After reading the news and watching the videos of Sharon Bialek, the Herman Cain accuser, I noticed that many of the articles mentioned that Bialek was fired or let go ” from the NRA’s educational foundation.” However, none of them mentioned why. Being let go or fired is more serious than simply being laid off. I wonder why there is no mention of the reason she was fired? This might give more insight into her character and whether she is a trustworthy person or not. Why was she fired? Does anyone know or has anyone seen a report as to what happened with her job in the summer of 1997? Here is more from the New York Times:
Ms. Bialek said she first met Mr. Cain during her time at the association’s Chicago office, when he sat next to her at a dinner during one of the group’s conventions. He later invited her and her boyfriend to an after-party in his hotel suite, she said.
But the alleged harassment did not occur until after she was fired, she said. Sue Hensley, a spokeswoman with the restaurant association confirmed that “Sharon Bialek was employed by the National Restaurant Association Educational Foundation from 12/30/96 – 6/20/97.”.
She didn’t work there long, I wonder what happened?
We’re not going to ever hear.
First, because it would expose the NRA to a lawsuit if she were fired for cause.
Second, because any such digging would be “smearing the victim” or something.
Third, because she’s served her purpose and will disappear.
The template is emerging. Cain is getting Palined. If you can keep a steady stream of accusers coming and going, you can create the appearance of impropriety, without ever having to actually show anything. By the time they’re done, you’ll be able to see Russia from Cain’s house.
That happens to every politician. Palin a dummy, Bush 41 a lapdog, Bush 43 the idiot, Romney a mush, Obama a muslim, etc. It all depends on how you handle the unfair template.
But Obama IS a Muslim…
I have seen no evidence that Obama is a muslim, other than by birth through his father. But it is quite likely he is an atheist and a socialist/marxist.
What’s wrong with being a Muslim, you Islamophobe!
nothing as long as you like blowing people/things up, cutting off heads, hands,toes, no tolerance for other religions…just a few things. But other then that, it’s a great peace loving religion.
“Phobia” refers to IRRATIONAL fear. It does not refer to an accurate assessment of risk.
The very term “Islamophobia” is an invention of the Muslim Brotherhood.
It’s mainstream Islamic DOCTRINE, as clearly set forth in the Qur’an and the Hadiths, that is the problem. It requires Muslims to force shari’a law on the entire world, whether anyone else likes it or not.
In other words, everybody who actually believes in Islam (and by that I do NOT mean somebody raised as a Moslem who has GENUINELY converted to some other belief) is either a foreign enemy or a subversive. Obama has NOT genuinely converted to any other faith.
But then, I don’t believe that Obama has converted to any faith, period.
Comrade Obama was a Red Diaper Baby and was born to the one true faith, communism.
For Obama or any Liberal, the news last one day tops. Cain, Palin, Bush – those stories are never ending. Personally, the Reverend Wright issue would have been enough to derail this phony president, instead the media ignored it…20 years listening to this hate mongrel??? How about a terrorist like Bill Aires? This country is lost with fools as voters…
Ah, but . . .
Her lawyer said she was given a reason for being fired – that she wasn’t raising enough money.
Further, her lawyer said that she raised more money during her tenure than during the previous two years.
While the former could not be confirmed the second could, and should, be checked.
You said something can and should be checked, right? I’m in bed for a while. Do you know anyone who is checking on it?
She was not forced into this spotlight. Normal libel rules may not apply.
Is there a “Premium” Linkedin member here? Sharon Bialek has 7 connections but only Premium members can see them. Might be worth $24.95/month to uncover a possible ‘scoop’.
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/sharon-bialek/8/840/a5a
Heh. The newest listing visible to all (under the NA one) says she is “Managing Director New Buisnes Development at CBS Radio.” (sic)
So new (or so ineffective) that she has 0 connections.
As someone pointed out here the freepers are scouring lexisnexis. Interesting person.
CBS — that was where Mary Mapes & Dan Rather used to work.
The newest listing visible to all (under the NA one) says she is “Managing Director New Buisnes Development at CBS Radio.” (sic)
So new (or so ineffective) that she has 0 connections.
As someone pointed out here the freepers are scouring lexisnexis.
Interesting person.
She is not working there any more. This is just one more of her brief spells of “employment.” She’s getting too old to keep on sleeping her way into paying jobs. With the economy as bad as it is, useless employees like her are spotted and removed.
She now has 7 connection, but the full profile does not contain any more information than here pubplic profile that has already been mentioned. Currently shows her as:
SharonBialek
NA at NA
Greater Chicago AreaMarketing and Advertising
Current NA at NA
Connections
7 connections
I’m guessing she was fired for incompetence AND moral turpitude. She probably got the job in the first place by flirting with, or more likely sleeping with, some deluded schnook who got her hired. Then, a background check probably turned up her constant financial problems, which meant that it wasn’t safe to trust her around money or property or confidential information.
But it could have been something more serious. In general, both companies and non-profit organizations avoid publicity when some employee embezzles, gives away computer passwords, passes along confidential information, takes bribes, sells drugs or turns tricks on company property or company time, or commits any of a myriad of other criminal offenses that lead to a person being fired for cause. Organizations keep mum because of the fear of lawsuits, and because they figure it will hurt the organization’s reputation.
I’ve gathered some more background on this bimbo. See the links at the bottom of this article.
Looks like the woman saw a chance to get some payback for being scorned.
It’s all one great big smear. One doesn’t do what Cain has done in his lifetime, in the way he has done it, without being a man of good character. This is why the great candidates did not run.
The “accuser” was on Piers Morgan Tonight on CNN.
Can a book deal be far behind? Movie rights?
This is the least credible “accuser” I’ve seen all in my years of “accuser”-watching, with the least credible “affidavits,” and the least credible attorney.
In short, I am not persuaded.
Correction:
This is the least credible “accuser” I’ve seen in all my years of “accuser”-watching, with the least credible “affidavits,” and the least credible attorney.
She couldn’t even read her script without giggling. Pathetic.
And Gloria Allred? No decent person would voluntarily remain in the same room with Gloria Allred, let alone transact business with her. Allred gives blackmailers and extortionists a bad name. She should have been disbarred a very long time ago.
Who is REALLY behind all of this?
Considering the Chicago connection, Rahm Emanuel most likely played some part in it too.
She put herself in the public eye. She can be investigated and I expect she will be.
I still think that Cain should offer to discuss the matter publicly and one-on-one with his accusers, no lawyers present. CNN is probably the best forum. The other good strategy is for him to issue the blanket denials and refuse to talk about it, which appears to be what he is currently doing. If I were him, I would also be asking all of my close female associates to vouch for me. It needs to be overwhelming.
Are you thinking of a Lincoln-Douglas debate?
I’m thinking it is low risk for him, and would be a point in his favor. If he was willing to do it, it would persuade some people that he has nothing to hide. The accusers aren’t likely to accept, and if they do, certainly he is more accomplished at dealing with questions than they would be.
The problem he has is somehow getting around the (relatively) unsubstantiated allegations. If he is guilty, what a horrible dilemna it is to be accused and not be able to represent yourself against the accuser; so if he can somehow get one of them to speak separate from their written accusations, he can persuade people that he is telling the truth.
You forget: We are living in Martha Stewart World, where denying your guilt is construed as “lying to a Federal agent”. We are living in Scooter Libby World, where differing memories of a conversation can get you a perjury conviction if the jury, led by a foreman who admitted later that “we would have liked to convict Dick Cheney, but he wasn’t on trial, so we took what we could get.”
