Cain Denies Knowing Woman Number 4, Earlier Accuser Comes Forward

Herman Cain gave interviews and a press conference today. He denied ever meeting Sharon Bialek, known now as "Woman Number 4." He said he doesn't know who she is. And, he's willing to take a polygraph.

Meanwhile, via the Washington Post, one of the women from the earlier accusations made in the 1990's who received a civil settlement has publicly come forward. (CBS reports her lawyer says she won't come forward, but she tells the Washington Post she will): [More...]

Karen Kraushaar, 55, an employee with the Treasury Department’s inspector general office, said she never wanted her name to be made public as one of Cain’s accusers. But a news organization published her name Tuesday and she now says she is ready to go before cameras.

“I am interested in a joint press conference for all the women where we would all be together with our attorneys and all of these allegations could be reviewed as a collective body of evidence,” Kraushaar told The Washington Post.

Here's the Daily's report.

< Herman Cain Strategy: Attack Accuser | Bolivia VP Says DEA Can't Return >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    What "burden of proof"? (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 08:30:57 AM EST
    This isn't a legal case - it's a political issue.  Is Cain of the right character to lead this country?

    Eagerly awaiting Romney's astounding revelation (none / 0) (#1)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 05:10:04 PM EST
    that his magic underwear prevent and preclude impure thoughts such as those which long ago torpedoed Cain's current candidacy.

    Why beat up on Romney? (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 05:31:43 PM EST
    He's had the class, or at least the political acumen, to stay out of this.

    And why be the very thing you hate about religious extremists - making ignorant and bigoted remarks?


    If Romney gets the nomination (none / 0) (#20)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 09:06:21 PM EST
    there will be a lot of talk about Mormonism.....

    People can talk about Mormonism (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 08:32:02 AM EST
    Without being ignorant and bigoted.

    Personally, I wish we lived in a (none / 0) (#21)
    by observed on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 09:17:23 PM EST
    country so rational that it was normal to point out absurd personal beliefs---be it that someone was born from a virgin, or someone else was born circumsized, or that saying a magic formula will make you forever.

    make you *live* forever. (none / 0) (#22)
    by observed on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 09:17:39 PM EST
    "absurd personal beliefs" (none / 0) (#31)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 08:37:46 AM EST
    Kinda exactly what 99% of the people who have religious beliefs think of atheists - they don't understand how you can believe in nothing  You sure you wanna go down that road?  Just because something is logical to you when it comes to matters of spirituality and faith doesn't mean it is empirically logical.

    I yearn for the day when EVERYONE is open minded and not just paying lip service.


    This kind of tendentious absurdity (none / 0) (#32)
    by observed on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 10:02:10 AM EST
    is what makes arguments with religious people tedious and time wasting.
    Not believing in god is not a belief, any more than not believing in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus makes one a member of a religious sect.
    Frankly, if a modern man or woman cannot see the absurdity of claiming that a man was born of a virgin, or that another man was born circumsized---because, being a perfect man, it was logically impossible, or if one cannot see the utter, hopeless fantasy of someone coming to life from the dead----if we cannot move past these ancient myths, I really see no hope for mankind.

    And, by the way, the reason atheists are attacked so vehemently when they ridicule absurd specific beliefs, is that ridicule works.

    N.B., had you not made the rude, tendentious statement that atheism is a belief system, I wouldn't have bothered.


    Phenomonologist (none / 0) (#33)
    by christinep on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 03:55:02 PM EST
    And the Vienna Circle. Somewhere way back in the college days of my life, there was a fascinating seminar about the movement in the 1920s(?) that posited something like: All we know & can know is what we can physically observe...like a chair or other physical property. Of course, that led to lots of back & forth about the limitations of such "theory."  You know, thw what about "friendship" or "love" or adherence to any credo? I don't pretend to know more about that particular concept other than the fleeting lecture/discussion relating to phenomonology. I also don't know much about Shaker beliefs & practices...other than the forerunner musical thema for Appalachian Spring & the different concepts about non-procreation. Needless to say, neither movement lasted very long.  But, they were movements & belief systems nonetheless.

    Izvenite. But, I tend to view the choice of atheism as a system to be a belief system as well. We all have different beliefs about unknown, existential matters. IMO, it is sensible to view one's system of views to be a belief system.  


    Please consider, in that regard, (none / 0) (#34)
    by christinep on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 03:57:47 PM EST
    a relook at "The Brothers Karamazov."

    I read a report online earlier today, by some reporter or another, that a month or so ago the reporter saw Cain and Bialek backstage at a Cain speech or something, and he and Bialek were "hugging" and "embracing."

    Then they spoke closely and confidentially, where, iirc, she did a lot of speaking close to his ear and he said "uh huh" a lot.

    According to the article Bialek pretty much had to force her way backstage.


