With all due respect to John Tabin, he seems to misunderstand the nature of the “settlements” between two of the Herman Cain accusers and the National Restaurant Association:
One accusation of sexual harassment may be a lie or a misunderstanding. But four accusations? One of which resulted in a $35,000 settlement, one of which resulted in a $45,000 settlement, and one of which is backed up by two affadavits signed under penalty of perjury by people swearing that the accuser told them about the incident at the time?
Yet as noted by The New York Times earlier this month, these “settlements” were severance packages equivalent to a year’s salary when the two accusers agreed to terminate their employment with the National Restaurant Association. These severance packages were offered in the hope warding off litigation which would have been far more costly. For its part, the National Restaurant Association noted that, “Mr. Cain was not a party to that agreement.” Needless to say, the severance agreement would not have rendered judgment against Cain on the merits of the allegation. The fact that these two women received compensation from the National Restaurant Association doesn’t mean their accusations against Cain are as Tabin puts it “partially true” much less a kernel of truth.
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://spectatorworld.com/.