COMMENTARY | The Herman Cain sexual harassment scandal stands thusly: allege and accuse, deny and accuse. The presidential hopeful is accused of inappropriate behavior while president and CEO of the National Restaurant Association (NRA). Two of the women remain unidentified. One, the first to come forward, Sharon Bialek, has provided salacious details of her encounter with Cain. The second, one of the women formerly unidentified in the initial Politico article that first revealed that the allegations existed, Karen Kraushaar, has admitted that she made a financial settlement and signed a non-disclosure agreement with the NRA about the complaint she filed. Cain continues, as noted by CNN, to deny any sexual harassment or wrongdoing whatsoever on his part, maintaining it is all a political plan to discredit and ruin his presidential campaign.
As one accuser says Cain is "in denial" (Bialek) and another labels the businessman a "serial denier" (Kraushaar), it should be noted that the allegations of his accusers are just that -- alleged acts and situations believed to be of a sexually harassing nature in complaints brought by them against the president/CEO of the NRA. It should also be noted that although Kraushaar was one of the women who accepted a cash settlement in return for signing a non-disclosure statement, Bialek filed no complaint. Her allegations come 14 years after the alleged act. She and her attorney, Gloria Allred, told reporters that being between jobs at the time of the incident and no longer being employed by the NRA, she was unsure with whom or what entity a complaint should be filed and subsequently did not.
But if the besieged former CEO of Godfather's Pizza is telling the truth, would it not stand to reason that he would deny the allegations? And even if he is lying to save his reputation, his 43-year marriage, and his presidential campaign, does that make him "in denial?" Hardly.
Believing he has done nothing wrong if he has been inappropriate would make him a candidate for denial.
But, again, if Cain is telling the truth about the allegations -- and there may never be any concrete evidence beyond the he said-she said testimony -- would that not make him a "serial denier" by necessity?
Of course, Herman Cain could very well be guilty of the sexual harassment allegations (or even part of them), but unless he admits to acting inappropriately, they remain nothing but allegations. The opposite could also be true -- that he is innocent of the allegations and that the women that have accused him are fabricating their stories. Unless they admit their dishonesty, the accusations still remain allegations.
So is Cain in denial? Is he just a serial denier? Or has he been telling the truth all along?
Cain said in a press conference Tuesday that the accusations would not cause him to withdraw from the GOP presidential nomination race.
Unfortunately, the truth may never be known in this he said-she said debate. But if Herman Cain wants to deny that his campaign will continue unaffected by the scandal, he might at least be in denial about something.
73 comments