November 1st, Politico breaks the story, with no details, from an anonymous source.
Later the Washington Post publishes a story from their interviews with the Lawyer for the woman. The lawyer is demanding the NRA waive the woman's confidentiality agreement so she may come forward and tell her story. The only problem...she has not spoken to that lawyer, and does not want to come forward.
Problem #1: The Lawyer had made no attempt to even contact the NRA. The Washington Post even stated: "In a statement the Restaurant Association said that it had not been approached by Bennett but that it would respond as appropriate."
Problem #2: Washington Post: "Herman Cain's accuser wants to tell her side of the story, lawyer said." Yet this woman doesn't want to go public, which they even print in the same article. Yet a few paragraphs later in the story we are told "she's wary of her name becoming public, and that she is discussing with her family whether to make her story public."
And most importantly, Problem #3: A quote the Washington Post conveniently omitted from their story, the very next day, Nov 2. "Because the case is more than a dozen years old, Bennett," the woman's lawyer, "said he no longer has the file nor does he have the confidentiality agreement. He said that he had not even remembered the name of the Association official who his client had accused. He said he doesn't remember going to the Association offices. He thinks the matter might have been handled over fax and telephone quite expeditiously."
So the Lawyer acts like the woman is crying out to come forward, but the damn NRA hasn't released her from her confidentiality agreement. The woman says she doesn't want to go public. And, the Lawyer remembered nothing of the case or Herman Cain.
Click => Politico and Washington Post 'Reporting' Discrepancies
So who's pushing the buttons here?
Move forward and we discover there are two more woman now, yet those two don't want to go public either.
So now we have 3 women, no names, no details, and boatloads of media coverage and a man declared guilty who now must prove his innocense.
Par for the media? Actually no. Consider this.
1994 Jennifer Flowers comes forward and gets 16 seconds on ABC.
1997 Kathleen Willey acusses Clinton of sexual assault in vivid detail and gets 3 news segments. Keep in mind there are 5 major news networks.
1999 Juanita Broaddrick comes forward and gets 1 news segment.
After that, no more reports surface until May of that year when Clinton secured a defence attorney.
How about Herman?
In less than a week, 3 annonymous sources accuse Herman of harrassment, providing no details, and the media coverage?
Over 60+ news segments as of 11/6/11 and growing.
Kathleen Willey talks about Herman and Clinton
Then we come to 11/7/11, with Sharon Bialek coming forward, with a smile.
Now let's dissect her story...
Why would Cain ‘upgrade’ Bialek’s hotel room and then take her out to eat at an Italian restaurant, then ask Bialek "why are here" ? What did she tell Herman Cain in the first instance, about why she wanted to meet him, as in when first contact was made over email or by phone?
She's says she met Mr Cain at 6:30pm in the hotel bar. What's amazing about this is this happened over a decade ago, and she remembers the exact time they met. I have had many life changing events happen in my life, some were time specific, like my wedding, yet unless I still had a copy of my Invitation, I couldn't tell you when they occurred.
Why would he take her to the NRA to show her around if she had already worked there before?
If he was hitting on her in the hotel bar, why would she get into a car with him and go to a restaurant?
Now consider Sharon's actions.
Why is it necessary for Sharon to make contact with Gloria Allred, a Lawyer known for being an ambulance chaser as well as being radically Left? There is no active case, nor will there be a case.
The physical description of what happened in the car raises questions. She said her put his hand on her leg and attempted to grope her while simultaneously pushing her head into his lap. Beyond the physical impossibility of this, she neither makes mention of him being exposed. So if you picture the seen, it would appear like the most awkward game of twister one might ever see. Not to mention the physical impossibility of her being able to move her arms up to unzip him, if she were prone to accepting such advances.
Sharon describes an incident of being molested and doesn't contact the police, she doesn't tell her boyfriend, or her mentor the details because she was too embarrassed. Yet she has no problem going public with the details now, to people she doesn't know? Doing so, mind you, with a smile, showing no anger, or distress?
She can remember 6:30pm, but she has to read the incident via a script? Something such as the incident she described would be emblazened upon someone's memory.
Consider Marion Jones, the Olympic Runner accused of steriod use. Her first press conference, when she lied about using steriods, she read from a script, showing no associated emotion. When she did her second press conference, where she admitted the truth, she used NO Script, and her emotion poured out, crying as she did so.
Sharon smiled, showed no anger, was composed, showing no trauma, no emotion. And when she finished her story, she called Herman out, with a smile, to tell the truth.
Meanwhile, the NRA lifted any restrictions regarding confidentiality so that the 3 anonymous women can come forward to tell their story, yet all have refused.
Now she appears on Fox's American's newsroom with Martha Maccallum. During the interview, Martha asks her why didn't she approach him via email, phone whatever. Sharon replies she didn't believe such an approach would go well, which is why she went to Gloria Allred. However, she did approach him at TEAcon last month back stage, giving him a big hug, talking privately to him, then storming off. Some say this proves her case. The only thing I see is a bribe gone bad. Why would you hug a man who molested you, privately, backstage?
skip to minute 4:00 of the following video
WIND Chicago, Amy Jacobson, said,"They hugged each other backstage in a full embrace like old friends. She grabbed his arm and whispered in his left ear. She kept talking as he bent to listen, and he kept saying “Uh, huh. Uh, huh.” I don’t know if what she was giving him was a sucker punch, but he didn’t put his arm down while she was talking to him." Jacobson also stated "“It looked sort of flirtatious, I mean they were hugging. But she could have been giving him the kiss of death for all I know. I had no idea what they were talking about, but she was inches from his ear.”
It was also pointed out that "Sharon also said she was anxious to meet Cain again and had once gone to an afterparty with him and her boyfriend years ago. But she never mentioned he had sexually harassed her.”
Click => Chicago Sun Times
Also, Martha brings up an excellent point. Why meet at a hotel, have drinks, go to a restaurant, etc to discuss a job opportunity? Is it necessary to fly out to have such a conversation? Or at least, why do anything beyond go to his office?
Martha also points out she lives in the same building as David Axelrod.
Gloria states Sharon is a registered republican. That doesn't mean anything. My wife is a registered democrat, but she's not voting democrat.
So, does this add up to you?
Sources:
Sharon Bialek accusations
Questions about Sharon's Story
No comments:
Post a Comment