If it didn’t happen, there’s nothing to discuss, is there? And he definitely should be listening to his lawyers. This whole thing is lawyercraft.
It’s public relations and problem management, not lawyercraft.
You may not be old enough to remember the Tylenol scare, but it’s the classic story. Somebody tampered with some Tylenol bottles and a few people were hurt badly or died.
Tylenol had done nothing wrong and would have been justified morally to simply say so and do nothing. Instead, they immediately pulled every Tylenol bottle off every shelf, at least in the US, maybe worldwide. Within a few months they replaced them all with tamper proof bottles. Today, the cost would probably approach 100 million and make them unprofitable for the year in question. Decades later, Tylenol is still a major, money-making brand.
But in the Tylenol case there was an actual problem that could actually be addressed–not the manufacturer’s fault, but still, something real and tangible.
I don’t see the parallel here—we don’t even know exactly what are the allegations and it’s all cocooned in non-disclosure issues.
there are actual problems: two settled cases, and a public, detailed accusation.
Pretending those aren’t problems doesn’t make them go away.
The NRA is a trade association.
It a special interest for the people who own restaurants.
It a primarily a political organization as most non-profits are.
The dirtiest politics that I have ever seen in my lifetime is CHURCH politics.
She most likely got fired because of organizational politics. She was not kissing the right asses within the organization or maybe someone with more pull wanted his relative to have her job.
There is a lot of interoffice politics played in the game of business but if you are a productive worker you will most likely keep your job because you are carrying the load for the other half who are not productive.
Maybe she just wasn’t very good at what she was hired to do. since she never challenged her termination do you suppose that might be what we’d call a CLUE?
Maybe she just wasn’t very good at what she was hired to do.
That is a possibility but excuse me for being cynical but I am not sure that people who work at trade associations have work products most of us common folk would be familiar with.
This is primarily public relations and marketing which means she was hired as eye candy no more, no less.
She was decoration and after a while people like to change the decor no matter how attracted to it they were in the beginning.
If you don’t have enough money to avoid working, where would you get the money to challenge your employer’s decision to “let you go”? If your employment was “at will”, they can “let you go” for no reason at all.
And she was getting fired continually along with a bankruptcy and (maybe) a phoney paternity suit against an executive. (The sentence is poorly worded but that’s what it sounds like to me.)
http://tinyurl.com/7alr8k3
[ABC News link]
Or maybe she was running up a lot of restaurant bills with out much to show for it?
Having listened to Bialek read her statement in a mechanical, affectless manner wholly divorced from the substance of what was being read, I find it impossible to believe she is telling the truth. Were she doing so, there would have been some tremor of emotion or personal involvement as she recounted her tale—indeed, if she were a good enough actress to sound so flat and affectless despite the unsettling occurrences she was relating, she would have been able to feign sufficient emotion to sound as though the incident had actually happened.
I have not supported Cain getting the nomination, and still do not. But I regret that he is being ganged up on by the Innuendo Squad.
I think it’s pretty obvious that Cain is scaring the Obamites’ bladders empty. The chutzpah of running a real, genuine full-blooded African American against the Hawaiian Halfsie.
I am reminded of the comment by—IIRC—some general of the Crimean War looking over his troops; “Gad, sir—they may not frighten the enemy, but they certainly frighten me!”
I am not convinced that Cain scares Obama and his handlers, precisely—but I do believe that he fouls their “narrative.” He is a Genuine Black American Success Story, and he looks and sounds like what he is. You can’t keep ‘em down on the farm after they’ve seen Paree, and it’s gonna be hard to keep blacks down on the Democrat Plantation after they’ve listened to Herman Cain. He torpedoes Obama’s racist whinging at the waterline, he ruins the slagging of the Tea Party as “racist” since Cain is the Tea Parties’ darling, etc.
I confess, I enjoy watching him do it, and I agree that Cain’s rough edges are a welcome respite from the sleek boys of the GOP who seem all too willing to accept permanent minority status as long as Democrat Massa throws them a bone now and then. But Cain does not have the knowledge, the experience, or the fast turning radius necessary to become the next President.
We can talk about Cain’s qualifications separately. I’d vote for Pee Wee Herman if he ran against Barack Obama. At least he’s a master of something.
“But Cain does not have the knowledge, the experience, or the fast turning radius necessary to become the next President.”
How can you possibly write this with a straight face? Regional manager for Burger King. CEO of Godfathers. CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. CEO of the National Restaurant Association. Successful talk show host. Member of several corporate boards.
What in God’s name are your standards for President?
Cain has made a number of howlers when asked about foreign policy—howlers about things you’d have expected him to have thought about and have either prepped on himself or have been prepped on. I have listened to his interviews and heard him dodge many questions; indeed, I listened to his debate with Gingrich and heard him defer to Gingrich—”You answer first”—because it was obvious he had no clue how to reply and wanted to be able to hitch a ride on Newt’s response. Newt was smart enough to agree, knowing that those not blinded by adulation for Right-Wing Obama would pick up on Cain’s attempt to cover his incompetence.
Cain has shown a willingness to play a bogus race card himself—that little “insensitivity” thing regarding the hunting camp rock. He has shown a willingness to lash out, without evidence, at his competition. Neither of these things endear him to me.
And Cain has absolutely no familiarity with the workings of the federal government from a legislative or an executive perspective. He will have to be a queen bee, fed royal jelly by his handlers, relying on them to get things through Congress and telling him what to do about over-regulation and how to deal with departments and committees; he himself has absolutely no clue.
He could be clueless about the government’s workings if he were a foreign-policy genius; he could be clueless about foreign policy if he were experienced in the ways of government. But I don’t care how quick a study the man is—there are only 24 hours in the day, and he’s gotta sleep sometime. He is not equipped to do the job. If he were the human resources person, he would not hire himself—if he were honest.
Don’t get me wrong—I like Cain. Had he even had a single stint in government, even at the state level, where he had to deal with committees and competing interests and regulations, I’d say he was a strong candidate. He’s not, though. People wanted him to be—I wanted him to be. But he’s not the guy.
Sorry.
Don’t forget his naval experience.
I know all of this cannot compare to say Obama’s but really..
“And Cain has absolutely no familiarity with the workings of the federal government from a legislative or an executive perspective.”
How is this bad?
I don’t think we’ll turn the country around by continuing to put the people who got us here in power.
Rob Crawford says, “I don’t think we’ll turn the country around by continuing to put the people who got us here in power.”
The “people who got us here” will, inevitably, remain in power, at least in part—no matter how well the election goes for those of us who would like to see many of them defeated.
In order to ensure that some of the damage of recent decades—I do not lay all of the blame on Obama, though he has certainly added whipped cream, chopped nuts, and a cherry to the shit sundae—is truly undone for a long time to come, it will have to be undone with at least the acquiescence of at least some of those who we currently regard as the opposition. If it is merely rolled over the other side, then we are going to be in a state of near civil war for the immediate future; that may be inevitable, but it is preferable that that be avoided.
That means that we need someone who not only will stand firm against statism, but will be able to—sorry if you don’t like the phrase—”reach across the aisle” to the Democrats (there are a few) who are not merely communists in democrats’ clothing. There needs to be some element of bipartisanship in the change of course; genuine bipartisanship, not the empty rhetoric that Obama has been slinging.
There also needs to be some knowledge of how the regulative process works. Whole reams of regulations need to be repealed, whole departments and agencies eliminated—but this can only be done intelligently by someone who understands what exists and how it got there. The total outsider is not the guy.
Yes, after 2008 no one on the left should get away with saying someone is inexperienced… Obama sets the modern major league record for no relevant experience.
