In her statement to the press, Bialek said that she had been fired at the association after about a year working for the group’s educational foundation in its Chicago office. She said she sought Mr. Cain’s help to find other employment during a trip to Washington about a month after he left the group.And now we have specific details alleged.
During that trip, she said Mr. Cain had secretly upgraded her hotel room before drinks and dinner that the two had to discuss possible future employment. She said that after dinner, he put his hand on her leg and ran it under her skirt and pulled her head toward his crotch.
“I was surprised and shocked and I said, what are you doing? You know I have a boyfriend,” Ms. Bialek recalled saying. “This is not what I came here for.”
“You want a job, right?” she said Mr. Cain responded. “I asked him to stop and he did.”
ADDED: 459 comments! Good lord! Well, I haven't read them. I don't know what issues you've raised, but I want to assert, firmly, that I have never been inconsistent on the subject of these allegations about Herman Cain. My posts have always been about journalistic ethics and questions of proof and fairness.
In addition, I have been consistent about sexual harassment since long before I began this blog, going back to the Clarence Thomas hearings and through the entire Bill Clinton fiasco. I have not been politically partisan, and I have not sacrificed principles of fairness and due process. If you think I have, I challenge you to challenge me.
Posts
647 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 601 – 647 of 647@ gregg
"Even better, we have specific allegations that, if true, would actually constitute sexual harassment of the type that is wrong, and should be punished."
Actually that is wrong.
Bialek did not work for the NRA or Cain when he supposedly made a pass at her. Pretty much the only thing she has is that, again supposedly, he made a pass at her.
When she (supposedly) asked him to stop, he stopped.
Nothing he (supposedly) did would be worth a civil case. Nothing is even remotely a criminal case.
Bill Clinton did much more against Paula Jones and she won $850,000. And we were all told that there was nothing to see and to move along.
@ Love
"Why should Americans care about such silly little things like sexual harassment or lying through your teeth?
Especially considering he's running as a Republican."
So what do you think? Should we jail Bill Clinton then? Because every idiotic word that comes out of you is being judged against Weiner and Clinton amongst other Democrats.
So you've got a serious credibility issue right there.
...
Well aside from your regular credibility issues.
600 posts.
The conservative dread - the awful, more likely coronation of Mitt Romney and not a 100% litmus test pure conservative is hitting the yahoos hard.
The black messiah of the conservative pundits of media entertainment might not challenge the black messiah of the media left.
Just someone the Republicans will be stuck with despite all their snivels about him not being in their reactionary hearts, not an ignorant everyman or ignorant everywoman that will "take it to the establishment" - who believes in science, and fixing things.
Their chance, they thought, to have a pure person of total rightwing "Cause ideology" not happening.
600 posts.
The conservative dread - the awful, more likely coronation of Mitt Romney and not a 100% litmus test pure conservative is hitting the yahoos hard.
The black messiah of the conservative pundits of media entertainment might not challenge the black messiah of the media left.
Just someone the Republicans will be stuck with despite all their snivels about him not being in their reactionary hearts, not an ignorant everyman or ignorant everywoman that will "take it to the establishment" - who believes in science, and fixing things.
Their chance, they thought, to have a pure person of total rightwing "Cause ideology" not happening.
What explains the right's LOVE for him?
He's one of two reliably conservative justices?
Personally, I like him because he's the only person on the court who is at all serious about original intent. See, e.g., his dissent in Gonzales v. Raich.
That he has presented himself as a constitutional constructionist who also happens to be a conservative by all accounts. That wasn't so hard was it?
Most people have higher standards for jurists than their partisan credentials.
And I can't let the previous smack from Revenant slide. Anita Hill's decision to go public with her complaints at his hearings was based on race?
You guys don't ever make sense. Ever.
But the political faction that gave you Thurgood Marshall is racist to not find anything worthwhile in the resume of Thomas?
I find it funny that you would label Thomas "mediocre" and then hold up Marshall as an example of a GOOD Supreme Court justice.
