In a post today on PJmedia, Alexis Garcia notes how in all the media hullabaloo over the Cain kerfuffle, “we’re losing focus on the narrative.” (Well, maybe that’s the point.) She lists several issues raising issues related to the administration’s actual record in office that have not received the same scrutiny this “scandal” without specifics has generated
Two of the items on Miss Garcia’s list parallel issues on my list of questions for Politico (to see how much attention they devoted to scandals involving Democrats). Since posting that piece, I’ve begun to wonder about other issues which the left-leaning journal has all but ignored, say, Joe Biden’s fabrications in the 2008 vice presidential debate. Did Politico address those (some commentators identified those fabrications)–and inquire into the then-36-year Washington veteran’s pattern of making things up?
Now, today, the lawyer of one of the woman accusing Mr. Cain has come forward to tell us that he won’t tell us anything, leading Stacy McCain to quip that “Lawyer ethics” meanings holding “a press conference to announce that you don’t want to discuss your smear-job against your client’s former boss.” As Jim Geraghty puts it, the lawyer in refusing to specify the charges, “is arguing, ’I won’t say what he did, but trust me, he’s guilty of wrongdoing.’“
This is one heckuva way to run a witch hunt.
From the National Restaurant Association (NRA), we learn two (very) salient facts:
- “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.”
So, we’ve got Cain disputing the allegations, the lawyer for the accuser refusing to specify the allegations and confirmation that Mr. Cain was not party to the agreement, suggesting the NRA was more interested in resolving the matter than in disciplining its then-employee.
Even without specifics, Politico has run 90 stories on the kerfuffle. There are far more specifics on Fast and Furious and Solyndra. Not to mention the revolving door between this administration and various special interests, including those lobbyists the president loves to decry. And many can point to Joe Biden’s specific fabrications.
You gotta wonder why Politico has devoted so much time to a story without specifics and has shown so little curiosity for stories with many.
*i.e., we still don’t know what specifically Mr. Cain did that constituted sexual harassment.
UPDATE: Check this image from AOL’s home page. . .
“Apart from disclosing that his client alleged more than one incident, [one of the accuser's lawyers Joel] Bennett’s remarks added little of substance to a controversy that erupted nearly a week ago.”
Added little of substance in an article advertised as telling us “what she claims happened ‘several’ times.”
The article headline tell us that Mr. “Cain Campaigns As Sexual Harassment Allegations Build”. Allegations build? If they’re building, then the Huffington Post should be able to provide us some specifics.
Okay, well maybe the allegations are building, but our information isn’t increasing.
Has any mainstream media outlet ever reported trumped-up charges against a Democratic candidate where the accusers refuse to offer any specifics?
UP-UPDATE: Over at RedState, Leon H. Wolf writes:
Contrary to the assertions of my esteemed colleague streiff, this has nothing to do with blaming messengers or victims. This has everything to do with the fact that it is impossible to evaluate the credibility of an anonymous accusation that contains absolutely no factual details.
Indeed. Emphasis added.
UP-UP-UPDATE: Ace quips, The accuser “prefers to keep her privacy, but she also prefers to snipe at Cain from that position of privacy?” Looks like we’ve got a case of she said/he said, but she won’t specify what she’s saying. Ace wonders further if the accusation might be trumped up:
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.
UP-UP-UPDATE: A diva weighs in:
Very specific instances. Okay. That’s what we need to hear about. What are they?! They don’t become very specific instances because you say “very specific instances”! That’s still completely abstract. Get specific. Get specific to the point where we can judge for ourselves whether the details amount to something that counts against Cain and that exposes you to a defamation lawsuit if the details are false.
Read the whole thing.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.