{"id":17530,"date":"2011-11-02T16:56:34","date_gmt":"2011-11-02T16:56:34","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2011-11-02T16:56:34","modified_gmt":"2011-11-02T16:56:34","slug":"the_herman_cain_saga","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2011\/11\/02\/the_herman_cain_saga\/","title":{"rendered":"The Herman Cain Saga"},"content":{"rendered":"

RUSH: Okay, moving on now to the Herman Cain saga, last night I got a note from a friend. “Rush: The Politico website\u2019s gone nuts. They\u2019ve just unleashed attack after attack after attack.” So I went to The Politico website, I looked at The Politico website, and I started laughing because my friend was right. I just had a different interpretation. I looked at \u2019em as going over the edge. There must have been five or six different links to Herman Cain stories about “the women,” about lawyers for “the women,” about how Cain has blown up the security or the confidentiality agreement, about how the women want to come forward. They can\u2019t wait to come forward, but there\u2019s in confidentiality agreement. They\u2019re doing everything, and I couldn\u2019t stop laughing looking at The Politico website. <\/p>\n

Then I found this. This is from a website called Northern Virginia Lawyer: “Based on a suggestion from a local blogger to look into political donors on the Board of Directors of the National Restaurant Association for potential ties to presidential campaigns, I have attempted to identify anyone privy to inside information about the National Restaurant Association who also has recent ties to any presidential campaign.” I\u2019m reading from the website. Everybody\u2019s trying to figure out who leaked this to the Politico. Was it Obama, was it another Republican? Who\u2019s responsible for this. So that\u2019s why somebody here\u2019s trying to find out if there\u2019s a connection from the National Restaurant Association to a current Republican presidential campaign — and they found something.<\/line><\/p>\n

(shuffling papers) They found something, ladies and gentlemen. “According to the October 2011 FEC report for ROMNEY FOR PRESIDENT INC. a gentlemen named Steven C. Anderson gave $1,000.00 on July 14, 2011. Steven C. Anderson is the same gentlemen who took over the helm as Chief Executive Officer at the National Restaurant Association (after a brief intermission) upon Herman Cain\u2019s departure in 1999.” I\u2019m reading now from Northern Virginia Lawyer, the website. “As CEO it is highly likely he would have been privy to details of litigation and threats about litigation from the immediately previous tenure of Herman Cain. There is little more than a coincidence between the support for Mitt Romney and the likelihood that Mr. Anderson knows the background of the sexual harassment threats. <\/p>\n

“Nonetheless, watchers of this scandal endlessly pontificate about whether President Obama or a rival campaign is the driving force behind the bombshell story that appeared in the Politico on Sunday. Reporters should follow-up with Mr. Anderson to discern his knowledge. At the least he likely knows the short list of people with inside knowledge about the sexual harassment allegations,” and then there was an update posted at 11:15 last night: “Apparently as this post has taken on a life of its own I need to clarify a few things. This truly is the exact same Steven C. Anderson at the same address that gave donations while at the National Restaurant Association in the early 2000\u00c2\u2019s.” So they have found — this is all it is — a former executive of the National Restaurant Association who has given money to Romney. <\/p>\n

That\u2019s all. No more, no less. But everybody\u2019s trying to figure out where Politico got this. Nobody\u2019s talking, but everybody is trying to figure out who leaked it. So this connection has been unearthed, and it\u2019s just another layer on top of all this. Now that has started speculation obviously as these things do, and I forget where I saw this — it was this morning as I was eagerly prepping. This guy Anderson, by the way, has also given money to Herman Cain, according to FEC records, but he\u2019s not given money to any other candidates, just Romney and Cain. Now the speculation is really starting. Again, as I say, I forget what I was reading this morning, but somebody was analyzing Romney (summarizing), “Who wants to be president so bad, he\u2019ll do anything.<\/p>\n

“He wants to be president so bad just like his dad wanted to be president, and he will do anything.” Of course, that doesn\u2019t prove anything. None of this proves anything. This story exists almost in a vacuum. There are more questions than there are answers. Every time something is learned or somebody says something, more questions pop up instead of answers. Meanwhile, Herman Cain\u2019s raking in the campaign contributions. <\/p>\n

Herman Cain on television appears unflappable about any of this. He\u2019s answering questions from anybody who asks him. Sometimes he contradicts himself; sometimes he doesn\u2019t. But he\u2019s always got that patented Herman Cain smile on his face as he answers all these things. <\/p>\n