Marshall was a good lawyer. As a justice he stunk; he did little other than parrot Brennan, and authored few significant opinions in two decades on the Court.
Ritmo will never read anything a long article that doesn't gratify his prejudices at least once every two paragraphs.
But for those who might want to learn something, here's quite a good piece on Clarence Thomas, in a forum not exactly known to favor him politically (the New Yorker).
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/29/110829fa_fact_toobin?currentPage=1
The key words in that question were "resume" and "racist", Rev. But thanks for the point about subsequent performance. Sorepaw already mentioned that.
"And the winner of these allegations against Cain whether true or not is Romney. Dude, didn't do shit and he is coming out looking like a pimp."
The search for the pimpmobile is over.
I meant to say that Ritmo will *never read a long article.*
But, hey, I've yet to see evidence that Ritmo actually likes to read anything at all.
The key words in that question were "resume" and "racist", Rev.
I didn't bother reading your question, I just picked out parts of it to snipe at.
I'm all about effective time management.
Most people have higher standards for jurists than their partisan credentials.
Really, Ritmo?
Did you think Kagan and Sotomayor were the best choices available?
If so, please enlighten us as to why.
Obama did. He gets to do that, you know? Without regard for what "most people" find to be a high standard. See, he's a politician, you know. So he gets to do that.
After last elections I'm exceptionally cynical when press brings up any alleged improprieties accusation against republican candidates.
This allegations would worry me much more, if the situation was not so similar to the one about 2 years ago, when multiple allegations about Palin's inappropriate use of her position were brought forward by the press. Remind me please, how many were proven to be true?
At least one point of allegations by Bialek can be fact checked, i.e. there should be a record on her room upgrade.
Good night, thread.
Sure sign of a loser. Can't stop, even after he says good bye. He probably makes anonymous, heavy breathing phone calls to past girlfriends.
Goodnight Ritmo, you kicked their ass.
Hmm, I find it pretty amazing that as each accusation falls by the wayside another appears to take its place.
Convenient.
Fingers are being pointed at Perry and Romney but this seems to fit more in the pattern of what happened to all Obama's opponents.
BagO "I can't think of many lawyers who are as much despised and disrespected as her."
Love:By who?
Provide the names of all the people who feel that way.
James Taranto, to start.
Why should Americans care about such silly little things like sexual harassment or lying through your teeth?
Especially considering he's running as a Republican.
Because it was settled in the 90s'. It's time to get some ice or move on.
The left's hatred of Thomas has always been based around his race.
Bullshit. There is nothing to back up that claim beyond the rantings of some drug-addled radio shock jock. In reality, we criticize him despite his color, not because of it.
Clarence Thomas is an empty suit. A useful tool. He is a bad jurist with no distinction beyond his appalling record of accepting gifts from people with business before the court and in hiding / withholding from disclosure statements his wife's significant income from the Heritage Fdn. He signed off on false and mislead statements, year after year.
He should be further distinguished by being impeached.
Hey -- so many comments!
Too many comments!
Check out freeper poster named "struggle" and other comments over at Free Republic.
Also -- a Tea Partier? Sharon Bialek claims to work for *CBS*in Chicago. Give me a break.
And she -- or whoever wrote her latest Linkedin [the facebook for professionals ;-)] profile -- was in a pretty big hurry when she/they typed in "Managing Director New Buisnes Development at CBS Radio." (sic)
Allie's Apple said...
Goodnight Ritmo, you kicked their ass.
Honey, did you tell him that while you were on your knees looking up at him to show him what it was going to be like for his first time?
IF every word she says is true, this is not sexual harassment. At worst, it's a failed pass. At best, it may be flirting without intent to go take it up another level.
She was trying to find work. Did she have a death in the family? Was Cain simply making a gesture to someone someone in a tight spot?
He was the CEO of NRA and she was a former employee. I'm sure upgrading her room was 99% cost-free.
From the article:
She said she sought Mr. Cain’s help to find other employment during a trip to Washington about a month after he left the group.
Most people apply for, or hand over a resume to the receptionist. What kind of woman does this?