Those on the right can point to Obama’s failures and credibly argue that point, I think. Helps if they weren’t in California backing Ahnuld, tho.
The inexperience is bad enough, but the real howler is the 9 9 9 plan.
Did he design it expressly to have it demagogued by the left? If not, then it is simply the dumbest plan of all time. Did nobody on his team notice that the poorest of the poor would have their taxes go up by 18% while the richest of the rich would have their taxes cut in half, or more. Slap head, slap head.
It’s like he popped onto the planet with no knowledge whatsover of the prior 50 years of political life in the US.
“What in God’s name are your standards for President?
Using political gamesmanship to be elected to political office – where you can vote “present” time after time, and avoid actually taking a position/sarc.
romney doesn’t have the “credentials” either, and being a one term governor doesn’t provide enough either. And Obama certainly didn’t have credentials. Everyone is always selective in their assessments.
Well said Buzz. I agree completely, including the take on Herman Cain, the frivolous charges, and the fact while I like Herman Cain, his foreign policy knowledge wouldn’t rate a good high school forum. Cain did not know China a nuclear power?
The reason Cain is being attacked is quite clear. Cain is the antithesis of victimhood, he’s liked by Conservative whites and did it without affirmative action help, and the fact Cain himself is Conservative – an existential threat to the Democratic narrative and most dependable voting bloc.
Hey, Tex! Nice to see you.
I initially wanted Cain to be the guy. After his fourth or fifth major backtrack/”I misspoke,” though—he seemed to be racking up one every other week for a while there—he lost me. Yes, I enjoyed (still enjoy) watching him make heads explode, but 2012 is comin’ ’round the mountain pretty quickly, and it’s time to put away childish pleasures.
Not just that but, with Obama’s utter failure in everything he’s touched, the only thing they have to campaign with is to smear the Republicans as racist. That’s their strategy for this election. They want Cain eliminated not just from the President slot, but from being anyone’s VP, either. He foils their strategy and they have absolutely nothing else.
“Cain did not know China a nuclear power?”
Actually, when he worked for the Navy during the Vietnam era, he was tasked with plotting trajectories for their nuclear-tipped missiles. What he was talking about was their desire to become a nuclear NAVAL power (i.e.: carriers).
Sure, he garbled the answer, but buying the spin just means you don’t know anything about the man’s past.
That was Sir Arthur Wellesley, later the Duke of Wellington, looking at his newest reinforcements (many culled from prisons) during the Peninsular War.
Well done, Marty. Spot on.
“But Cain does not have the knowledge, the experience…”
i can make this case in regards to any and every president who has ever served.
a very subjective and broad breakdown of the ‘areas’ of expertise:
economics, foreign policy(military), and communication skills.
objectively, newt has the best average of the three areas. cain is holding his own, sans foreign policy.
If you were paying attention to all the debates and previous statements from Mr Cain you would have known he has been touting the Chilean model from the beginning. So what did Newt bring up at the “debate”? The Chilean model. Mr Cain has also written several articles re China when he was part of the NEW VOICE-long before this race. Read them.
he himself has absolutely no clue.
There isn’t a person who has taken office who has any real idea of what foreign policy issues they might face or the inner workings of the office. You’re throwing out a bogus and irrelevant comment re foreign policy.We only need to know a few things here; That Cain will stand with our friends, not support our enemies and support Israel. That’s all i need to know.That’s all anyone needs to know.When it comes down to making that decision we don’t need a policy wonk-we need a leader who has his own core values to stand on.You’re just plain WRONG.
Mr Cain also knows that our national security is dependent on our economic security and the way things are going he’s JUST the person we need in the White House. You’re wrong on all counts sir.
What you wrote was well said.
Cain misspoke when asked about Israel releasing prisoners for a hostage.
He did not listen to question because he wanted to so very much to support Nethanayu.
He knows our friends from our enemies as few in the party elites presently do.
America has no greater friend on the world stage than Benjamin Nethanayu.
I have paid enough attention, Boxerpaws, to know that Cain, however much I may admire his career and respect his heart and his head, does not know his way around Washington. If the successor to the current disaster boy is to have a shot at correcting Disaster Boy’s follies, that successor must know his way around Washington.
I will not vote for a Shane, even if he is as charming as Herman Cain. Shanes only work in the movies.
Reagan did not know his way around Washington either.
His choice of that dweeb David Stockman proved that.
But Reagan knew something worth knowing, crazed lone assassins do not take shots at those who know their ways around Washington and how the game is played.
Reagan, as governor of California, had learned his way around an executive office and a bicameral legislature, with hands-on experience that he was able to take to Washington.
Herman Cain, for all his charm, has not.
Was Hinckley really a lone assassin, or was he inspired by the climate of hate instigated by eliminationist left-wing rhetoric, perhaps an electoral map with some ominous symbols?
– you and your spouse know the law. Hearsay. If Cain sues so your questions can be asked in interrogatories, request for admissions or depositions, he takes the bait and keeps the story alive into the primaries. The whole effort of the media now is to destroy him, even though the no-questions-allowed presser nobly calls for a President who — oh, the press doesn’t bother to report that stated criteria, perhaps because Obama himself meets none of them.
I have not supported Cain getting the nomination, and still do not. But I regret that he is being ganged up on by the Innuendo Squad.
I have been for Cain from the beginning and I do not regret what they are doing to him.
This is not about Cain so much as it is about elitism and populism.
The party elites and the media elites want to select the candidates as they have since Reagan left office.
The candidates since Reagan have put this country in the sorry state we find ourselves.
Cain’s popularity is not about a great man which Cain may or may not be, as such a conclusion could only be made if he became President.
Cain’s popularity is that he is not cozy with the elites in the Republican Party or the media.
A vote for Cain may not be vote for Cain but a vote against the bums who run the Republican Party as well as the bums who run the media.
NEWFLASH; A VOTE FOR HERMAN CAIN IS A VOTE FOR HERMAN CAIN.this is what the media said about the Florida vote.Well,i was getting tweets from the ppl in Florida at the time-it was not an anti Perry vote.It was a pro Cain vote. But the media ran with their story anyway;i heard from the folks who were THERE
You can run this narrative all you like-but there’s not a lick of substance to it. The folks supporting Herman Cain want him for Potus.It’s that simple and the nay sayers here are voting for other ppl.Good for you but your arguments are not convincing.
I apologize for not making my arguments convincing.
NEWFLASH; A VOTE FOR HERMAN CAIN IS A VOTE FOR HERMAN CAIN.
I agree with that and I believe that those who vote for him want him to become President.
But I also believe that the people who vote for him are not PERSONALLY invested in him and do necessarily believe in his personal attributes.
He support comes because he is seen as vessel for change and the expectations are not lofty, only that he will not be the same old, same old.
Cain needs to sue her for slander if he is innocent.
Nonsense. Proof of such defamation is difficult at best; if there were only two parties to the alleged incident, how could he prove that she lied?
Slander/libel suits are an open invitation to fishing expeditions. Everything in your life can and will be used against you in a court of law. The court does not tell slanderers that they have to prove their allegations with what they knew at the time, just that they prove such. So they go fishing in your diaries, journals, financial records, etc….
Who has more to fear from a fishing expedition? If he isn’t prepared to sue her for slander–and this is a clear-cut example of something that even survives the Sullivan (1964) castration of libel law–then it does not say much for his willingness to call her a liar.
Unless libel law has changed, he does not have to prove that she lied. SHE has to prove that he did what she said he said.
Libel law has not changed, you are mistaken. As plaintiff in a libel action, the burden would be on Cain to prove his claim.