And he just continues to rake in the big bucks. Then there\u2019s this from the Washington Post: “A woman who accused Herman Cain of sexual harassment in the 1990s is ready for her story to come out, says her attorney, even as the Republican presidential hopeful spent a second day trying to quell this controversy and explain his conflicting recollections of the matter.” Now, you read a few paragraphs down in this piece and you see that this same woman is consulting with her family about whether she should go public or not. She\u2019s consulting with her family about whether to go public, yet her lawyer is out there saying she\u2019s chomping at the bit to go public. She can\u2019t wait to go public, but the story says: Ehhh, not necessarily. She\u2019s discussing it with her family whether she should or not.<\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

RUSH: Yeah, Herman Cain has violated this woman\u2019s privacy. That\u2019s the lawyer\u2019s point. He\u2019s violated it by talking about this, which was supposedly not to be discussed because of confidentiality agreement — and now, this lawyer says his client can\u2019t wait — just can\u2019t wait to go public. But she\u2019s not going public yet. She really can\u2019t wait! The Washington Post says she\u2019s discussing going public with her family. She can\u2019t wait to go public.<\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

RUSH: I don\u2019t know. It\u2019s just all appearing funny to me. I know it\u2019s serious stuff, but now it\u2019s starting to get laughable. This lawyer for the woman — I got it right here in the Washington Post: “Herman Cain\u2019s accuser wants to tell her side of the story, lawyer said.” But would you believe, however, the accuser\u2019s lawyer is out saying in public that he wants the National Restaurant Association to release his client from their confidentiality agreement so badly. His client wants to talk, damn it! (sobbing) She wants to talk, and there\u2019s a confidentiality agreement. Damn it, she wants to talk! … He hasn\u2019t even contacted them yet. <\/line><\/p>\n

This lawyer, Joel Bennett, is out there making it look like this woman\u2019s got a bombshell. That\u2019s what this means. He is laying the groundwork. He wants everybody to think this woman\u2019s got the goods; this woman\u2019s got more than a pubic hair on a Coke can. This woman can nail Cain, but she\u2019s being forbidden because of the confidentiality agreement — and damn it, we want to be released! … Except, according to the story, the lawyer hasn\u2019t contacted the National Restaurant Association yet to ask them if they will release his client. He\u2019s doing it all in the media. He\u2019s trying to add all this pressure. We\u2019re told that this woman? She\u2019s ready! (panting) This woman is loaded for bear! <\/p>\n

She is ready come out and she gonna take Cain out! She gonna come out and she\u2019s got the goods, boy! She is gonna destroy this guy! She gonna take him out; she can\u2019t wait! … Yet a few paragraphs later in the story we are told she\u2019s wary of her name becoming public, and that she is discussing with her family whether to make her story public. The Post article says that her lawyer is “calling on the Association to wave the confidentiality agreement,” and then a few paragraphs later we learn he hasn\u2019t yet contacted them. I\u2019m sorry, all I can do is laugh at this, at the picture that they are trying to create here. When has a confidentiality agreement ever stopped anybody that really wants to talk and really thinks there\u2019s added money at the end of the trail here? <\/p>\n

I would think if Cain\u2019s accusers really wanted to speak up they would have found a way by now, especially if they think — and (chuckles) I hate to say this but my family are all lawyers. But obviously they think that there\u2019s a payoff at the end of the trail here. That is why this lawyer\u2019s involved. Meanwhile, the news media is bashing Cain for not giving more details. (laughing) So the lawyer says, “Oh, yeah, my client, she\u2019s got the goods! My client can take Herman Cain down!” He\u2019s not saying that. This is what everybody\u2019s being led to believe by the way the lawyer is handling this. “This woman, she\u2019s got it all — and it\u2019s juicy. Oh! It\u2019s more than just a hand up on the chin. It\u2019s something really, really bad out there. She can\u2019t wait to talk about it!”<\/p>\n

Except she doesn\u2019t want her name published. She\u2019s so eager to talk about it her lawyer hasn\u2019t even called the NRA and asked \u2019em for permission yet to break the confidentiality agreement. Meanwhile, the media are bashing Herman Cain (laughing) for not giving more details, at the same time attacking him for violating the confidentiality agreement. So he\u2019s not saying enough while he\u2019s saying too much; and now CNN, for what it\u2019s worth, is accusing Herman Cain of “getting testy with reporters” this morning as he tried to make his way around Capitol Hill. He had to push his way through a phalanx of reporters who were pestering him about the sex harassment charges; and I don\u2019t know about you, if you look at the video clip, it looks like he was being very polite to me.<\/p>\n