I believe her, and incidentally, I also believe Juanita Broadrick.
So when does the news media declare that there will be no more showings of this interview the way they did with Broadrick?
I think it is small potatoes. When a beautiful girl (take off twenty years and she is a knockout) asks you to meet her at her hotel room for an "interview" for a job, I suppose it would demand a pretty high level of self restraint to not draw the wrong conclusion.
Unlike Clinton, once informed that he was mistaken, he didn't continue.
Follow the money. Allred does not work for free. There's no settlement payday here. Bialek does not look to have the money to pay someone like Allred for guidance in some quest for personal satisfaction anymore than Meg Whitman's maid did.
Someone is paying Allred and not small change.
The left's hatred of Thomas has always been based around his race.
What explains the right's LOVE for him?
Sorepaw at 10:16 basically said what I would have said. But Justice Thomas's opinions are consistently well-thought out and plainly stated. He is not swayed by popular opinion (ex: his opinion in Raiche) and sticks to his guns. Scalia's opinions are more witty, but Thomas's are far better, more consistently reasoned, and more consistent with the constitution. I had the privilege of seeing Justice Thomas speak last year, and was blown away by his personableness, wit (I know he rarely speaks in oral argument- believe me, that is not, as racists, I mean liberals, like to think, because he can't), ability to give even-handed, reasonable, and engaging responses to even hostile questions.
Thomas is an enormous asset to the court.
So, has she provided any more evidence of her claims than did Crystal Mangum?
If no, why should I trust anybody making claims? Publicly making claims that amount, literally, to nothing (she was asking him for a favor, did not work for him, and he owed her nothing) if 100% true isn't much.
Quote of the day:
"We're in it together," he said. "My only concern is that it not become some type of media circus."
Sharon Bialek's live-in boyfriend.
Chicago Tribune
>600 comments--better than a Sarah Palin or Jessica Valenti post
This should eat up my morning!
Talk about not having a life
Race card = Sexual Harrassment card. Played too often to be credible. Yawn. Time to move on.
Meh.
I have got to write that webapp to eliminate the maunderings of some of these oddball trolls. So far we're talking a noise to signal ratio of 50 - 1 and that's way too much effort to scroll past.
Fortunately Blogger is set up to allow that sort of thing. Maybe this weekend.
Good thing I didn't bet that 500 posts would be the limit on this thread (though I suspect it would be less than 500 were it not for Ritmo's verbosity, Love's whining and Allie's "hooray for us!" cheerleading while consistently posting with ever sillier avatars.
For once, I actually have to admire garbage. He stayed away from this sinkhole of a thread. And when you want him to post so as to add some intellectual heft, you know the thread is in trouble.
Bottom line for me: if we had an actual free press in this country instead of an enemy media, we would know exactly who is funding the Allred harpy. But we don't. So I don't care if Cain did it. Do. Not. Care. For eight years, clowns like Alpha yelled "character doesn't matter!" but now want Cain to show dignity and maturity by tightening the noose around his neck as they get ready to lynch him. Sorry. It's payback time, and Cain should be playing hardball. Shove the double standard back in the left's face. Call out the dogs to exhume every piece of dirty laundry on his accusers. Ruin their lives. Act like Democrats for once, instead of humans.
And it wouldn't surprise me at all to find Little Black Jesus' minions at the bottom of all this. Just look up the names Bobby Rush and Alice Palmer to see what he's capable of.
I love the whole "what if your wife or daughter made these claims?" argument? Nobody seems to ask "What if your husband or son said they didn't happen?" Would Love et al call them liars?
"He is a deeper thinker than Antonin Scalia."
Now if someone could get him to actually ask a question.
Or for that matter, report his actual income and pay his taxes while he's in deep thought.
damikesc - "I love the whole "what if your wife or daughter made these claims?" argument? Nobody seems to ask "What if your husband or son said they didn't happen?" Would Love et al call them liars?"
Most would take their son's side in the matter, but after four separate women came forward it would probably be rather difficult to keep the faith.
Hillary and other stood by Bill.
