published 11/14/2011
Comments (0)

Herman Cain has faced serious allegations of sexual harassment. Despite the accusations and Cain's rebuttal, none of the evidence is enough to convict or acquit the candidate, leaving the public in a sticky situation with the 2012 election on the line.

This never was a trial in a court of law. There is no chance Cain could ever be convicted in such a trial as there is no evidence of anything beyond the testimony of the accusers about events that happened more than a decade ago. Such accusations may very well never go to trial. That said, every American has the right to make up their own mind and opinions in the court of public opinion. That is where Cain is being tried.

Rules about hearsay do not exist. The right to face one’s accuser and question them is not guaranteed nor expected.

We do know about two accusers. The first is Karen Kraushaar. She worked for Cain at the National Restaurant Association when he served as director. Kraushaar complained Cain sexually harassed her multiple times, of which Cain only recalled one specific allegation where he mentioned she was the same height as his wife.

Kraushaar said there were more serious allegations. Cain said the dispute was resolved with the investigation finding no substantiation of fault on his part. Kraushaar later went on to work for the Immigration and Naturalization Service where she filed another complaint of a non-sexual nature.

In the court of law, her accusations in a later job would usually be deemed inadmissible in regards to the sexual harassment complaint against Cain.

This is not the court of law.

Cain’s accuser may indeed have been treated unfairly twice. However, this revelation certainly raises an odor about her allegations against Cain.

The most public accuser yet, Sharon Bialek, came out on Nov. 7. Flanked by celebrity attorney and liberal donor Gloria Allred, Bialek told her own story alleging sexual harassment against Cain. Bialek allegedly had dinner with Cain to discuss her career with him. At the dinner, Cain allegedly put his hand on her inner thigh and put his hand on her head, moving it towards his crotch. Allegedly, she said “no” and he stopped.

Cain denies knowing her.

Democrats would be wrong in this case to cast the first stone. While the allegations are serious, Bill Clinton admitted to sexually harassing Monica Lewinsky while in office, lied under oath about it and they kept him in office. Clearly, it depends upon political persuasion the severity of Cain’s allegations and his culpability.

Many Republicans are quick to dismiss the allegations against Cain as a liberal plot by some women wanting attention. It is not unusual to make up sexual harassment allegations.

Moderates and liberals are more likely to believe the allegations against Cain. It is also not unusual for men to sexually harass women.

It is important to note that these sides were flipped during the Clinton drama. This is not about the protection of women or the rights of the accused – it is about politics, on both sides.

The only analysis that we do have is evidence offered by private investigator TJ Ward. Ward used state of the art voice recognition software also used by law enforcement on Cain’s speech denying the allegations. He then used the same software on Bialek’s speech where she described the harassment by Cain.

The software found Cain to be probably telling the truth. Bialek, however, was found to probably be lying.

Evidence from this software would usually also be inadmissible in a court of law. It is, however, the most concrete evidence available of who is telling the truth and who is not.

What Cain needs to do is take a lie detector test. Yes, these tests are not usually admissible in a court of law. However, neither are allegations without the right to face an accuser or cross-examination.

By taking the lie detector, Cain firmly puts the ball in the court of his accusers. He can call out his accusers for refusing to test their own words. The lawyers can whine all they want about admissibility, but it will show dishonesty on the part of their clients.

This assumes Cain is telling the truth. Despite his belief that the allegations are not hurting him, he has lost ground to being the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney. Newt Gingrich, with all of his own issues, is looking to take Cain’s mantle.

For the sake of Cain, his accusers and the American populace, hopefully something final to prove or refute these allegations will come out. Until then, the whole story is just guesswork.


Leave the comment here:



Sign up for breaking news