re: #448 Buck

Actually you are making that up. How do you know that the claims were not baseless? So far we don’t know the details of the investigation.

A) You can’t simultaenously claim that Cain wasn’t around for the end of the process on and therefore had no knowledge of the money paid, and that he knew the result of an ‘investigation’ whose end was a payout but that somehow found him blameless.

B) The result was that a settlement was made that acknowledged no fault, but it certainly didn’t find the accusations baseless. If they had, they would have fought it in court. There is no company on earth that determines claims to be baseless and then pays up anyway; they’d go broke overnight.

AND perhaps when he said he had no knowledge of payments. He might have meant that he didn’t know the exact amount, or at the time that he said it it didn’t know. I would have to have the exact quote, as you are usually just adding your spin.

I linked it in the video above. But here you go:

politico.com

“I was aware that an agreement was reached. The word ‘settlement’ versus the word ‘agreement’ you know, I’m not sure what they called it. I know that there was some sort of agreement, but because it ended up being minimal, they didn’t have to bring it to me. My general counsel and the head of human resources had the authority to resolve this thing,” Cain said.

And then:

“My general counsel said this started out where she and her lawyer were demanding a huge financial settlement,” Cain said, according to the Examiner. He told Van Susteren his accuser was given “maybe three months’ salary. I don’t remember. It might have been two months. I do remember my general counsel saying we didn’t pay all of the money they demanded.”

So he knew it existed, but didn’t know how much it was, but he knew it wasn’t as much as they were asking— which was ‘huge’— and he thinks it was three or two months.

Yeah, I’m ‘spinning’.