How did that work out?
damikesc - Do YOU think all of the women are liars?
B - All attorneys do pro bono work.
Just as Allred is doing here.
She said exactly that in an interview on ABC.
Oh, and the accuser also said she was not being paid anything, including expenses, etc.
Why do so many here think all of these women are liars and that Cain just couldn't possibly be the one who is lying?
What do you base your opinion on?
His denials?
They ALL deny...on both sides of the aisle...right up until it becomes impossible to escape the truth.
Why isn't Cain demanding a lie detector test administered by the FBI?
Ritmo posted:
Most people have higher standards for jurists than their partisan credentials.
I responded:
Really, Ritmo?
Did you think Kagan and Sotomayor were the best choices available?
If so, please enlighten us as to why.
Ritmo replied:
Obama did. He gets to do that, you know? Without regard for what "most people" find to be a high standard. See, he's a politician, you know. So he gets to do that.
*****
Which is a complete non sequitur.
One could say, with equal merit, that Bush Sr. thought Clarence Thomas was the best choice available because he had the power to nominate Thomas and he used it.
And, of course, we will never hear a word out of Ritmo about Clarence Thomas's performance as a Supreme Court justice.
Nor will we hear his thoughts about Kagan or Sotomayor.
Ritmo doesn't have any to share with us.
Now if someone could get him to actually ask a question.
So a Supreme Court justice who asks no questions during oral arguments isn't doing his or her job?
You know, "Love," I'm starting to wonder whether somebody's programming you, the way they program the unit known as Garage.
'Cause if you're a 'bot, you're not responsible for the endless inane output you generate.
If you're a person, you are responsible.
And you're incredibly stupid, to boot.
The left's hatred of Thomas has always been based around his race.
Bullshit. There is nothing to back up that claim beyond the rantings of some drug-addled radio shock jock. In reality, we criticize him despite his color, not because of it.
Clarence Thomas is an empty suit. A useful tool.
Alpha,
You are a disgrace to the causes that you pretend to champion.
You know nothing of what Clarence Thomas has done while on the Supreme Court, and obviously you don't care to learn. Actually knowing anything would obstruct the flow of your boneheaded rants.
Many years ago, a guy who had little credibility then and has little credibility now published a book.
The guy was David Brock.
The book was The Real Anita Hill.
Nothing that Brock said in the book about Anita Hill's personal life is worth taking seriously. Any more than anything Brock says nowadays about, err, Fox News, is worth crediting.
But he did point out that Ms. Hill was way to the left of Clarence Thomas, and had been way to the left of him quite a few years before she appeared in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
An appearance for which she was carefully packaged as a conservative woman.
And her publications appear to bear this out.
So, Alpha, you don't think that Anita Hill might just possibly have wanted to keep Clarence Thomas off the Supreme Court because as a hard academic Leftist, she thought a black man expounding a judicial philosophy normally considered conservative was a traitor to his race?
Naww, nothing like that...
PS. I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh's radio show. Never have.
Do YOU think all of the women are liars?
Until evidence is actually presented, we have the words of a twice bankrupt woman with a tendency towards making false claims of sexual harassment and who is described as a "gold digger" by people she knows and 3 anonymous women who got tiny payoffs at a time when the cost of going to trial would've exceeded what they were paid.
So, no, I don't believe any of them thus far.
If your dad or brother said that he didn't do it --- would you just assume he was lying?
Most would take their son's side in the matter, but after four separate women came forward it would probably be rather difficult to keep the faith.
Hillary and other stood by Bill.
How did that work out?
It seems to be an issue for Democratic Presidential contenders.
And let's say your daughter has a track record of being irresponsible and seems to be a gold digger by people who know her -- you'd STILL just assume she was telling the truth in this situation?
There's a difference in being "supportive" and being a "dunce".
Love said...
B - All attorneys do pro bono work.
They do?
Just as Allred is doing here. She said exactly that in an interview on ABC.
If you are that much a naif you should refrain from commenting here. This sort of empty headed crap is why you come off as such an ignorant jackass in thread after thread.
Post a Comment