And he’s a public figure which makes libel almost impossible in itself. Plus, unless there is overt coercion, sexual harassment is subjective and based on what the woman perceives about the event; hard to get that to a “knowing falsehood” standard.
If she is investigated I would not be surprised to find out that she is a dem activist and, contrary to her claims, is not a Republican or Tea Party supporter.
If she is a Republican as claimed, wouldn’t she be registered as such in Illinois? Should be easy enough to check (easy as in Rick Perry’s transcripts, not hard as in Obama’s transcripts).
Knowing *when* she registered would be good to know too, as in registered recently to add credence to the claim, or many years ago.
Update, from the Chicago Tribune: Gloria Allred described her client as a ‘registered Republican’, but the 50-year-old does not have an active voter card in Illinois, election officials said. The state does not allow voters to register by party, but records show she pulled a GOP ballot in the 2008 primary.
A lot of people vote in the “other” primary in order to get the lamest candidate facing “their” guy (see “Kevorkian, Jack”). I registered D in the ’80′s because Indiana R primaries were really boring, in fact. Of course, most people are registered the way they vote, but I don’t see a “real” Republican hiring Gloria Allred. Ms Bialek’s choice in lawyers is a clear signal that this isn’t real; they’re borking him.
She probably got fired for not putting out.
/
Alred screwed up. She needed to find a woman who, in addition to being sexually harrassed, was also an illegal. That would’ve cinched it.
Hell, it worked with Meg Whitmann.
“When Sharon Bialek said that he was with Herman Cain at the Chicago TEA Party event with Herman Cain I reached out to one of the key voices and leaders of the Chicago TEA Party C. Steven Tucker and he says “I did not recognize her Chuck and I was there all weekend.”
I have been reaching out to my other friends in the Chicago TEA Party and so far no one recognizes her. Gloria Allred portrayed Bialek as a TEA Party Republican. Having seen her picture Bialek is not someone who goes unnoticed easily.
Tucker comments further:
I have spoken at Tea Party events ALL OVER Chicagoland including TeaCon Midwest 2011 where Gloria Allred says her client “confronted” Herman Cain. I have never seen nor have I ever even heard of a Sharon Bialek.
Steven Tucker with Herman Cain Steven Tucker with Herman Cain
Steven Tucker with Michelle Bachman Steven Tucker with Michelle Bachman
Steven Tucker with Sarah Palin Steven Tucker with Sarah Palin
Bailek has not been seen at any other TEA Party events. Even if she had gone to just one, why go to the one with Herman Cain and no others? It makes no sense.
Sharon Blailek said that this happened in 1996 so where was Blailek when Herman Cain was running for Senate in 2004?
We have been doing internet searches on Sharon Bialek. Her linkedin and all social networking/employer networking sites where her name appears seem to have been scrubbed. When you are telling the truth, why make the attempt to scrub your past?
Speaking of not making sense, why would a supposed Republican TEA Party activist/sympathizer call a known leftist hatchet man like Gloria Allred, as any association with Allred would impune her credibility?”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2803851/posts
“The fiance of Sharon Bialek tells WBBM Newsradio that Bialek just told him about the alleged sexual harassment on Friday evening.”
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2803912/posts
“Who can turn down $5M+ put in an offshore bank account is someone else’s name to lie about sexual advancements made by Herman Cain? Sharon Bialek, a Chicago Liberal and possible agent of the Obama campaign, has been accused of making false accusations against Herman Cain for sexual harassment. But Sharon Cain’s case may begin becoming unglued when a private investigator, who has requested to remain anonymous until such a time when she will present empirical evidence proving that Bialek is a paid liar set up by Democrat operatives to destroy Cain campaign. The source also confirms that agents of eh Democrat party also plan to launch the same against Romney.”
http://www.dividedstates.com/sharon-bialek-paid-undislcosed-amount-to-lie-about-herman-cain-sexual-harrasment-charge/
Looks a little suspect?
is not a Republican or Tea Party supporter.
The fact that she claims residence in the socialist state of Chicago pretty much eliminates any association with the Republican Party or the Tea Party.
The reason she worked there less than 6 months before being let go, I imagine, was that she was a new hire and probationary employee who wasn’t working out. Because she wasn’t working out, they terminated her just short of 6 months, because after that they’d be responsible for paying some of her unemployment benefits if she didn’t get something quickly.
That’s an excellent supposition, Dan.
Unless they’ve foolishly done it to themselves with policy or employment contracts, she’d be about as close to a true “at will” employee as you get. The standard is pretty much, any reason, no reason, but not an illegal reason, and there aren’t a lot of illegal reasons, although discrimination and harassement are illegal reasons.
Most state UI systems penalize a voluntary quit with some weeks of loss of eligibility and likewise a dismissed for cause, but the most I’ve heard of is six weeks or so. For UI purposes, probationary status is meaningless except as it relates to a “for cause” separation. The Hospitality Industry is about as high turnover and operation as there is in the Country, so I would expect the NRA’s HR people to be pretty familiar with UI rules.
It looks to me like the HR/General Counsel types did a good job and got this one out uneventfully and got at least two others out with cheap settlements.
In my experience political operations generally and political operations in capital cities are a mindfield of malcontents, serial complainers/litigants, and women making horizontal career moves and men who are foolish enough to play with them. Many low level employees are on paper at least very overqualified and are there to make connections and open opportunities and are constantly on the make. While Cain had some government experience long ago, life in the corporate world would not have really prepared him for a workplace where some significant percentage of the employees are just looking for something to sue you about. The general run of office banter in most of the private sector will get you on the front page in most capital cities.
“Who can turn down $5M+ put in an offshore bank account is someone else’s name to lie about sexual advancements made by Herman Cain?
I love conspiracy theories.
I just do not think that Barry’s crew fear Herman Cain at this point.
Illinois and Iowa are not really Tea Party states. The Republican crowd are all Rinos.
That talk show host in Iowa that did Herman dirty claimed to be a conservative.
I do not know if she was at the Tea Party events or not but I do feel she has Illinois Republican ties.
If there is a conspiracy to take Herman down, it was fueled by Republican elitists as Herman so honestly said in the beginning.
I think the woman is telling a half-truth and the media would love to take any Tea Party candidate down as would the both the Democrat Party elite as well as the Republican Party elite.
Can a lawyer or LE person on the list explain why a man who physically touches a woman while asking for a sexual act (which she rejects) would be guilty of “sexual harassment,” but not assault and/or battery?
It would be a battery under the common law and a sexual battery under most state law. That said most batteries, including sexual batteries, are never reported.
This is like Bill Clinton’s “nuts and sluts” defense. And it turned out the “nuts and sluts” were telling the truth and the President was lying. Let’s get to the truth before we trash the woman.
What’s with the “I have a boyfriend” as a way to deflect a groping hand up her skirt?
And the lecture on do this for America because we have problems and we need leaders? It sounded a bit like a PSA.
Sorry, I should be more open, but there was something off-key about her delivery and the content. Maybe there was something impolite or even harassing or whatever.
It’s nothing like “nuts and sluts”–It’s called a fair investigation of charges made at a suspicious juncture under odd circumstances by a woman accompanied by a lawyer correctly compared Al Sharpton.
“It’s nothing like ‘nuts and sluts’”
You must be looking at a different thread, because the attacks on this thread come very close to those against Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, and Kathleen Wiley.
You must be confusing “nuts and sluts” with a reasonable defense.In any event Clinton had his snakes out making that defense and Cain has simply denied the charges without sullying her character or having his operatives do that.
