Monday, November 7, 2011

Allred Circus Arrives in Town - UPDATED AGAIN

Michelle Malkin has the latest on the Gloria Allred sleaze-by hit on GOP Presidential candidate Herman Cain at this link....

1:45pm Eastern. Allred introduces Sharon Bialek, single mother, “registered Republican,” NRA education foundation fund-raiser from Chicago.

Says she met Cain at an NRA event in Chicago with her boyfriend. After she was let go, mid-July 1997, she arranged to meet with Cain to ask for help in finding a new job. Cain, she says, arranged for her to stay at a “palatial suite” in D.C. 
Bialek claims Cain groped her under her skirt and reached for her genitals, then shoved her head towards his crotch while in a car in mid-July 1997.

She didn’t report the incident because she was “embarrassed.”

Bialek saw Cain at a Tea Party event last month and asked “Do you remember me?”

“I really didn’t want to be here today.”

At end of her statement, she giggled. She talked about her new hairdo.

Allred confirms that Bialek did not notify NRA about the incident. Bialek smiled. Won’t comment when asked about the “emotional trauma” of the incident.

So Bialek is single with a teenage child, with no discernible means of income, and employing a top Democrat hit woman celebrity attorney and her employment law partner.

This has all of the appearances as a repeat of the Whitman smear orchestrated by Allred.  According to Malkin, Allred's been seeking anti-Cain clients for almost a week.

This event was so traumatic that she decided to not report the alleged sexual harassment to the NRA board when it happened because she was 'embarassed'?  But, standing next to Allred, she's no longer 'embarassed' - but can giggle and talk about the new hairdo?  Of course, she won't comment about the 'emotional trauma' today....Allred's deal has to include the fact that the client only says what Allred writes down for her to say and leaves the rest to the Allred.

This accusation, like the others, to me lacks credibility and seems far closer to opportunism than highlighting a chronic sexual harrasser.  Even without the 'representation' of Allred, this accusation of alleged harassment seems weak given the 14 year timeframe and story.  Using this charge as a politically (racially?) motivated cudgel lessens the seriousness of real cases of sexual harrassment.  (The fact that the accuser is a Tea Party Republican does little to lessen Allred's political (and financial?) motivations.)

Events like this only go to display far more clearly the hypocrisy of so many, including Gloria Allred, who were silent about Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, and Juanita Broderick or the person who had to pay a $850,000 settlement to Paula Jones for his sexual harrassment of Jones and skated with the protection of feminists from numerous other cases.

UPDATE - The Cain campaign releases statement - "All allegations....are false."  (Hat Tip Michelle Malkin)

UPDATE #2 - From Hot Air - Attorney representing one of the women who received a settlement from the NRA says there are similarities between his client's case and that of Bialek.  Not sure if I agree that it is 'corroboration' of the claims as they remain 'she said / he said' accusations.

Also in the Hot Air post, Tina Korbe notes that the goals of these accusations is to place the burden of proof on Herman Cain, not on the accusers where it rightfully belongs.  The media, and opportunists like Allred, are only too willing to help misplace that burden on those who represent a different political viewpoint and beliefs.

Still, character assassination shouldn’t be this easy. What’s to stop women from falsely accusing any candidate they want out of the race? This is an extremely frustrating case because even now, with on-the-record testimony and sworn statements, it’s plausible to think Cain never committed any of the indiscretions of which he’s been accused.

No, character assassination shouldn't be this easy. Unfortunately, though, it's also become far too commonplace in today's political discourse. Which is why the hypocrisy of it needs to be highlighted.  What makes Bialek and the other Cain accusers as or more credible than Jones, Willey, Broderick?  Where's her proof beyond her statement?  Her actions 14 years ago do not lend a great deal credibility or proof towards the accusation despite the fact that she is doing it in person or is a registered Republican.  Why no complaint that day or the next?  Why did she choose Allred or as implied by the other Attorney, did she try to contact him as he was adding fuel to the fire?

UPDATE #3 at the break....

Andrew Klaven has an interesting post that covers the issues related to these accusations and Herman Cain...
So the double standard continues with Cain. Not only have the reliably left wing news sites like ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN been acting as if this were the story of the decade, but right wing sites like Fox and our own PJMedia have added fuel to the fire, eagerly tracking down more details. You can be sure that will keep happening as the story proceeds. And if Cain turns out to be guilty, you won’t be hearing any excuses for him here.

And yes, it’s unfair. But there’s a reason it’s unfair—a reason it should be unfair. There’s a reason we right wingers vet our candidates while the left adulates theirs, a reason we condemn our miscreants while the left elevates theirs, a reason our news outlets cover stories that the left covers up.

The reason is: we’re the good guys. We have to do what’s right. The left doesn’t. Sorry, but that’s the way it works. It’s the price you pay for defending what’s true and good, the price of holding yourself to a high moral standard. Our politicians have to be better than their politicians. Our journalists have to be more honest. Even our protesters have to behave with decorum and decency—and still suffer being slandered—while theirs can act like animals and commit acts of violence and lawlessness and spew anti-semitic filth and still find themselves excused and glorified.
This key meme of this is a great point.  We have to do what's right.  But as we do this, we also need to remember one of the key principles of this country - that the accused gains the benefit of the presumption of innocence.  The one making the accusation is the party that is responsible for delivering proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  With the ease of character assassinating accusations like these of sexual harassment (or sexual assault), the burden of proof needs to be met.  Each individual may have their own definition of that burden.  To some, it may just be met by the press conference done by Bialek and Allread.  For others, they need reliable witnesses or parties who do not have a specific benefit and gain to be realized by bringing forth the accusation in order to meet that burden of proof.

If you were sitting in the jury box at a civil or criminal trial, would the evidence presented by the Politico, by other elements of media, and by attorney's like Gloria Allred in a press conference today, be sufficient for you to proclaim Herman Cain guilty of serial sexual harrassment beyond a reasonable doubt?  I, for one, still have a reasonable doubt.  However, provide me with more credible evidence to support the claims, and my position could change.

No comments:

Post a Comment