[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

If Trump Cared About Israel, He would Stop the Genocide Why do you think Henry Ford was such a hardcore Antisemite? In Case you miss Bad Journalism Bobby K Jr was Exiled For Saying This: Quantum Meets AI: Morgan Stanley Maps Out Next Tech Frontier 670,000+ Swept Away as Dams Burst in Canton China, Triggering Deadly Flood! Senate Version Of Trump Tax Bill Adds $3.3 Trillion To Deficit, $500BN More Than The House; Debt Ceiling Raised By $5 Trillion Iran Disables GPS, Joins China’s Beidou — The End of U.S. Satellite Dominance? Ukraine's Withdrawal From Anti-Personnel Landmine Treaty Could Haunt Generations 71 killed in Israeli attack on Iran's Evin Prison Practice Small, Daily Acts Of Sabotage Against The Imperial Machine "EVERYONE'S BEEN SHOT UP HERE": Arsonists Set Wildfire In Northern Idaho, Open Fire On Firefighters, Police In Ambush Trump has Putin trapped, and the Kremlin knows it Kamala's comeback bid sparks Democrat donor meltdown amid fears she'll sink party in California Russia's New Grom-A1 100 KM Range Guided Bomb- 600 Kilo UKRAINIAN CONSULATE IN ITALY CAUGHT TRAFFICKING WEAPONS, ORGANS & CHILDREN WITH THE MAFIA Andrew Cuomo to stay on ballot for NYC mayor in November general election The life of the half-immortal who advised CCP (End of CCP in 2026?) Millions Flee China’s Top Cities Violence begets violence: IDF troops beaten, choked, rammed by Jewish settlers in West Bank Netanyahu Says It's Antisemitic For Israeli Soldiers To Describe Their Own Atrocities China's Economy Spirals With No End In Sight, Says Kyle Bass American Bread Cannot Be Sold in Most Countries Woman Spent Her Life To Prove 796 Babies were buried under Catholic Home Japan Got Rich Without Getting Fat US Spent $495.3 million to fire 39 THAAD Missiles Private Mail Back Online Senior Israeli officials tell Israeli media that they intend to attack Iran after ceasefire. Palestinian Woman Nails Israeli Tucker Carlson: Marjorie Taylor Greene:

(s)Elections
See other (s)Elections Articles

Title: Hilton Hotels: We Will Not Release Any Information on Cain Stays or Upgrades
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/campa ... rmation-cain-stays-or-upgrades
Published: Nov 10, 2011
Author: Jim Geraghty
Post Date: 2011-11-10 01:27:32 by RickyJ
Keywords: None
Views: 295
Comments: 22

David Trumble, senior director for corporate communications for the Hilton hotel chain, replies to my inquiry on whether Herman Cain ever rented or upgraded to a suite in their Washington hotel in July 1997: “The hotel has a privacy policy which prohibits releasing specific information regarding guests. Thank you for your understanding.”

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

#1. To: All (#0)

All Cain has to do to prove at least one of the women are lying is to let Hilton release the records. I think we all know he won't do that.

God is always good!

RickyJ  posted on  2011-11-10   1:29:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

National Review.

The long knives are out for Cain.

Lysander_Spooner  posted on  2011-11-10   1:35:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Even Newt is seeing Cain as a problem now. LOL!

He is starting to be appear as the Democrats secret weapon.

God is always good!

RickyJ  posted on  2011-11-10   1:38:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

What Cain needs to do is file a lawsuit for defamation and slander and serve the targeted accusers making these claims of sexual assault and serve them interrogatories and put them on the hot seat and get them to state their assertions under oath. Get this under oath!

purplerose  posted on  2011-11-10   1:40:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I am at a loss for why you are defending this man.

You know he would take down these women if he could, he can't.

God is always good!

RickyJ  posted on  2011-11-10   1:49:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I'm not defending Cain on a personal level. I don't even care for the man or his politics at all. I am defending the principle of this matter. It's is strange that Gloria Allred is representing these individuals but would have nothing to do with the likes of REAL VICTIMS like Paula Jones and Juanita Broderick who were really victims of sexual assault by former Pres. Bill Clinton. This claim against Cain is a joke. If he has any balls he would have his lawyer(s) sue the hell out of all those making these wild assertions.

purplerose  posted on  2011-11-10   1:56:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

What Cain needs to do is file a lawsuit for defamation and slander and serve the targeted accusers making these claims of sexual assault and serve them interrogatories and put them on the hot seat and get them to state their assertions under oath.

