Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (634628)	11/4/2011 5:07:39 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578902

Now getting ridiculous. Necessary now, to undo the gag order. Get the truth out there. yup...all the innuendo will be worse than the truth. "She has decided not to relive the specifics of the incident," attorney Joel Bennett said at a press conference in Washington, D.C. on behalf of his client saying it would be "extremely painful" for her to do so. He confirmed no details about exactly what was alleged. We're going to find out something like that he put his hand on her shoulder and told her that her low cut dress really showed off her assets well. and she's going to claim that it was extremely painful to have someone notice her tits.

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (634628)	11/4/2011 5:32:23 PM
From: i-node	2 Recommendations Respond to of 1578902

Blitzer's interview was kind of interesting. "Cain did something, but we can't say what he did". Blitzer then says, "NRA says they are fine with you saying whatever you want to". Attorney says, "Yeah, but we don't want to say anything. But there were at LEAST two incidents." Incidents of what? "We don't want to talk about it". This is just bullshit.

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (634628)	11/5/2011 11:01:29 AM
From: Brumar89	4 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578902

After requesting for a release from confidentiality and the National Restaurant Assn offering a release, Joel Bennett and his client have nothing to say and decline the release they requested. ONE CAIN ACCUSER SAYS SHE HAS CHOSEN "NOT TO RELIVE" THE DETAILS OF THE INCIDENT' SEES "NO VALUE" IN TALKING ABOUT IT PRIVATELY OR PUBLICLY I Missed The Statement... But apparently she includes the statement that she has "chosen not to relive the incident," but stands by what she claimed, or something. So she's dropping it completely? Apparently so. *She is not* asking the NRA to release her from the confidentiality agreement,** except for this brief statement. Beyond saying "what I said before was accurate," she seems to be saying she won't be talking further about this. The lawyer continues to talk up the "specific incidences" detailed in the written complaint, and says Cain knows all about them, and etc., but won't say what they are. She prefers to keep her privacy, but she also prefers to snipe at Cain from that position of privacy? So... one down? Or is she just not talking now, but if Cain gets closer to the nomination (or wins it), we can expect her to revisit this and begin airing complaints to the media again? More: The National Restaurant Association actually offered to release this woman from the confidentiality/non-disparagement agreement. She declined. Here's their statement: “We have seen the statement Joel Bennett released earlier today on behalf of his client, a former employee of the Association. The Association consented to the release of that statement, at the request of Mr. Bennett’s client. “Based upon the information currently available, we can confirm that more than a decade ago, in July 1999, Mr. Bennett’s client filed a formal internal complaint, in accordance with the Association’s existing policies prohibiting discrimination and harassment. Mr. Herman Cain disputed the allegations in the complaint. The Association and Mr. Bennett’s client subsequently entered into an agreement to resolve the matter, without any admission of liability. Mr. Cain was not a party to that agreement. The agreement contains mutual confidentiality obligations. Notwithstanding the Association’s ongoing policy of maintaining the privacy of all personnel matters, we have advised Mr. Bennett that we are willing to waive the confidentiality of this matter and permit Mr. Bennett’s client to comment. As indicated in Mr. Bennett’s statement, his client prefers not to be further involved with this matter and we will respect her decision. “The Association has robust policies designed to ensure that employees with concerns may bring them forward for prompt investigation and resolution, without risk of retaliation. The Association is fully committed to equal employment opportunity and to an environment that is free from any discrimination or harassment.” Here's what I am/was thinking: If this were a trumped up bullshit charge designed to cadge money out of the NRA, we might expect an accuser to file falsely, but then would not re-open the case for the media. So based on her apparently talking to Politico, I thought at least she really believed there was a strong sexual harassment case here. But now she says "Nevermind," essentially. So now I'm thinking her claim was trumped up. ace.mu.nu