This could be really bad for Cain.

Conservation Voice wrote: That's one side of the story. You don't think he's going to admit anything more serious, do you?

Of course not but that is not the point.

Well, I certainly believe that's all there was to it. Why else would he sign a settlement that awarded one of the women $45,000, with a non-disclosure clause. Yeah, that's it...It was all a misunderstanding.

I'm pretty much over this. I said before I think he'll survive unless one of the women come forward.

I'm looking forward to the next debate. :thumbsup:

Oops, just came across this:

Roger Simon: Cain can expect ‘rough discovery’ if he sues Politico

One unnamed Cain aide suggested to The Washington Post Thursday that Politico may even be the target of a lawsuit for reporting on the allegations.

“Roger, how worried is Politico?” O’Donnell asked. “Donald Trump, the senior adviser to the Cain campaign — senior legal adviser — has advised them to maybe sue Politico for doing what you’ve done here in this case.”

“Well, that would reflect on Mr. Trump’s ability to give advice,” Simon remarked. “I’m not going to speak about lawsuits in Politico, obviously, but we all know that in America anybody can sue anybody, and anybody who does sue has to expect to undergo a lot of rough discovery and depositions. And most people find it an unpleasant experience, especially if the suit is frivolous.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/11/04/r ... -politico/

Conservation Voice wrote: Sex and salacious stories sell. It has nothing to do with someone's stupid idea that all news networks get together to decide who will be president.

"In comparison, over a similar three-day period these same programs were far less interested in charges against Democrat Bill Clinton. After Paula Jones held a public press conference in February of 1994, there was only one report on her allegations.

Following Kathleen Willey's July 1997 claims of being groped by the President, there were a mere three reports. For Juanita Broaddrick, who came forward in February of 1999 to say Clinton raped her, only three stories followed charges appearing in the Wall Street Journal.

It should also be pointed out that all these women offered their names. They weren't anonymous. Additionally, the accusations of assault and rape go far beyond what's being mentioned with the Cain scandal.

Yet, on CBS's Early Show, Chris Wragge piled on, saying of a third possible Cain accuser, "That pretty much takes care of any hope he might have had to see this story fade any time soon."


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whit ... z1clLQBg00

neptunechimney wrote:

Conservation Voice wrote: Sex and salacious stories sell. It has nothing to do with someone's stupid idea that all news networks get together to decide who will be president.

"In comparison, over a similar three-day period these same programs were far less interested in charges against Democrat Bill Clinton. After Paula Jones held a public press conference in February of 1994, there was only one report on her allegations.

Following Kathleen Willey's July 1997 claims of being groped by the President, there were a mere three reports. For Juanita Broaddrick, who came forward in February of 1999 to say Clinton raped her, only three stories followed charges appearing in the Wall Street Journal.

It should also be pointed out that all these women offered their names. They weren't anonymous. Additionally, the accusations of assault and rape go far beyond what's being mentioned with the Cain scandal.

Yet, on CBS's Early Show, Chris Wragge piled on, saying of a third possible Cain accuser, "That pretty much takes care of any hope he might have had to see this story fade any time soon."


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whit ... z1clLQBg00

Anyone really surprised by this? I'm not.

CynicalBill wrote:

neptunechimney wrote:

Conservation Voice wrote: Sex and salacious stories sell. It has nothing to do with someone's stupid idea that all news networks get together to decide who will be president.

"In comparison, over a similar three-day period these same programs were far less interested in charges against Democrat Bill Clinton. After Paula Jones held a public press conference in February of 1994, there was only one report on her allegations.

Following Kathleen Willey's July 1997 claims of being groped by the President, there were a mere three reports. For Juanita Broaddrick, who came forward in February of 1999 to say Clinton raped her, only three stories followed charges appearing in the Wall Street Journal.

It should also be pointed out that all these women offered their names. They weren't anonymous. Additionally, the accusations of assault and rape go far beyond what's being mentioned with the Cain scandal.

Yet, on CBS's Early Show, Chris Wragge piled on, saying of a third possible Cain accuser, "That pretty much takes care of any hope he might have had to see this story fade any time soon."


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whit ... z1clLQBg00

Anyone really surprised by this? I'm not.

Apparently Conservation Voice will be.

And all of this dissimilar "Clinton did it too" has exactly what to do with Cain's situation and the fact that the story has changed 10 times in two days?

neptunechimney wrote:

CynicalBill wrote:

neptunechimney wrote:

Conservation Voice wrote: Sex and salacious stories sell. It has nothing to do with someone's stupid idea that all news networks get together to decide who will be president.

"In comparison, over a similar three-day period these same programs were far less interested in charges against Democrat Bill Clinton. After Paula Jones held a public press conference in February of 1994, there was only one report on her allegations.

Following Kathleen Willey's July 1997 claims of being groped by the President, there were a mere three reports. For Juanita Broaddrick, who came forward in February of 1999 to say Clinton raped her, only three stories followed charges appearing in the Wall Street Journal.

It should also be pointed out that all these women offered their names. They weren't anonymous. Additionally, the accusations of assault and rape go far beyond what's being mentioned with the Cain scandal.

Yet, on CBS's Early Show, Chris Wragge piled on, saying of a third possible Cain accuser, "That pretty much takes care of any hope he might have had to see this story fade any time soon."


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whit ... z1clLQBg00

Anyone really surprised by this? I'm not.

Apparently Conservation Voice will be.

Not really. You could make the case that that media coverage has changed drastically in 10 years. I blame it all on OJ.

LadyJazzer wrote: And all of this dissimilar "Clinton did it too" has exactly what to do with Cain's situation

Exactly nothing since no one on the right has said Clinton did it to. No one on the right has conceded that Cain has done anything wrong at all.

Since when has the right needed a reason that is relevant to whine about the media and complain about Clinton?