I didn\u2019t see Herman Cain getting testy, but I guess “testy” is in the eyes of the beholder. From this Washington Post article: “In a statement the Restaurant Association said that it had not been approached by Bennett but that it would respond as appropriate. Asked whether he had violated the nondisclosure agreement by divulging details about the matter, Herman Cain responded in a Fox interview that he had not because he didn\u2019t reveal the complainant\u2019s name.” Okay, so there\u2019s that. “Lawyer: Contain Accuser Wants to Tell Her Side of the Story.” Then the New York Times weighs in. “Cain Accuser Got a Year\u2019s Salary in Severance Pay. <\/p>\n

“The National Restaurant Association gave $35,000, a year\u2019s salary, in severance pay to a female staffer in the late nineties after an encounter with Herman Cain, its chief executive at the time, made her uncomfortable working there, three people with direct knowledge of the payment said on Tuesday. Now, note the New York Times calls this “severance pay.” Severance pay is not a settlement for sexual harassment claims, and since the Times says it, that\u2019s now the official truth — that it was severance pay — and that\u2019s what Herman Cain has said all along. The New York Times calls it “severance pay.” I have it right here in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers, not a settlement for sexual harassment claims — and that bears out Herman Cain\u2019s statements. <\/p>\n

He said he was only aware of one claim which the Times article calls the second claim. The first settlement for 35 grand was a severance settlement with a sex charge thrown in to sweeten the pot which is what Herman Cain said this was. Yet the article tries to make it sound like they\u2019ve got Herman Cain in a lie. But the size of her severance does not refute Cain\u2019s initial description of the matter at all. He said the woman had been given some kind of severance pay; he didn\u2019t know how much. The New York Times cites this woman\u2019s anonymous “friends and colleagues,” quote, unquote, who say that she told \u2019em at the time “she was deeply uncomfortable about the situation.” Now, I have been fired seven times, and each of those times (just my own personal experience here), I have been uncomfortable about the situation.<\/p>\n

And I have, in talking to friends and family, expressed my anger, my discomfort, and my grievances and how I was wronged. There\u2019s nothing unique here. Everybody who gets fired… (interruption) Well, no, there weren\u2019t any physical gestures when I got fired. You mean when I got fired? No, no, no. (sigh) I don\u2019t remember any physical gestures. No, no, no, no. But… (sigh) You got me thinking about one instance where I did get fired \u2019cause I told a psychopath that the jig was up and everybody knew the truth about the guy; that\u2019s why I had to go there. I just couldn\u2019t take the lies anymore; I just couldn\u2019t take the lies, and I confronted the guy on the lies, and I got home 30 minutes later and the owner of the radio station called me and said, “You know, we gotta get rid of you. You\u2019re unstable. You\u2019re causing mucho problems.”<\/p>\n

So I figured the guy had covered his bases with a phone call to the owner after I had blown the whistle. Anyway so that happens, and I called my dad and said, “I just got fired again,” and it was always my fault, by the way, with my dad. The boss was always right when we were growing up. The boss was always right, the teacher was always right, the principal was always right. Authority was always right. That\u2019s what you learned. (interruption) Well, that\u2019s what you learned when you grew up the Great Depression. That\u2019s what you learned when you went through World War II and you flew P-51s. You took orders! When you had an authoritative father, authority was right. It was the last word on anything. So, anyway, my point is: There\u2019s nothing unique here. <\/p>\n

A women gets fired, she tells people she\u2019s uncomfortable about it, big deal. Everybody that gets canned or leaves in undesirable circumstances doesn\u2019t run around and talk about how happy they are. Everybody hates the boss. Everybody\u2019s got bad things to say about the boss. The times goes on to admit that the situation with the second woman “appeared to be more in keeping with a standard settlement related to harassment allegations.” So once again the Times is admitting that the first settlement, the one that we know of for $35,000 was not a typical sex harassment case. Now, that again supports Herman Cain\u2019s claim that he was not aware of an additional harassment claim in that instance; and you got four reporters on this story, including Jim Rutenberg, Jeff Zeleny, and Mike McIntyre. <\/p>\n

That\u2019s more reporters than they ever had on Clinton and Lewinsky. Then we go to the AP. Now, this story is by Nancy Benac at the AP and what\u2019s striking about this — and it\u2019s striking because the AP is seldom a news outfit anymore. They\u2019re total agenda-driven. But this one is over the top. I mean, this is not a news story in any way, shape, manner, or form. What they have done here… I guess Chris Lehane has made some comments about that, and they simply have dressed up Chris Lehane\u2019s comments (you know, he\u2019s a Democrat activist for Clinton and Gore) and they presented them as if they were a legitimate news item. “Cain\u2019s Line in the Sand: Denials Invite Scrutiny” is the headline. “Herman Cain drew a line in the sand, and now he has to hope it sets like concrete. Cain … has responded to allegations of sexual harassment with a series of definitive statements that invite closer scrutiny of his past conduct.”<\/p>\n