    Ok, found it, (none / 0) (#7)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 06:09:05 PM EST
    Blackmail? didn't read the link (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 06:23:57 PM EST
    That was my first thought. (none / 0) (#9)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 06:24:47 PM EST
    Cain said he has no memory of ever meeting (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 06:55:28 PM EST

    Given that it was at a convention and that he probably has met thousands over the past months I can accept that.


    Which NPR morphed into a (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 08:24:45 PM EST
    a denial of inappropriate conduct.

    Really? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 09:04:10 PM EST
    No idea how you get "blackmail" out of that.  The person characterizing the encounter between Bialek and Cain at the TP Convention was Amy Jacobson, a co-host on a talk radio program.  She was interviewed about what she saw on Beck:


    acobson described that at a Tea Party convention in October, the accuser, Sharon Bialek, rushed Herman Cain backstage. She held his attention for 2-3 minutes, and after what appeared to be an intense and in-depth discussion Bialek stormed off.

    Amy said she doesn't know what was said, but that it looked like she "has a point to make" and then left quickly.

    Jacobson said she has no reason to doubt Bialek, and that the number of women coming forward leads her to believe that Cain has done something inappropriate. She did acknowledge that it was going to be a `he said/she said' situation.

    explain it to you.

    You can "figure out" ... (none / 0) (#25)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 10:22:56 PM EST
    ... almost anything, with an active imagination.

    It gets better or worse, depending on one's (none / 0) (#4)
    by Radix on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 05:52:44 PM EST
    perspective. The lawyer for Kraushaar, Bennet, I think his name is, just refuted Cain's description of the outcome as not an agreement, rather, it was in fact a settlement, reached by his client and the outside counsel for the association. He also, her lawyer, stated the investigation was an internal one, conducted by people who reported to Cain.

    Did he say Cain knew (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 05:58:01 PM EST
    about the settlement or just the investigation? I read somewhere he didn't sign off on the settlement and didn't know about it.

    According to Cain's news conference (none / 0) (#6)
    by Radix on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 06:02:38 PM EST
    he was aware of the allegations and he also was aware of the settlement. Although, Cain appears to be parsing on the terms agreement and settlement. Cain's position appears to be, because it never entered the legal system, it therefore isn't a "settlement" but an "agreement"

    He isn't "appearing." (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 06:48:33 PM EST
    Right or wrong he went to great lengths to make a distinction between a termination agreement and a legal settlement.

    You know, if any good comes out of it maybe it will be that companies and individuals quit using "whatever you want to call it" and NDA's and just go to court.


    There's no difference (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 08:00:05 PM EST
    Cain is trying to justify his original denial of a settlement by playing semantics ... and not very well.  In the context of legal action, a "settlement" is an agreement by both parties resolving a legal dispute or lawsuit.  Typically, the parties agree to forgo any legal action (or dismiss any lawsuits) in return for something, often times a payment.  Whether the agreement is reached before or after the filing of a complaint is irrelevant.

    You were doing good (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 06:52:38 PM EST
    until you said the internal investigation was conducted by people who reported to Cain.

    While that may be true, I doubt it. I can't see the BOD agreeing with this.


    Was simply stating what the lawyer said. (none / 0) (#13)
    by Radix on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 07:05:20 PM EST
    Speculate much? (none / 0) (#15)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 08:19:42 PM EST
    How would you know whether the investigation was internal or not?  No idea who the "BOD" is, but Cain himself claimed that an internal investigation showed no evidence of improper conduct by him, without specifying who conducted the investigation or to whom they reported.

    BOD - Board of Directors (none / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 08:32:46 PM EST
    I didn't say what I knew. You continue to add things.

    I said I doubt it.

    And I still doubt it.


    What did I "add"? (none / 0) (#18)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 08:37:54 PM EST
    I didn't say you "knew" it ... that much was obvious.  I was just wondering if there was any basis for your theory apart from sheer speculation.

    Guess not.


    This is what you added. (none / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 09:40:37 PM EST
    Speculate much?

    I said "I doubt it."

    There's no speculation there.


    Course not (none / 0) (#26)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 10:30:21 PM EST
    Your doubt re: the investigation - that it was not done internally (despite Cain's own acknowledgement) - was based upon your well-grounded and fact-based ...

    ... gut instinct?



    the title of the post says (none / 0) (#30)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 08:32:39 AM EST
    accuser, not victim. The strategy he's employing is one known as "blame the victim." I have not presumed the accusations are accurate. There is no "burden of proof" on the accuser or Cain as there is no criminal case contemplated. This is all going to be determined in the court of public opinion. In politics, unlike law, candidates when accused of wrongdoing, have to convince voters they are blameless. So it's not a fair analogy -- even though I haven't presumed him guilty or called the women accusing him "victims."