A Cain's accuser uses the Salem Witch Trial Standard

Jack Kemp

CNN released a statement from one Herman Cain's accusers that defies normal analysis because there are no names and no details. One could call it Etherial Charges.

Let me attempt to parse the first section of this article,
http://www.news4jax.com/election-2012/Lawyer-Cain-accuser-sees-no-value-in-revisiting-case/-/1875986/4445738/-/e2054/-/ ; paragraph by paragraph.

QUOTE
One of the women who accused Republican presidential contender Herman Cain of sexual harassment released a statement through her lawyer Friday saying that she "stands by" her complaint, which was made "in good faith about a series of inappropriate behaviors and unwanted advances."
END

"One of the women" who wishes to remain anonymous yet refuses to face her accuser in a public forum. She "stands by her complaint?" Then what is her complaint? Did Herman Cain tell inapropriate jokes? Did he touch her? What did he do that was "inappropriate?" Enquiring minds want to know.

QUOTE
There was "more than one incident" of harassment involving Cain and his client over the span of a couple of months in 1999, attorney Joel Bennett said.
END

This essentially repeats what the previous paragraph said in the same vague language while adding no new facts.

QUOTE
Bennett said his client, married for 26 years, will not reveal her identity because "she and her husband see no value in revisiting this matter now nor in discussing the matter any further publicly or privately."
END

Let me translate this into English: She doesn't want to have to be cross examined by an attorney, particularly for inconsistencies in her story. She also doesn't want her past behavior elsewhere brought up in the press. Period. No value in discussing this now? Then why is this woman having an attorney discuss this in the media? It must have some value for her, perhaps of a political nature. She is - either de facto or de jure - putting a cloud over Mr. Cain's reputation and his run for the Presidential nomination.

QUOTE
"In fact," he added, "it would be extremely painful for her to do so."
END

I'm sure Mr. Cain and his wife find the anonymous accusations with no details somewhat painful, as does his campaign, despite the increase in funds raised in response to them. The only pain this woman is interested in is Mr. Cain's - and in increasing it by her nebulous actions. Of course, if this is a "he-said, she-said" story with no proof, she might get sued - and lose. And THAT would be pain she would be concerned about.

SECTION OMITTED

QUOTE
Sweeney said the association is prepared to fully release Bennett's client from her confidentiality agreement in the event she wants to disclose additional details.
END

This means that the woman making these vague charges and has the power to end the ambiguity by releasing the details of what she said years ago to the NRA.

Being made to feel pain and discomfort could cover a lot of things if one doesn't have to be specific about one's charges. It could be anything from having to walk barefoot on hot sand on a municipal beach to having to stand

while on public transportation during rush hour. I'm not trying to dismiss the accuser of Herman Cain out of hand. But for her charges to be taken seriously by the public, she has to supply details, documentation and/or witnesses.

Subjective emotional upset, even if quite true, is a starting point for an accusation, but not an end point (i.e., not a civil or criminal act) in and of itself.

In the Salem witch trials, young women said they were agitated by the presence of alleged witches who put a spell on them. And, ironically one of the male defendants who pleaded "not guilty" had a heavy load of stones pressed upon his body to force a confession.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials#Formal_prosecution:_The_Court_of_Oyer_and_Terminer
The press now is forcing itself down on Herman Cain based on the same low level proof earlier defendants had in
late 1600s New England.

Herman Cain's campaign is still very much alive because millions of Americans believe this collection of media charges against him is as empty as the Heraldo Rivera-hyped contents of Al Capone's safe. Please prove me wrong and open the safe and show me some proof, Mainstream Media. I'm waiting