Cain already settled with TWO of these women.....lol. He was served on sexual harassment charges and he settled. Yer killin' me with this defamation and slander routine. : )

" If you cannot govern yourself, you will be governed by assholes. " Randge, Poet de Forum, 1/11/11

"Life's tough, and even tougher if you're stupid." --John Wayne

abraxas  posted on  2011-11-10   2:16:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

If he has any balls he would have his lawyer(s) sue the hell out of all those making these wild assertions.

He and his lawyer already settled regarding these so called "wild accusations"......TWICE. TWICE that we know of so far. lol

" If you cannot govern yourself, you will be governed by assholes. " Randge, Poet de Forum, 1/11/11

"Life's tough, and even tougher if you're stupid." --John Wayne

abraxas  posted on  2011-11-10   2:18:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

If he has any balls he would have his lawyer(s) sue the hell out of all those making these wild assertions.

Slander and libel cases are almost impossible to prevail in today's legal climate, we got's R Wrights !!!

Lysander_Spooner  posted on  2011-11-10   2:46:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

He and his lawyer already settled regarding these so called "wild accusations"......TWICE. TWICE that we know of so far. lol

Yeah, no one settles for 45 grand if they did nothing wrong and do so twice to two different women. The NRA probably asked him to leave after the second one was settled.

God is always good!

RickyJ  posted on  2011-11-10   3:17:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Cain already settled with TWO of these women...

No, he didn't.

Cain was accused only after he left the organization. Legally, it is actually much easier to make an accusation if the accused has already left. It drives up legal costs considerably to try to drag someone (with their own lawyers) back in to investigate and take the matter to trial.

Cain says he didn't even know about it. This is actually quite likely to be true.

Cain should be rejected for his stupid 9-9-9/9-0-9 with its dumb national sales tax and bizarre exemptions, for his lack of a real campaign organization, for his incompetent staff, for his gaffes and flipflopping.

It may be that he has handled this so poorly that people see him as unprepared. Which is the real problem with Cain.

TooConservative  posted on  2011-11-10   5:59:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I believe that you're right on this score.

As far as a filing a libel suit goes, as has been suggested here, Cain is a public figure and he has a higher hurdle to jump than most of us. He has to prove malice.

But, yeah he is unprepared. He's not a professional politician like Romney. This won't matter to many Republicans though. Cain supporters smell blood. They know that if they can get their man on ticket, O'bummer will be hurting in many sorts of ways.

The PTB have decreed eight years for the dope that inhabits the WH. This won't be denied by some upstart. They'll not let Cain pass. The "long knives" are indeed out.

randge  posted on  2011-11-10   6:27:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Cain says he didn't even know about it. This is actually quite likely to be true.

Cain should be rejected for his stupid 9-9-9/9-0-9 with its dumb national sales tax and bizarre exemptions, for his lack of a real campaign organization, for his incompetent staff, for his gaffes and flipflopping.

No, it is not likely to be true. Even if the employee accused of sexual harassment is a former employee, the attorney would notify and request a statement or better yet a deposition. That's how these he-said/she-said settlements proceed. There is never any payout in a vacuum.

True. However, his BS about not knowing is just that.....BS. IMHO, he handled it poorly because he opted for the BS routine.

" If you cannot govern yourself, you will be governed by assholes. " Randge, Poet de Forum, 1/11/11

"Life's tough, and even tougher if you're stupid." --John Wayne

abraxas  posted on  2011-11-10   12:38:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

He has to prove malice.

Anybody that says something that is false against somebody has the right to sue for slander and defamation regardless of whether they are a public figure or not. Case law does not dictate that law but reveals evidence of existing statutory law where one may exercise their right to sue provided they have proceeded in a timely manner as well as their having standing to sue and court having jurisdiction to entertain their lawsuit.

purplerose  posted on  2011-11-10   15:53:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Cain won't sue cause he knows he would lose. He wants this to all go away, but it won't, there are more to come out soon. Even Newt is seeing Cain as the liability he is to the Republican party. He is dragging the whole party down by not admitting he did something inappropriate here.

