Herman Cain: The Sexual Harassment Smear

By now you’ve probably heard Politico is alleging that two women claim Herman Cain harassed them in the 1990s when he was head of the Restaurant Association. This is a classic smear. Journalists with left wing sympathies dig up anonymous sources who claim a rising Republican is guilty of some nebulous crime. They provide no details and won’t reveal the names of the accusers. They imply guilt by saying Cain bought them off. Now they heap scorn upon him, not for the supposed crime, of which they presume he is guilty, but his failure to defend himself to their satisfaction.

This is, pardon my French, bullshit.

Let’s look at the elements. First, we have the nature of the allegations. Politico accuses Cain of sexual harassment. But sexual harassment is an extremely broad category of conduct that can run all the way up to rape. Thus, it is vital to identify the exact conduct. Of course they don’t. Why don’t they? They claim they can’t because of settlement agreements, but that’s a lie as I’ll discuss. The real reason they don’t state the allegations is because there are no worthwhile allegations here and they are hoping the public will think the worst.

These events (assuming they even happened) happened in the 1990s, the heyday of the fake sexual harassment claim. Spurred on by Anita Hill’s own fantasy claims, the 1990s saw spurious well-after-the-fact claims made for things like: telling dirty jokes, asking out on dates, complimenting clothing, excluding from lunches and outside activities with male colleagues, having a racy calendar, looking at the “victim” in ways the victim felt were inappropriate, etc. Also, keep in mind, this was the same time feminists were claiming that “all sex is rape,” that most women had been date-raped, and that women should be allowed to say “no” after the fact. Thus, a reputable journalist not looking to smear a candidate would say more than “harassment” because they would not want to give a false impression.

And let’s look at the reason they claim they can’t say more: the settlement agreement.

First, a five figure settlement is a joke. In fact, it means the claims were baseless because it means the association settled just to avoid the attorneys fees. And again, let me note that we don’t know what the settlement actually is because Politico wants you to think the worst. Rather than hearing “it was $10,000” (the amount grocery stores pay fake slip and fall fraudsters to go away) you’re supposed to think it’s up to $100,000.

Secondly, in the law you hear a phrase all the time: “sword and shield.” What this means is that the law does not allow a person to use the law to attack another person and then to turn around and hide behind that same law when the person counterattacks. This smear is a classic example of such an abuse. What I mean is this: on the one hand, Politico refuses to release the names of the accusers, the details of their allegations or the settlement amount. Thus, they have in effect made it impossible to verify the truth of these allegations by hiding behind the settlement confidentiality provision. But then they turn around and lynch Cain for failing to explain away these allegations, i.e. for failing to violate the same confidentiality provision behind which they are hiding. That is a smear.

Moreover, Politico is lying. These agreements not only require confidentiality of the terms and the allegations made therein, but they also require confidentiality of the agreement itself. When Politico’s unidentified witnesses mentioned the agreement, mentioned the type of allegations, mentioned that there was a settlement, and mentioned that it was five-figure settlement, they violated that agreement. In other words, they have broken the agreement already and hiding behind the idea that they can’t say more without breaking the agreement is a lie. . . and Politico knows that.

Not to mention, I have yet to see Politico mention that the Restaurant Association will have denied any liability in the settlement. Which I can guarantee you they did. Not mentioning that, but instead saying that the Association has refused to comment (as they should) is another smear.

Let’s be clear here. The MSM and left hate and fear strong, smart, capable, conservative blacks. They will do and say whatever it takes to destroy them. And their favorite method is to scream “sexual harassment” because it plays into the racist stereotype of black males as sexual predators. This is usually followed by accusing them of lying about their education, before they start a whisper campaign that this particular black man “likes white women.” That is the bigoted pattern and that is what Politico has started here.

And as you would expect, the usual suspects are already at work. Women’s groups who plucked out their own eyes to avoid seeing Clinton’s constant harassment are demanding blood. Leftist journalists who spent last week telling us that Republican support for Cain proved we are racists because we want a black man “who knows his place” (MSNBC), are now in a feeding frenzy about the out of control sexual predator. And establishment types like Karl Rove are trying to tear Cain down by claiming Cain has refused to answer whether or not this is true. For the record, here is Cain's “evasion”:

“It is totally baseless and totally false. Never have I ever committed any kind of sexual harassment.”

I guess Rove lacks comprehension skills. . . or integrity.

This is a smear and should make you angry, even if you aren’t a Cain supporter. This is exactly the kind of smear the right needs to stand up to and reject. This is shameful.