Samples of the “reasonable defense” – “This filthy woman is just looking for a big payday”, “the woman saw a chance to get some payback for being scorned”, “frivolous charges”, “Bialek is a paid liar set up by Democrat operatives to destroy Cain campaign.”
To be clear – you’re accusing the Cain campaign and its official spokespersons of making these charges? Please provide links. Otherwise you’re full of shit.
Antimedia, I don’t normally respond to personal attacks, but please note that
I said “the attacks on this thread” and quoted from some of them. I don’t know what, if anything, Cain sock-puppets may be saying.
If you’ll remember, it was Christopher Hitchens who blew the whistle on Clinton adviser Sidney Blumenthal for spreading the “nuts and sluts” stories. From his affidavit:
“During lunch on March 19, 1998, in the presence of myself and Carol Blue, Mr. Blumenthal stated that, Monica Lewinsky had been a ‘stalker’ and that the President was ‘the victim’ of a predatory and unstable sexually demanding young woman. Referring to Ms. Lewinsky, Mr. Blumenthal used the word ‘stalker’ several times… I have knowledge that Mr. Blumenthal recounted to other people in the journalistic community the same story about Monica Lewinsky that he told me and Carol Blue.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/hitchenstext020699.htm
Cain’s defenders are starting to sound a bit like Blumenthal. That said, I don’t now whether the sexual misconduct stories are true, or not.
Bruce, there’s a world of difference between a member of a political team spreading such stories, and random persons on the internet doing so. As you well know you can find any kind of filthiness and hyperbole you want to quote on the internet. I thought you were accusing the Cain campaign of engaging in the same sort of “nuts and sluts” garbage as Clinton’s team did. That’s why I challenged you.
I’ll grant you the reactions of some on the internet have been well overboard, but good grief, that’s always the case.
Blumenthal worked for the Clintons, both of them. So did Carville, who said on national TV about Paula Jones that if you drag a 20-dollar bill through a trailer park….
Didn’t hurt their careers in the media and Democrat Party one little bit, did it?
Did an anonymous commenter call this woman “filthy” on this thread?! How horrible! That means Cain must be a very bad man!
Go to Michelle Malkin’s website and type “hate mail” into the search feature. That’s the Democrat Party today.
So, why does Gloria and her almost American bimbo squad get to veto any Republican candidate of her choosing whenever she likes. They’re most likely all lying through their teeth. The one who knocked out Whitman turned out to have been ‘discovered’ by a union, somehow curiously allied with the Democrat party. Keep it up, and I’ll vote for Herman just because Gloria doesn’t like him.
Bringing accusation from 15 years ago and no charges? This filthy woman is just looking for a big payday. She is already talking about her new hairdo. Victim, my a$$.
She’s racked up quite a resume:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2803981/posts?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
The IRS is after her. There’s a lien on her property. She has two bankruptcies and paternal fights over a son she had with a married CEO. She hasn’t kept a job for more than two years, and she’s past the limit where she can now file for bankruptcy yet again.
Perfect target for some fast cash. She may be telling the truth, but if the stories about the payoff come true, this will turn in Cain’s favor.
In the links provided above re: Sharon L. Bialek vs. Cook County…
Who was the Attorney of record in “ILLINOS (sic) LENDING vs. BIALEK SHARON”? AXELROD, DAVID L & ASSOC.!!!??? Bam’s Chief of Staff!?
https://w3.courtlink.lexisnexis.com/cookcounty/Finddock.asp?DocketKey=CAAJ0MB0BFIICG0MD
Clerk of the Circuit Court, Cook County
Case Information Summary for Case Number
2009-M1-158826
Wrong Axelrod.
Yeah, the Obama advisor is David M. Axelrod, not David J. Axelrod. DMA’s firm was named “Axelrod & Associates”. Not sure how long it existed after being formed in 1985, since it looks like he’s been involved in politics full time for decades.
So, following your logic, only a financially secure, pristine woman can be mistreated. That’s idiotic.
Nice try. No, I’m saying that someone who is in deep financial trouble may be more easily corruptible than someone who is financially stable.
15. Dan Collins
Sure, that fits the generalities. The interest would be in the specific reason she “wasn’t working out”. I found it interesting that he stated reason for the meeting with Cain was to try and get another job with the NRA Foundation she had just been terminated from, or at least some other job in the organization she was just let go by.
I suppose that might be explained by her having worked in NRA in another city, but I don’t know that that is the case. Does the NRA have office in several different cities? Did she work in the Chicago office and was looking for a job in another office, say, DC?
Yes. She worked in the Chicago office. She met with Cain in Washington (allegedly) to discuss the possibility of a reassignment rather than being fired.
it sickens me that folks on the right are going after bialek like the left did paula jones and broderick and flowers.
cain should quit the race.
his inappropriate behavior to women is hurting the gop almost as much as it has ruined him.
Would it sicken you if you found out she was lying and Cain was innocent?
NOT LIKELY.
WE CAN CHECK THE HOTEL AND RESTAURANT TO PROVE SHE WAS THRERE AND ALSO SHE HAS A SWORN AFFIDAVIT FROM SOMEONE SHE TOLD AT THE TIME OF THE EVENT.
GET REAL.
THERE IS NO AGW, CO2 IS BENIGN, AND CAIN IS GUILTY.
reliapundit
NOT LIKELY.
WE CAN CHECK THE HOTEL AND RESTAURANT TO PROVE SHE WAS THRERE AND ALSO SHE HAS A SWORN AFFIDAVIT FROM SOMEONE SHE TOLD AT THE TIME OF THE EVENT.
GET REAL.
THERE IS NO AGW, CO2 IS BENIGN, AND CAIN IS GUILTY.
Hotel records maybe, restaurant records doubtful. What is the date of the affidavit? Unless it was sworn to and dated 1997, its value is questionable. It is still he said, she said at this point. That no corporate complaint was filed at the time is interesting. This would have been great leverage for a job/payout at the time. Guilt is beyond reasonable doubt (criminal) or preponderance of evidence (civil), We’re a long way from either so far. Is Cain “The One” for Republicans? Who knows
In the election, I’ll vote for whoever is the GOP candidate. But in the primaries, I still intend to vote for Cain. I just don’t trust Romney; if he becomes president, conservatives will need to watch him like a hawk – or should that be, “hack”?
Why destroy Cain? A:Obama cannot defeat Cain in a head to head match up. They’ve done the polling and know Cain must not be the Reb nominee. The Dems know that Cain would get 25-30% of the black vote. If you look at the election numbers from 2008 and then the numbers from 2010, you will see that there are 14 states that Obama won in 2008 that he has almost no chance of winning in 2012 (if he does not get ALL of the black vote.) It’s all about electoral votes folks. I ran the numbers with Cain getting just 15% of the black vote, and Mr. Cain is the next President of the United States.
Furthermore: Here’s why you know this was a complete lie…They identify Ms. Bialek as a Republican. This is to try and get some credibility. But why would a Republican go to a Democrat operative like Ms.Alred? They wouldn’t. Did Ms. Alred offer to represent any of the women who accused Bill Clinton. No. Why? She is a dyed in the wool Democrat. So one lie exposes that we are dealing with liars.
On top of this — the causual attitude of Ms. Alred in referring to Mr. Cain while trying to destroy him is stunning, and further proof of the lie.
The Obama campaign would wait for e general election. If any campaign is behind this it would be a GOP rival who would gain from Cain being knocked out of the race.
I disagree. I think Cain represents an existential threat to the Democrat party, not just Obama, and they want him out now, before any primary votes are cast.
