Cain Update: Meet The Accuser

A picture is emerging of Cain’s newest harasser Sharon Bailek. It’s an ugly picture of a liar and “a gold digger” with serious financial problems who is seeking celebrity.

Would you hug your rapist?

Let’s start with the most obvious. At the presser, Bailek broke down in tears about the harassment she claims. What she describes is actually felony sexual assault. Yet, last month, Bailek went to see Cain speak at a Tea Party function in Chicago. Bailek first claims she didn’t know he would be there. Then she said she confronted him: “I went up to him and asked him if he remembered me. I wanted to see if he would be man enough to own up to what he had done 14 years ago.”

Yet, radio host Amy Jacobson said that everyone knew Cain would be there. And it’s inconceivable Bailek could go to a Tea Party conference where the front-running candidate for the Republican nomination for the Presidency was scheduled to speak and somehow not know he was coming.

Jacobson also said Bailek told her at the time she was anxious to meet Cain again and “had once gone to an afterparty with him and her boyfriend years ago.” Jacobson also confirmed that Bailek “never mentioned he had sexually harassed her.” As for the encounter itself, Jacobson said: “It looked sort of flirtatious. I mean they were hugging.” That’s confirmed by the photo where Bailek poses with her supposed attempted-rapist (see update below).

Her story makes no sense.

Now let’s look at her story. It’s nonsense. Bailek claims she called Cain to see if he would rehire her after she had been laid off. Her boyfriend got her a hotel room. Cain upgraded the room to a huge suite. She went to dinner with Cain. He asked her why she was there. She told him to get rehired. They left dinner and got into the car, where Cain put his hand on her skirt and tried to force her head toward his crotch. She refused. Cain said, “you want a job, don't you?” She refused. The end.

Now let me ask some questions.

1. How did Cain know where she was staying to upgrade her?

2. Assume you are a businesswoman who has just been laid off and you want to beg the boss for your job back. The boss says “ok, get a hotel room and we’ll meet over dinner.” Does this sound like something a businesswoman would agree to? No.

3. Why does Cain ask her at dinner why they are there? Presumably, he would know before he agreed to the dinner? (Reason: this is poorly written fiction.)

4. What happened in the gap between him asking why they are at dinner and them getting in the car? Presumably, there was a lengthy discussion about her job and Cain must have said something like “sure” or “no way”? Or did he just twirl his moustache and say, “I’ll tell you in the car, sexy.” Again, this is poorly written fiction with a poorly thought-through timeline.

5. If Cain is the sexual predator they claim, and he did reach up her skirt and push her head toward his crotch against her will, why would he suddenly stop when she told him no?

This is fiction. Moreover, what she is describing is a date, not a business meeting. It sounds like she was trying to sleep her way back into the job.

But I think there’s something else going on her. This sounds like a set up. The boyfriend getting her the room, the plan to meet Cain for a sexy dinner at an Italian restaurant.... it all sounds like Bailek and her boyfriend planned to blackmail Cain or the NRA. Don’t forget, its likely she knew about the rumors of the first settlement, so it’s hardly a stretch to see someone like Bailek trying to get her own settlement. What do I mean “someone like Bailek”? Read on.

But she’s a respectable woman, right?

According to her celebrity lawyer Gloria Allred, Sharon Bailek is a respectable single-mother from Chicago who has spent her life working in marketing. Here are some facts she forgot to mention. Specifically, Bailek is a deadbeat.

A friend described Bailek thusly to the New York Post: “the reality of her situation is she’s a complete gold digger. It’s all about money.” The friend continues:

“This is a lady who lives off the system. She is hellbent on finding a way of never having to work and living the lifestyle she wants to live, a very affluent lifestyle.”

The friend added that she is running from bill collectors, even as she lives in a posh suburb, and that she’s been fired from most of her jobs. Is there any support for this? Yes.

● She’s had 9 jobs in 17 years.
● She filed bankruptcy in 1991.
● She filed bankruptcy in 2001, claiming only $5,000 in assets.
● She has a long history of tax evasion and missed credit card payments.
● In 2009, the IRS filed a tax lien against her for $5,200.
● In August 2011, the Illinois Dept. of Revenue placed a lien against her for $4,300 going all the way back to 2004.
● Other creditors have taken legal action against her including one suit in Cook County, where a $3,000 judgment was gotten against her.
● She has also brought a paternity suit against the father of her child.

I’ve had many sleazeball and malingering clients, but even they rarely have this much financial carnage in wake. And I have no doubt her claims are about obtaining celebrity and getting a book deal or a film deal or a television show to get rich.

Serial Harasser or Serial Harassment Claimer?

One of problem with the allegations against Cain is that they paint the picture of Cain as a serial harasser. If you believe the unsupported and undetailed MSM version, then you will believe that Cain “harassed” four women, with each one increasing in intensity until you get to the point of the sexual assault Bailek describes. Yet, strangely, there are no allegations from other jobs or other people in Cain’s life. These allegations make Cain out as a sexual predator for a period of a couple months and then he suddenly never does it again. That’s nonsense -- especially given the Snidely Whiplash way they’ve described Cain.

But here’s something interesting about Bailek. She accused a former boyfriend of harassing her when he demanded back $4,500 she loaned him. Thus, she has a history of making harassment allegations when it suits her financial interests.

But she said this before she had a motive, right?

Allred claims she has affidavits from two friends who claim Bailek told them about this harassment at the time. Thus, we’re supposed to believe her allegations are real because she apparently mentioned them before she had a motive. But. . .

First, never trust evidence from friends or family that supports a witness. People lie for their friends. That’s why no sane jury believes those people.

Secondly, if this was true, then why didn’t she tell her father or her fiancé of several years until this week? Maybe she only shared this “hurtful” incident with her closest girlfriends? Well, no. The first “friend” is her boyfriend at the time, i.e. her co-conspirator. The second friend is a “businessman friend.”

Moreover, why didn’t she tell her father or fiancé when Cain first ran for president or any time over the last year? And why didn’t she tell them before, during or after the Chicago meeting. . . where she hugged and flirted with Cain? She claims now that she went to confront him to see if he was man enough to admit what he’d done. Yet, we’re supposed to believe she didn’t tell her fiancé what she did? That’s bullsh*t.

Finally, let’s dispel this idea that she had no motive at the time. If it was a set up against Cain or the NRA, then she had plenty of motive to tell people at the time -- particularly her co-conspirator boyfriend. And if it was a date rebuffed, then she still had a motive to tell the boyfriend, to keep him from getting upset at her trying to jump ship to Cain. And even if truly was a business meeting, then she has a motive to save face.

This woman is a fraud.

** Update: I've been told the women in the photo above might actually be Amy Jacobson. I can't say either way, but it actually changes nothing in the analysis. Jacobson (who supports Bailek) has confirmed that Bailek flirted with and hugged Cain. The lack of photographic evidence (if that's the case) doesn't change that.

** Update 2: For a fascinating take on the David Axelrod connection, check out this article by Ann Coulter: LINK.