Joel Bennett held a press conference moments ago on behalf of his client who alleged sexual harassment charges against Herman Cain, and it amounted to a big fat zero of any relevant information to this. The woman doesn’t want to reveal her identity or her side of the story. What’s interesting is that the NRA, according to their statement below, would have released her from the confidentiality portion of the agreement to allow her to vocalize her side of the story. But they still opted not to. So, end of story.
Here is the NRA’s statement:
“We have seen the statement Joel Bennett released earlier today on behalf of his client, a former employee of the Association. The Association consented to the release of that statement, at the request of Mr. Bennett’s client.
“Based upon the information currently available, we can confirm that more than a decade ago, in July 1999, Mr. Bennett’s client filed a formal internal complaint, in accordance with the Association’s existing policies prohibiting discrimination and harassment. Mr. Herman Cain disputed the allegations in the complaint. The Association and Mr. Bennett’s client subsequently entered into an agreement to resolve the matter, without any admission of liability. Mr. Cain was not a party to that agreement. The agreement contains mutual confidentiality obligations. Notwithstanding the Association’s ongoing policy of maintaining the privacy of all personnel matters, we have advised Mr. Bennett that we are willing to waive the confidentiality of this matter and permit Mr. Bennett’s client to comment. As indicated in Mr. Bennett’s statement, his client prefers not to be further involved with this matter and we will respect her decision.
“The Association has robust policies designed to ensure that employees with concerns may bring them forward for prompt investigation and resolution, without risk of retaliation. The Association is fully committed to equal employment opportunity and to an environment that is free from any discrimination or harassment.”
The agreement was made between the NRA and the client with no admission of liability. And Cain, just as he said, wasn’t a party to the agreement.
Also, remember how the press wanted to make a big deal out of the fact that Herman Cain used the word “agreement”? Just to point out, that’s exactly the word used in this statement. What does it matter? Not much at this point.
So, all in all, this is over and there is nothing to indicate that Cain did anything wrong. Let the Cain Train keep rollin’ on!
—