re: #552 Sergey Romanov

Uh, we do know something relevant. That there were two settlements. They don’t happen out of the blue.

No, not out of the blue. We know he was accused.

We don’t know why there were settlements. It isn’t because Cain must have been guilty. You cannot take away from the fact that the women were given exit packages anything about Cain. It could just as easily be that even though the claims were baseless, as Cain claims, the cost of fighting outweighed the settlement demands. This happens often. Sometimes a company goes to court, and even when they win they lose.

Nope, I don’t think it is just because there were settlements. That just doesn’t make sense. You know almost nothing about the settlements. Not enough to feel comfortable betting on these women. So you nothing about the settlements, and nothing about the women.

I would be willing to bet it must be something about Cain that makes you so certain you would bet on the women.

————————————————

I didn’t actually say these women were liars. I could not possibly come to that conclusion, because I know NOTHING ABOUT THEM. Other than the fact that they took money to stop their claims.

However in the absence of ANY FACTS to the contrary, I think it is only fair to give Cain the benefit of the doubt.