Hi Bruce, you make a very valid point. You almost convince me…But the Obama campaign can’t take a chance. I believe they know exactly who they want to run against, and how they will defeat him. (my guess is they want Romney) Romney will be not be easy to defeat, but the Dem machine will get a guaranteed 95% of the crucial black vote. This will be over 15 million votes. Also the Evangelicals will not turn out in mass for Romney. Unfortunate but true. So Pres. Obama wins a narrow victory in 2012. I believe, there may be some Repub efforts to bring down Cain, but this show with Ms. Alred I’m guessing is Dem Ops. Don’t you find it interesting that Ms. Bilek currently lives in Chicago of all places? But again, you make a good point.
Obama can’t risk having a black man anywhere on the Republican ticket. Cain (and his momentum) has to be erased now. The only strategy Obama has left is calling the GOP racist and to do that he must be running against a fully white ticket so Cain must go. And he must be so damaged that he can’t even help with campaigning.
Gloria Allred is not helping anyone from the GOP.
Oops — all of the above to say that I agree with you, JBG.
Cain has switched over to blanket denials so he doesn’t have to worry about tripping up on details. It’s the old Clarence Thomas defense. Play the race card, then refuse to go into details. I would bet my last dollar he did what they said. No question in my mind.
On Klavan’s thread I took you for a Romneybot, but it turns out you’re anita of hill.
Go ahead and stick around – tell us you’re opinion of sexual harrassment. Why were Clinton’s frolics okay?
Err, touting the Clarence Thomas defense as bogus ony works if you believe his accusers. David Broder, among others, did a pretty good job of pointing out who was lying, and it wasn’t Thomas.
I find it hard to believe his accusers, when they haven’t come forth for over a decade and they really have nothing besides a he-said, she-said story. There’s no way any of this would prevail in court, so Cain’s detractors are trying to throw enough mud to make some stick. They know that it’s almost impossible for Cain to successfully counter their accusations in court due to the laws on libel.
In short, he’s being Palin-ized.
Hey, william, did you agree with Harry Reid when he proclaimed Clarence Thomas “an embarrassment to the Supreme Court,” and, “I think that his opinions are poorly written.” This was after saying Scalia was “one smart guy”.
And did you agree with Mary McGrory when she called Justice Antonin Scalia “a brilliant and compelling extremist” — while dismissing Thomas as “Scalia’s puppet”?
Did you laugh when Ted Rall and others drew cartoons portraying Condoleeza Rice as Aunt Jemima, Butterfly McQueen from “Gone With the Wind,” a fat-lipped Bush parrot and other racist cliches?
I’d be lying if I said I hate to play the race card on you, but if you answered yes to these three questions, you’re a white Democrat bigot, like bull of connor.
Thanks to Ms. Coulter: http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-11-02.html
To Josh S,
I was being facetious as crazed lone assassin is satirical code for someone who was incapable of being a lone assassin.
John Hinckley was not functionally capable of taking care of himself as was testified to by his parents let alone capable of stalking and coming within millimeters of assassinating one of the most securely guarded world leaders on the world stage. Crazed lone assassins have LITTLE to do with left or right and are all about the elites who do not give a twit about ideology only raw political power.
Hinkley was not lying he wanted to impress Jody Foster because that was how he was programmed by his masters.
Am I a conspiracy buff, of course I am.
Mort Sahl said it all. No one in America writes much these days and why is it every crazed lone assassin leaves a diary?
Oliver Stone is leftist and Communist of the highest order but that does not mean that he could not have gotten a couple of things right about the JFK assassination.
My wife writes in varies personal journals. Does this mean she is also an assassin-in-waiting?
She wasn’t very good on “Blossom”, but at least that gig lasted longer.
Don’t know if this is true but it’s as sourced and verifiable as anything else in this whole round of stories…
http://macsmind.com/wordpress/2011/11/07/sharon-bailek-remembered-by-a-co-worker-as-a-time-waster-and-rabble-rouser-if-she-didnt-get-her-way-she-cried-sexual-harassment/
To Buzzsawmonkey,
Obviously you are a professional politician owned by the Republican Party elite.
You reveal that by clearly invoking the importance of knowing one’s way around Washington.
But when that is revealed by my post, you clearly take the defense by walking backwards as all elitist politicians do when they must defend their logically indefensible statements. You show your utter contempt for geography by somehow invoking coastal confusion and equating Sacremento with Washington.
I rest my case.
Buzzsawmonkey
I have paid enough attention, Boxerpaws, to know that Cain, however much I may admire his career and respect his heart and his head, does not know his way around Washington. If the successor to the current disaster boy is to have a shot at correcting Disaster Boy’s follies, that successor must know his way around Washington.
I will not vote for a Shane, even if he is as charming as Herman Cain. Shanes only work in the movies.
November 7, 2011 – 5:32 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
norm
Reagan did not know his way around Washington either.
His choice of that dweeb David Stockman proved that.
But Reagan knew something worth knowing, crazed lone assassins do not take shots at those who know their ways around Washington and how the game is played.
November 7, 2011 – 5:45 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
Buzzsawmonkey
Reagan, as governor of California, had learned his way around an executive office and a bicameral legislature, with hands-on experience that he was able to take to Washington.
Herman Cain, for all his charm, has not.
November 7, 2011 – 6:17 pm Link to this Comment
While I am perfectly willing to admit that the Republican Party has too many insiders who exhibit a supine careerism, I am not prepared to discard the baby along with the bathwater.
Anyone who is honest will admit that while an infusion of populism can restore vigor to our political life, it is utterly moronic to insist on unnecessarily re-inventing the wheel.
Moronic? I’ll tell you what’s moronic. Passing a bill that borrows $350 billion dollars we don’t have and calling it a cut. Moronic? How about raising the debt ceiling so we can borrow more when we’re already so far in over our heads we have little hope of every paying the debt off.
That’s the problem with people in DC. They think everyone else is moronic and only they have the answers. But from the vantage of the great unwashed, y’all look like a bunch of criminals who could care less about destroying the country so long as you get yours. And that applies equally to many Republicans as it does to many Democrats. There’s damn few people left in that swamp that have a single ounce of ethics left, and the country would be better off if Iran nuked DC and we started over in….say…Indianapolis.
I’m almost finished with my sentence in Beltwayland; I-495 was the B ship landing zone. They are nowhere near as smart as they think they are.
It’s going to take a rocket scientist to fix the mess both sides have made.
You can’t “harass” someone after they are no longer employed.
If sex is a quid pro quo for an employment decision (i.e. a job) then it’s sexual harassment.
Which is why Cain’s supposed: “you want a job or not” is just too unbelievable. Dollars to donuts Allred wrote that script and stuck that in because it’s the only thing in the ridiculous story that smacks of actual harassment. And it’s textbook.
So why, if he was going to risk everything by tying a job to putting out, did he take “no” for an answer and just drive her on home? It doesn’t wash.
Its so unlikely that the National Restaurant Association paid tens of thousands of dollars to two other women in settlement of sexual harassment claims against Cain – a fact not in dispute.
If those women had had a case, their settlements would have been
in six figures, not five; They were paid their relative pittance
because the costs, financial and otherwise, of going to court,
and winning their case, would have been higher for the NRA.
That’s false. It is not a fact not in dispute. First of all, all we really know is that the NRA gave severance pay to one woman. That has been confirmed by the NRA although the amount was undisclosed. The rest was “reported” by Politico, which is tantamount to a DNC memo. In any case, there was no “settlement” as Cain attested in his press conference. A “settlement” is a legal term of art. Whatever the one woman got, it was an agreement between the NRA and her and Cain was not involved.
I have liked Cain, would have backed him. This sex stuff is repulsive. He could have explained his side of the story about the cases investigated by the NRA twelve years ago, not being bound by non-disclosure. I dislike Alred, but her client’s story sounds true to me — serious enough to be disqualifying for me, not serious enough to go to the police. People like Clinton, Edwards, Spitzer, and —- I fear — Cain are drawn to politics and to sexual excess. I wish we could do better. Eventually, I will vote for any Republican against Obama and his crew, but I’d rather not have to hold my nose doing it.
Sure, four people just made up these accustions because they have nothing better to do with their time. And the Restaurant Assn. just paid a settlement because it had nothing better to do with its money. It’s a great big conspiracy–a liberal conspirary, a media conspiracy, instigated by those Leftie Occupied groups? Yep, that’s it. They MUST be lying scum becasue they are Democrats and don’t agree with me. Oh, and the Swift Board was true, right, because they were on our side…. You people are moronic.
So instead Herman Cain is a serial harasser, yet only did it at the NRA? These people only came forward when he became the front runner for the nomination? Ever read “The Crucible”?
Ever hear of the Duke rape case? Why did she lie? Because she felt she would benefit. These women knew that they could “get paid” by simply making accusations. Easy gig. Embellish an encounter just a little bit, get an easy $50,000. (Although I imagine they thought they would get much more.)
In the 90′s there was quite a little “sexual harrassment” industry going for some lawyers. The tiny amounts these women received prove these were false accusations.
Real sexual harrassment payed out in the hundreds of thousands.
Dems want to eliminate Cain because the polling shows he will he will take 25 to 30% of the black vote.
Bye Bye North Carolina, Minnesota, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, PA, and Florida.
Hello President Herman Cain.
Paula Jones got $850,000. Juanita Broaddrick got an IRS audit.
My problem with her story is that to get her job back, which she seemed to have for less than a year, she contacted the head of the organization after prodding by her boyfriend, met said head for dinner and got into a car with him despite being 2 block away. Am I missing anything? That just doesnt make sense.
The reason given by Alred was that they said she wasn’t raising enough money which was countered by Alred’s claim that this wasn’t accurate and that she’d raised more money than they had before. Fundraisers who don’t raise $$$ fast enough are gone pretty quick. It’s also a good excuse to use for other reasons. The problem is that they can’t discuss why she was let go or they open themselves up to a major lawsuit. She and her lawyer on the other hand can say almost anything for the reason she was let go. Since she and her lawyer are taking out a conservative the media will belive everything she says and anyone that causes her problems is attacking the victim, making them a victim again. If Cain tries to pull a Clinton and his Bimbo Erruption team (many are either journalists or commentators now. Heck 3 work for CNN alone) the media will curcify him unlike their support for Clinton.
I really love the pundits saying he should get it all out first. If nothing happned what do you say besides it never happened and her description of events isn’t true.
According to this story, she was fired from the NRA for falsely accusing her boss of sexual harassment. http://macsmind.com/wordpress/2011/11/07/sharon-bailek-remembered-by-a-co-worker-as-a-time-waster-and-rabble-rouser-if-she-didnt-get-her-way-she-cried-sexual-harassment/
“she was fired for falsely accusing her boss of sexual harassment”
The linked blog entry doesn’t provide a name or source for this information. I think we’re heading into “nuts and sluts” territory.
Thanks for clarifying your position. Anonymous sources for Politico – A-OK. Anonymous sources for Pat Dollard – Bogus!
Nice to know your bias.
Who can turn down $5M+ put in an offshore bank account is someone else’s name to lie about sexual advancements made by Herman Cain?
Sharon Bialek, a Chicago Liberal and possible agent of the Obama campaign, has been accused of making false accusations against Herman Cain for sexual harassment.
But Sharon Cain’s case may begin becoming unglued when a private investigator, who has requested to remain anonymous until such a time when she will present empirical evidence proving that Bialek is a paid liar set up by Democrat operatives to destroy Cain campaign. The source also confirms that agents of eh Democrat party also plan to launch the same against Romney.
Herman Cain’s campaign sent out the following statement:
Herman Cain’s campaign just e-mailed us a statement.
“Just as the country finally begins to refocus on our crippling $15 trillion national debt and the unacceptably high unemployment rate, now activist celebrity lawyer Gloria Allred is bringing forth more false accusations against the character of Republican front-runner Herman Cain.
All allegations of harassment against Mr. Cain are completely false. Mr. Cain has never harassed anyone.
Fortunately the American people will not allow Mr. Cain’s bold “9-9-9 Plan”, clear foreign policy vision and plans for energy independence to be overshadowed by these bogus attacks”
A fourth woman said Monday that presidential candidate Herman Cain engaged in sexually inappropriate behavior with her more than decade ago, though Cain was not her supervisor at the time.
Sharon Bialek, is the first woman to publicly accuse Cain of inappropriate behavior, Bialek is claiming that Cain made sexual advances towards her in 1997, claiming he put his hand under her skirt and pushed her head toward his crotch after a they had dinner together. Bialek claimed also that Cain backed away after she asked him to stop.
Bialek acted out her scene today at a press conference trying to muster up her best dramatic performance saying “I want you to come clean, Mr. Cain,” which wasn’t very convincing as she appeared in a New York City press conference at the Friars Club with her Celebrity attorney, Gloria Allred, who ONLY takes these kinds of cases. Gloria is a vulture and if I through a dress on and claimed any Conservative or Republican made a sexual advance or abusive gesture towards me, I could get her to represent me pro bono. Allred is laughingly known for her sly media savvy and for preying on women who have she convinced to launch legal suits against the rich and powerful. Especially if these rich and powerful are NOT Liberals or Democrats. I wonder why Allred didnt chase down the massage therapist who claimed Al Gore made sexual advancements.
Bialek does not plan to sell her story or file a lawsuit against the Republican candidate for the White House. She said she was let go from the National Restaurant Association’s Educational Foundation in the summer of 1997 and asked to meet him for coffee a month or so later in Washington, to ask for his assistance with her job search.
She said she booked herself a room at a hotel two blocks from the White House and when she checked in, it was upgraded to a suite by Cain. They went to dinner at an Italian restaurant and after dinner Cain made unwanted advances toward Bialek in the car.
When she asked what he was doing, she said he responded by rhetorically asking her: “You want a job, right?”
She said she made it clear she was not interested and Cain backed off.
Who can turn down $5M+ put in an offshore bank account is someone else’s name to lie about sexual advancements made by Herman Cain?
Sharon Bialek, a Chicago Liberal and possible agent of the Obama campaign, has been accused of making false accusations against Herman Cain for sexual harassment.
But Sharon Cain’s case may begin becoming unglued when a private investigator, who has requested to remain anonymous until such a time when she will present empirical evidence proving that Bialek is a paid liar set up by Democrat operatives to destroy Cain campaign. The source also confirms that agents of eh Democrat party also plan to launch the same against Romney.
Herman Cain’s campaign sent out the following statement:
Herman Cain’s campaign just e-mailed us a statement.
“Just as the country finally begins to refocus on our crippling $15 trillion national debt and the unacceptably high unemployment rate, now activist celebrity lawyer Gloria Allred is bringing forth more false accusations against the character of Republican front-runner Herman Cain.
All allegations of harassment against Mr. Cain are completely false. Mr. Cain has never harassed anyone.
Fortunately the American people will not allow Mr. Cain’s bold “9-9-9 Plan”, clear foreign policy vision and plans for energy independence to be overshadowed by these bogus attacks”
A fourth woman said Monday that presidential candidate Herman Cain engaged in sexually inappropriate behavior with her more than decade ago, though Cain was not her supervisor at the time.
