Herman Cain a 21st Century Lynching

We are a country that prides itself as a leader in civil rights and protector of individual liberties. I believe Mr. Cain’s civil rights were trampled on by a media process that wanted him to prove his innocence to unfounded charges. The process seemed more intent on destroying his character and his presidential aspirations then protecting his rights. It was done through the coordinated echo chamber of news organizations where truth was determined by the sheer numbers of accusers, stories and repetition of the allegations.

It begins when Politico’s, Johnathan Martin receives information about a harassment charge made against Mr. Cain more than a decade ago. They contacted Mr. Cain’s camp in mid October to get a response to the allegations. J.D.Gordon, a spokesman for the Cain campaign says they never supplied him any details or documents that would allow them to evaluate the claims. There was no names, locations or descriptions of what Cain was alleged to have done. This would never meet pretrial requirements for evidence. Gordon contacts Johnathan Harris, the Editor in chief, at Politico for documents but he was refused. The story then becomes Mr. Cain’s campaign was incapable of handling the controversy.

There never was much to the story, possibly two claims that were settled with enhanced severance packages. Given our litigious society, claims by corporations are settled all the time to avoid extensive legal fees. I say possibly two because the second accuser has never come forward and the details of the settlement remain obscure. If this process represented anything like a trial there is no such thing as an unnamed witness.Ms. Kraushaur claims were of some nonsexual gesture that made her uncomfortable and to this day we don’t know what they are. The media continues to refer to them as sexual harassment, but are they really? How has that been proved?

Ms Kraushaur has never had to undergo any serious cross examination, she has remained mostly hidden. Yet, she was given the benefit of the doubt by the media. We learn that in her next job she files additional complaints and for compensation asks for a promotion on the federal pay scale for thousands of dollars, reinstated leave time and a one-year fellowship to Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. What is truly remarkable is that she claims she doesn’t remember this complaint very well and considers it trivial. She goes on to drop the charge. What would she demand if she felt it was a serious charge? Given the backdrop of the highly visible Paula Jones vs Clinton case that settled in 1998, where Paula received an $850,000 settlement even though her initial request was for only $700,000, this evidence leaves me to assume her charge against Mr. Cain was trivial as well.

A fair minded person would have to conclude there was not much here. Yet, this becomes the backdrop as to why the media wants Mr. Cain to prove Ms. Bialek claims to be false. Gloria Allred, ever the liberal activist represents Sharon Bialek, despite the fact fourteen years ago Ms.Bialek chose not to be heard in a court of law.The start of a fair process begins with the presumption of innocence this was never the case for Mr. Cain.This is when I feel Mr. Cain’s civil liberties to due process were trampled on.

The salacious allegation became the truth and he had to prove his innocence.Even though Ms. Bialek never comes close to meeting the evidentiary requirements that would have resulted in a conviction. Yet, Gloria Allred declares at a news conference “Mr. Cain, is actively lying to Americans.” By what process, did she determine that? The statute of limitations has run out on these charges. The courts have determined that an individual could not get a fair trial as memories fade and evidence disappears. Mr. Cain is left to prove his innocence against unfounded accusations. A standard not supported in our legal system.

What kind of society do we live in when we fret over the civil rights of terrorists, i.e. water boarding and then trample over the civil rights of our own citizens who are coming forward to try to improve and make a difference in this country? When journalistic standards are lowered to such an extent that one only has to make accusations in order to be heard in the court of public opinion.This becomes and incredibly dangerous precedent for our Country and is a threat to our entire elective process. The imagination doesn’t have to go very far to see how this same tactic could be used, days before a close election to change the results.

People also view

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *