Cain did not sign settlement, accuser's lawyer says

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Source: CBS News

The settlement agreement between the National Restaurant Association and a woman who accused Herman Cain of sexual harassment was reached in September 1999--and was not signed by Cain himself, according to Joel Bennett, a lawyer for the woman.

Bennett, who has a copy of the settlement agreement, said four people signed it: the woman, two lawyers representing the association and Bennett himself.

Bennett said the agreement was resolved relatively quickly, about two or three months after she complained.

That means it may have been reached after Cain left the association, and Bennett said it's conceivable that Cain didn't even know about it.

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57318500-503544/cain-did-not-sign-settlement-accusers-lawyer-says/%20http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_162-57318500-504564/cain-did-not-sign-settlement-accusers-lawyer-says/

[jefferson_dem]

1. So the settlement was reached in September 1999. That's ... 9-99

Get the fuck out!

[Roland99]

3. cue Twilight Zone theme

[customerserviceguy]

8. Brilliant observation! n/t

[WheelWalker]

15. DUzy

[No Elephants]

18. LOL!

[FSogol]

2. Hey! These pedals go backward!

:rofl: at Cain and his keystone cop campaign staff.

[Roland99]

4. so, he didn't sign the agreement?? Well, then, I guess it never happened!!

[aranthus]

11. No. It only means he may have not known of the settlement. n/t

[Roland99]

13. but doesn't absolve him of the harrassment

[cstanleytech]

16. I thought he "remembered" that there was a settlment or was that regarding a different "memory"?

[No Elephants]

19. He was the accused AND the President of the Association. Of course he knew.

The lawyers for the association who did sign the agreement did not hire themselves. And someone had to okay the payment.

[newspeak]

21. it doesn't matter if he signed the settlement

there's more than one or two allegations against him. The man is stuck in his Id big time. His staff is not supposed to speak to him unless spoken to first? It looks like to me, the man has one disturbing ego--I definitely wouldn't even consider someone like that to be president of the US. We already had a big ego who got us into this mess.

Of course, the repugs are nothing but major hypocrites. Remember what happened with Schwarzenegger? The women who publicly came out against him, one accosted in the bathroom? I lived years in california and can't believe the women in california would vote for his arse. I remember Hatch, mr. holier than thou, publicly saying that those things happened in arnie's youth-attempting to make light of it just like his performance with anita hill. Hey Orrin it didn't happen in arnie's youth, you blighter!!!! hypotwits, every damn one of them!!!!

[slackmaster]

5. I don't usually dwell on shit like this, but I wonder what the hell he did

It must have been something raunchy.

[SoapBox]

6. I want specific dates...I'm tired of the "vague".

Let's get to the bottom of this...and then either kick Cain's ass over it or move on.

So he left on June 30, 1999.

We are seeing "vague" about when the settlement was reached. That is 1 woman.

What about the other women?

...I'm getting worn out.

[Tx4obama]

7. Has anyone said yet 'why' Cain left the association?

I don't think I've heard a reporter ask him that yet, or heard him say why yet.

[SoapBox]

9. Ditto to your question...

As I posted...I'm tired of the "vague".

[underpants]

14. Well reporters say "CEO of the National Restaurant Association" they don't say "Lobbyist"

the CEO of an organization like that is nothing but a lobbyist. As usual we can't get the whole story told.

[DallasNE]

10. It Is Also Conceivable That

This episode factored in to Cain's leaving the association so soon after the complaint was filed.

[kcass1954]

12. It doesn't excuse his behavior. It just means that he thought he got

away with it.

[Puzzledtraveller]

17. assuming we sincerely believe Cain will get the nom

who cares, there are bigger fish to fry and this scandal has more to do about repubs cannabalising themselves than any real concerm we should have about someone who will most likey not get the nomination, I'm in the camp that was a repub hit piece. Just my two cents.

[No Elephants]

20. I wonder if Bennett thought he was making some kind of point?

Because he wasn't.

And, being the woman's lawyer, he should not be talking about this without her consent to begin with--client confidentiality.