Cain Accusations Would Never Hold Up in Court

I've been hearing from several people on both sides of the aisle one question: Why are conservatives defending Herman Cain?  Why is it different than when Bill Clinton was accused of sexual harassment and other, far worse charges?  Here's why:  The accusations against Cain are hearsay at best. Three of the four accusations have come anonymously and without description.  The fourth shows up only after three others came up anonymously and has so many holes in it it should be on a Turkey and Swiss sandwich, and the fifth's accusations (again anonymous) is that Cain invited her to dinner. (Apparently every woman I asked to join me for a meal was sexual harassment…even the ones I didn't have romantic intentions toward. So Grandma, the time I asked you if you wanted to go out and get a slice of pizza with me…I'm sorry.)

Back to the one and only accuser with a name and a face. There's a lot to question with this woman's story. For example, why is it you filed no charges then, made no formal complaint then, called no press conference when Herman Cain ran for Senate in 2004, and then, all of a sudden, shows up with Gloria Allred, who has a striking history of only defending leftists (while refusing to represent Juanita Broderick when she alleged rape against Bill Clinton). Or how about if someone makes such outrageous advances on you, do you ask for a ride home? Or how about why you now have no intention still of pressing any charges or suing Cain?  Or why is it you show up only after multiple anonymous claims? This is, believe it or not, is the best witness available!

These claims wouldn't last two seconds in a court of law.  There's still no real evidence. There's only one witness and her story is full of holes.  Anonymous witnesses don't count for beans in court, ever, nor should they count in court.  It's easy to stand behind a curtain and levy charges anonymously, because that's the best way to lie.  You don't give your name or your source, you just claim wildly and expect to be believed.
So yes, I am disregarding these claims until something believable comes out from credible sources. When Bill Clinton was accused, there were named, specific accusations levied.  There were witnesses and a history of those accusations being made.  They didn't just happen to show up years later only when Clinton was a candidate.  There was a long pattern of accusations dating to before Clinton's candidacy to his days as Governor of Arkansas.  Such accusations weren't new to Clinton.

But with Herman Cain it's all of a sudden. It didn't happen when he ran for Senate, it didn't happen when he decided to run for President, it happened when he became the frontrunner then, out of nowhere, these accusations come out, and they're veiled and anonymous at first. Then after a week of a non-story backed by only anonymous sources, out pops this woman whose story just doesn't add up with Democrat activist attorney Gloria Allred at her side. It's awfully convenient. 

This is why we're defending Cain: We understand the meaning of due process and innocent until proven guilty.  We do not play the game that the "seriousness of the charge outweighs the nature of the evidence."  The evidence is flimsy at best coming from questionable and mainly anonymous sources. Beyond that, sexual harassment has become any appearance of impropriety, or even not impropriety at all that caused someone to be "offended," with zero regard to whether such offense is reasonable. Then it's tried by the media where a verdict of guilty is pronounced on circumstantial evidence and sentenced to quit whatever their job or race they are currently in.  It's ridiculous.

In the end, we're defending Cain because such hit-pieces by the Drive-By Media are now standard operating procedure.  They will pull them out on any candidate they deem to conservative, and any Republican once they're the nominee.  (Don't believe me?  Where was the Media love-fest over John McCain in 2008?  Oh yeah, there wasn't one.)  They pulled it with Rick Perry and the name painted over on a rock at his family hunting camp, they're trying to pull it out with a false story about Newt Gingrich and his ex-wife.  Now they're pulling it out on Cain.  

Conservatives will actually rebuke our own when such claims are proven (just ask Newt Gingrich).  But what we will not do is let a man's reputation be trashed on heresay. Prove it with credible witnesses (plural witnesses who are ALSO credible), not with one witness who isn't credible and three anonymous claims.  Otherwise, move on, and quit trashing a man's reputation.

What's really ticking of the Drive-By Media is the fact that Cain isn't playing their game. He won't quit because he's being accused. He maintains it's not true and won't drop it. That's what an innocent man does, people! Innocent people don't admit to wrongs they didn't perpetrate because it's demanded of them. Quite frankly, the way Cain is denying this is part of what makes be believe he is innocent. I could be wrong here, but I know that Cain is a smart man.

Cain knows that he won't have the Leftwing Media defending his actions and sweeping them under the rug if he was lying, like Bill Clinton did. Yet he keeps denying it. That leaves, in my mind, two possibilities. Option one, he's a fool, and there's too much evidence to the contrary for that. Or, option two, he's telling the truth. Which means the constant barrage of "admit what you did" is simply unreasonable. You can stand and demand that I admit here and now that I robbed a bank last Tuesday…but there's one problem: I didn't rob a bank last Tuesday…in fact I've never robbed a bank. I'm not going to admit to a false accusation. I look in Herman Cain's eyes when he denies these charges, and my gut tells me he's telling the truth. (The same gut that told me Bill Clinton was lying when he said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" by the way.)

The last thing:  If you're a fan of some other GOP candidate and you think that piling on to Cain is going to somehow help your guy or gal, let me tell you something with 100% certainty:  If your guy or gal gets the nomination, there will be some other sort of gotcha perpetrated on them.  It might be an outdated name on a hunting camp that you painted over, it might be a false story about your ex-wife, it might be an attack on your religious faith, it might be a false claim of sexual harassment.  Your candidate will not be above reproach, because the Drive-By Media is not restricted to the truth.  If there's nothing real, they will make it up.  Guaranteed. If we do not draw the line in the stand and say "this far and no farther" I guarantee you that this will be the new liberal template to get any conservative out of any race. It's the seriousness of the charge, no resign. I don't care how innocent and angelic you think your candidate is…I guarantee you he or she will be the next who is slandered. The time has come to demand real, iron-clad evidence, and in the absence of such, defend our people. Period.