God is always good!

RickyJ  posted on  2011-11-10   18:05:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Cain was accused only after he left the organization

That is not true, just the way it appears cause they "asked" him to leave before settling with these women. He knows everything about it, to think that he doesn't is really dumb.

God is always good!

RickyJ  posted on  2011-11-10   18:16:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

There is never any payout in a vacuum.

Actually it does happen more often than you think. And with virtually no evidence. The second accuser was trying to claim in her next job that she was harassed by a joke email, comparing men and women to computer counterparts, not even any sex jokes in it.

You're a dude, you won't get it until it happens to you or someone you know. Men get railroaded on this stuff. The early to mid-Nineties were rife with it, following the Clarence Thomas business.

TooConservative  posted on  2011-11-10   18:20:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

You're a dude, you won't get it until it happens to you or someone you know. Men get railroaded on this stuff. The early to mid-Nineties were rife with it, following the Clarence Thomas business.

lol......I'm not a dude.

Actually, I do know several others to which this has happened, attorneys no less. No men are immune and, yes, men do get railroaded in this stuff. However, I've never heard of one payout without some depositions on the matter or, at a minimum, statements from those involved. Cain surely supplied those to the legal team and did not suffer amnesia over it.

Cain handled this situation like a dupe, opting for BS rather than straight talk and it will hurt him in the end, IMHO

" If you cannot govern yourself, you will be governed by assholes. " Randge, Poet de Forum, 1/11/11

"Life's tough, and even tougher if you're stupid." --John Wayne

abraxas  posted on  2011-11-10   18:26:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

All that you say is true, but appellate decisions have come down that demand a higher standard of proof in slander and liable actions on the part of the accuser. I believe that it's characterized as "actual malice" whereas, in the case of us ordinary mortals, all that must be shown is a more or less willful publication of untrue but injurious information.

Mark Lane writes about this extensively in an appendix to his JFK assassination book Plausible Denial in which he holds this standard to blame for much that is wrong in public life in this country. Powerful public figures with lots of skeletons in the closet who are outed by investigators are spared the admonishment that they should sue their accusers because the bar to a successful suit is so high. There are any number of things for example, that have been said about the Bushes or the Clintons for which there are tons of circumstantial evidence but no smoking guns. You and I might be expected to sue in such cases but not the high and mighty among us. They are never asked, "If it ain't true, why don't you sue?" They can answer, "I can't sue unless I can prove malice." This is how they get off that hook.

randge  posted on  2011-11-10   21:10:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I believe that it's characterized as "actual malice" whereas, in the case of us ordinary mortals, all that must be shown is a more or less willful publication of untrue but injurious information.

Means, motive and opportunity are key to linking actual malice. And to get to the malice part you have to get inside the head of the accuser to understand what is driving them (motivating) them to make such assertions.

And I have to kindly disagree with you re ordinary mortals held to a lesser standard. Say for example that a school throws out a student based on their conservative views and smears the student's record. That student can sue for intentional malice and well as defamation and libel, if the information was transmitted to third parties.

purplerose  posted on  2011-11-11   16:39:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I'm not saying that you can't attempt to hold someone liable for malice in a suit of defamation (libel or slander) as a garden variety accuser. THE COURTS SAY, however, that as a public figuure, an accuser who seeks to get a judgement in such cases IS held to a higher standard, and actual malice must be proved. This is such a high standard that it is virtually impossible to get a judgement in these cases.

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964),[1] was a United States Supreme Court case which established the actual malice standard which has to be met before press reports about public officials or public figures can be considered to be defamation and libel[2]; and hence allowed free reporting of the civil rights campaigns in the southern United States. It is one of the key decisions supporting the freedom of the press. The actual malice standard requires that the plaintiff in a defamation or libel case prove that the publisher of the statement in question knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity. Because of the extremely high burden of proof on the plaintiff, and the difficulty in proving essentially what is inside a person's head, such cases—when they involve public figures—rarely prevail.

en.wikipedia. org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan

randge  posted on  2011-11-12   15:51:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Squirmin' Herman is toast.

From his lame commercials, to his lame 999 stuff, to his lame jokes - stick a fork in 'im.

Break the Conventions - Keep the Commandments - G.K.Chesterson

Lod  posted on  2011-11-12   16:02:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]