THAT would be because she didn’t want to release her name, and I made my comment based on HER LAWYER’s statement.

Have YOU heard any details on the first accusers “meetings” with Cain where she CLAIMS harassment took place?

NO??

I stand by my original comments, and I believe that what has transpired since shows that my comment is spot on.

The person I was making that comment about was the FIRST woman, not Sharon, but Sharon seems to have “baggage” of her own.

Don’t you find it interesting that these women have been silent ever since Cain lawyered up?

But the lady denies having anything to do with the release of Cain’s file.

Maybe we could get her a job at the DOJ and maybe she could have nothing to do with Obama’s file being released.

Or maybe a job at Occidental, Columbia or Harvard so she couldn’t have anything to do with releasing Obama’s education files.

I’m not saying………..I’m just saying.

I heard that it was her son IN LAW or brother in law who made the “outting”. I’m sure it was an IN LAW.

I heard it either on Levin’s show on my way to work last night, or heard it on the way home this morning listening to Wilkow.

If anyone was wondering, I am NOT related to Karen Kraushaar, the woman who accused Herman Cain of sexual harassment. Strange coincidence.—
Josh Kraushaar (@HotlineJosh) November 09, 2011

I could care less what Party any of these “women” are registered with.

This is what gets me:

Where is the evidence Cain did ANYTHING inappropriate?

Oh, just because someone says something, then it makes it so?

I want EVIDENCE before we prosecute this man.

Isn’t the way the game is played now that these women need to be researched BEFORE you come to ANY conclusions?

It’s been a couple days, and I have not seen and/or heard ANYTHING to support Bialek’s story. She said she was at the Hilton, and you can’t tell me they wouldn’t have records of her first reservation and subsequent “upgrade”.

THAT would support her story.

Or how about a receipt from the restaurant that Cain supposedly took her too? Or maybe a dress that she dropped something on from her “date” with Cain, leaving a stain?

At least we KNOW Clinton and Jones were at the same place at the same time.

The woman admitted that Cain was a gentleman the first two times they met, and the fourth time they met she gave him a hug.

It’s this supposed THIRD time they met, when they met ALONE together that she claims something inappropriate happened. Why would we NOT conclude that the other three times they met wouldn’t dictate to us how he would have conducted himself IF they met a third time?

As far as Kraushauer is concerned, until I HEAR and SEE her make SPECIFIC allegations against Cain, I will not put ANY weight on her “accusations”.

The fact that she took a severance, and the fact that Cain has said that the allegations were investigated and deemed to be BASELESS, makes me believe just that. It is my opinion that the NRA should have given the woman NOTHING in severance, and her only “reward” for making BASELESS allegations against ANYONE should have been a pink slip (as in termination papers, not something a woman wears under her dress).

In my opinion, given the fact that this woman sought financial “relief” from her employer after her accident, tells me that she saw an easy way to make a few bucks. Her experience was that IF she made allegations, she would be financially rewarded. When her employer told her to take a flying leap, she withdrew her complaint. Interesting isn’t it?

Maybe if the NRA would have done the same thing a few years earlier………………

Anyway, until I hear and see direct evidence against Cain, I continue to give him the benefit of the doubt.

He says NOTHING happened, and until I see and hear otherwise, Cain is the most viable candidate to defeat Obama who has a plan that I can support.