Sharon Bialek, is the first woman to publicly accuse Cain of inappropriate behavior, Bialek is claiming that Cain made sexual advances towards her in 1997, claiming he put his hand under her skirt and pushed her head toward his crotch after a they had dinner together. Bialek claimed also that Cain backed away after she asked him to stop.
Bialek acted out her scene today at a press conference trying to muster up her best dramatic performance saying “I want you to come clean, Mr. Cain,” which wasn’t very convincing as she appeared in a New York City press conference at the Friars Club with her Celebrity attorney, Gloria Allred, who ONLY takes these kinds of cases. Gloria is a vulture and if I through a dress on and claimed any Conservative or Republican made a sexual advance or abusive gesture towards me, I could get her to represent me pro bono. Allred is laughingly known for her sly media savvy and for preying on women who have she convinced to launch legal suits against the rich and powerful. Especially if these rich and powerful are NOT Liberals or Democrats. I wonder why Allred didnt chase down the massage therapist who claimed Al Gore made sexual advancements.
Bialek does not plan to sell her story or file a lawsuit against the Republican candidate for the White House. She said she was let go from the National Restaurant Association’s Educational Foundation in the summer of 1997 and asked to meet him for coffee a month or so later in Washington, to ask for his assistance with her job search.
She said she booked herself a room at a hotel two blocks from the White House and when she checked in, it was upgraded to a suite by Cain. They went to dinner at an Italian restaurant and after dinner Cain made unwanted advances toward Bialek in the car.
When she asked what he was doing, she said he responded by rhetorically asking her: “You want a job, right?”
She said she made it clear she was not interested and Cain backed off.
“They went to dinner at an Italian restaurant and after dinner Cain made unwanted advances toward Bialek in the car.”
She contacts HIM. They have dinner out. He makes advances in the car? ::shock::
Spare me.
According to this blog she was fired for claiming sexual harassment.
http://macsmind.com/wordpress/2011/11/07/sharon-bailek-remembered-by-a-co-worker-as-a-time-waster-and-rabble-rouser-if-she-didnt-get-her-way-she-cried-sexual-harassment/
And Bill Kurtis has some very telling comments on radio today
http://wlsam.com/FlashPlayer/default.asp?SPID=16521&ID=2329023
Barack Obama’s campaign style: Go negative, stay clean – Ben Smith/Politico
“If the catchphrase weren’t already taken, you could call Barack Obama’s signature style of negative politics “leading from behind.””
Someone is trying to tell you something…
Note the dates. She was fired before she had been there six months, it was still a probationary period. Letting her go then doesn’t count against unemployment insurance, two weeks later would.
Or she’s part of some conspiracy. There’s probably a Rockefeller involved at some level, too.
So, if all that she said were true, why would the accusation be harrassment rather than assault? Does not make any sense.
I’ve seen people make a big deal about the fact that he upgraded her suite, but I don’t see what the big deal is about that. I do that all the time for business associates that I know if I have a contact at the hotel. As head of the NRA, he probably did that a lot.
What if this woman offered sexual favors to Cain for help securing a job, and he refused her advance, and she felt scorned. I have as much proof of this scenario as she does of her version.
That was what I suspected from the get-go.
Or it could have been that she was running low on funds (as usual) and offered oral sex in return for cash. Cain refused, and she was, and is, too much of an ego tripper to handle a little rejection. That would explain why this bimbo can’t make it in a sales job.
It would also be pudent to ask why she hasn’t been able to maintain employment since being fired…which makes it sound even more serious.
Second-hand accounts of former colleagues and friends say she is a sleazy harlot who flirts and sexualizes her way through life.
And Cain has absolutely no familiarity with the workings of the federal government from a legislative or an executive perspective. He will have to be a queen bee, fed royal jelly by his handlers, relying on them to get things through Congress and telling him what to do about over-regulation and how to deal with departments and committees; he himself has absolutely no clue.
He could be clueless about the government’s workings if he were a foreign-policy genius; he could be clueless about foreign policy if he were experienced in the ways of government. But I don’t care how quick a study the man is—there are only 24 hours in the day, and he’s gotta sleep sometime. He is not equipped to do the job. If he were the human resources person, he would not hire himself—if he were honest.
Don’t get me wrong—I like Cain. Had he even had a single stint in government, even at the state level, where he had to deal with committees and competing interests and regulations, I’d say he was a strong candidate. He’s not, though. People wanted him to be—I wanted him to be. But he’s not the guy.
The people who’ve ran this country into the ground for decades meet all of your “qualifications.” Look where they’ve taken us. They can quote all of the policy and issues and all went to the right Ivy League schools. They’ve enriched themselves and bankrupted the rest of us. And you want more of them?
If you want someone to start fixing the problems, demanding that the person be exactly the same as the ones who’ve bankrupted us is absurd. It’s the old saw, “one definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different outcome.”
Forgive me for being blunt, but what you are saying is: “the people who knew what they were doing did the wrong thing, therefore what we need is people who don’t know what they are doing.” That is moronic. It is a prescription for disaster. What we need are people who know what they are doing and who are willing to do the right thing.
Hard to find, you say? In short supply, sez you? No sh-t, Sherlock. Such people always have been hard to find, have always been in short supply. But that is what we need—not somebody who may have nice moral ganglia but no clue whatever as to how to use them.
In the meantime, people who mistake expertise for moral deficiency are idiots.
Buzz,
Just because someone disagrees with you, it doesn’t mean that person is stupid.
Are you sitting down? Sometimes, sometimes, you aren’t quite as right as you’d like to be. In fact, sometimes you’re wrong. I know it’s difficult for you to accept, since I’ve been reading quite a few of your posts. But Larry J isn’t an idiot for disagreeing.
And sometimes (don’t read this if you’re still shaken by the first part; I don’t want to send you over the edge)? People make decisions based on their own personal value systems, and it just isn’t your place to deride them just because they aren’t like you. In fact, some of us think better of Larry BECAUSE he doesn’t agree with you. Kind of like how Herman Cain becomes more appealing to a lot of us just because the msm/dnc/rnc is after him like this.
So, to the discussion above. “the people who knew what they were doing did the wrong thing, therefore what we need is people who don’t know what they are doing.” isn’t what we’re saying. It’s “The current people think they know what they’re doing, so they won’t stop screwing it up. Herman Cain doesn’t know exactly what he needs to do yet, but he has a much better track record of solving problems once he learns what he needs to do, and he’s fully aware that he needs to know more.” The “stupid” label won’t stick; Purdue is a highly regarded university so no one can pretend it’s like University of Idaho. It’s an “Ivy” in the engineering and computer science world.
UPDATE:
Co-Workers Claim she was fired for……FALSE ACCUSATION OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT
http://macsmind.com/wordpress/2011/11/07/sharon-bailek-remembered-by-a-co-worker-as-a-time-waster-and-rabble-rouser-if-she-didnt-get-her-way-she-cried-sexual-harassment/
I find myself wondering what kind of woman discusses a 14-year-old “unwanted advance” with her 13-year-old son – - and then takes his advice on whether or not to go public with it?
She said her prime reason for going public was because her 13-year-old kid told her to, and she wants to be a “good role model.”
Wonder how long it takes little ‘Johnny’ to ask if if Daddy’s really Daddy, based on timing alone?
There’s a great deal of this woman’s story that sets off the ‘crazy person’ alarms in my head. A bunch of her statements just don’t seem to add up.
For some reason the song “Borderline” just popped into my head. Huh.