Gloria Borger, Liar, Racist and Despicable Human Being: The Herman Cain Lynching on CNN (The Liar Network, and The Racit Network)

First, let me explain to Goria Borger (who does not care) and you what a SETTLEMENT is. Yes, I am an expert on this. For 30 years, I was a plaintiffs' tril attorney in El Paso,, Texas (many of those years being almost exclusively a plaintiffs' prctice, after initially being a "gneral practitioner" in a number of areas that included such practice). I entered into anhgy number of settlements. EVERY settlement agreement I negotiated had something like this language:


"This is the settrlement of a DOUBTFUL AND DISPUTED CLAIM (emphasis added, which is not to say it may not have been in some of the settlement agreements), and the parties released do not admit any liability (valididty of the claim). They are merely buying their peace,, to avoid the expense and uncertainty of litigation."


Sure, the language varied, but I assure you that the above represents the gist of a provison in EVERY settlelment agreement I ever saw (where one party paid money to the other). The "doubtful and disputed claim" language was almost universal, and is a direct quote from almost every settlement agreement I ever saw.


The point is that a settlement agreement, and the settlement itself, says NOTHING about the validity of a claim. On rare occasions, there is little doubt about LIABILITY. There is almost always doubt abut DAMAGES. A settlement agreement is NEVER "admissible" as "evidence" against the party settling, in any other proceeding. (excluding, of course, a lproceeding involving the settlemtn itself, as when all of the money is not paid). Nor is this a mere legal fiction, to encourage settlements (although civl law DOES encourage settlements, in the interest of society in avoiding spending so many resources in LITIGATION (to the benefit of HOURLY PAID lawyers, but almost nobody else).


As I said, it is RARE that a claim was "clear cut". Almost all claims for money--and almost all plaintiff claims are claims for money--really are "doubtful and disputed" claims. Yet, the legal cost of defending a claim in court can be MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. Even for a single plaintiff, and seemingly not a very large or significant claim, like that made against Herman Cain and the Naational Resturant Association, the legal cost can easily reach $100,000 or more (depedning, in part, on whre you are). Further, despite the RACISTS of CNN (like Gloria Borger), a "sexual harrassment" calim is a COST OF DOING BUSINESS. The law is VAGUE, and it is almost always a case (at least in part) of "he said, she said'. Thre does not have to be any actual INJURY (as in phyusical injury). There does not even have to be any demonstrable MENTAL INJURY (as in an actual mental disease, requiring psychological or psychiatric help). This is basically a matter of SENSIBILITIES--whether a person FEELS that they have been subjeted to language, jokes, gestures, or some other pattern of conduct creating a "hostile workplace". No business can be SURE of winning a case like that, even if the courts may tRY to weed out the least serious claims (partly bey pushing settlement). It is a business NECESSITY to settle calims that may not be valid. You can't survive, as any kind of subsdtantial business, without doing it. Again, the settlement means NOTHING as to the validity of the claim settled. It merely indicates that it was cheaper, and involved less risk, to settle than to litigate the "doubtful and disputed claim". And, despite the LIARS at CNN (their legal "expert" tonight, for exampple), it is NOT just "nuissance" calims to which this principle appplies. You may settle many claims where you thik you have almost NO clhance of losing. Those amy be called "nuisance" calims. Hwoever, youu may allso settle calims where you think you did not wrong, and are even totally convinced of it, but you nevertheless recognize a RISK that a jury may sympathize with the plaintiff, and find against you. Yu rally are not "admitting" any wrongdoing whn you settle. You really are "buying yoru peace", because it is just too costly and risky to fight "on principle".


Yes, I am teling you taht the media has conducted a SMEAR of Herman Cain by completely misrepresenting what a SETTLEMENT is, and the many facotrs going into a settlement. It does not matter whether POLITICIANS are deliberately slmearing Herman Cain. CNN and the rest of the media are conducting their own SMEAR, and that makes th;em eveil racists. They are MISREPRESENTING the "issues" involved here. INn fact, my brother (who faced this type of claim as co-owner of Shippers Transport) and I agree that Cain SHOULD be using this as an examle of the PROBLEMS government is creating for business. You dn't have to show that you were FIRED for rejecting "sexual advances" to make a claim for "sexual harrassment". Yu do not have to show that a "sexual advance' ever took place. You just have to allege (an, of course, present evidence IF you get taocourt) that the language, and other "suggestive" conduct", of peole in the workplace made you legitimately UNCOMFORTABLE. You can tell I don't like this claim. And Herman cCain could cite this HARRASSMENT of business (often by government, throgh the EEOC, Labor Department (shistel blower law, minimu wage law, etc.), using VAUGE laws where no business turly can avoid major costs, is HURTING us all.


Now to Gloria Borger, and the truly terrible Anderson Cooper and friends, tonight on CNN. They had the LAWYER representing this woamn who made the claim 12 years ago against Herman Cain. Firt, they tired to get this lawyer to FALSELY say that this "settlement' meant that Herman Cain had done something wrong. The lawyer--proving that today's "journalists" are INFERIOR to trial lawyers and less interested in the facts--merely gave tghe FACTS. Thre was a settlement, with a "confidentiatlity" clause (almsot lsurely applying nly to the plaintiff, as a party fo a SETTLMENT is BUYING HIS PEACE), and a "non-disparagement clause" (preventing the settlkng employer from PUNISHEING the former employee by spreading allegations against such employee--true or not). Yes, the legal "expert" for CNN had LIED earlier, as the earlier CNN anchor had tired to usuggest that Herman Cain had vilated the "confidentially agreement"), by saying that such agreements are usually "mutual". That is simply not ture, EXEPT that it is usal to PROTECT the settling emplyee from reprisal by such a "no-disparagement clause. Noq ir ia LQya possible,of course, for the "confidentiatliy clause" to be made mutual, but it is really the party paying money who does NOT want the settlemetn publicized. Why? Oh, come on. You can see this one. It is to keep OTHER empoyees from getting the idea that this is an EASY way to get money. It also might encurage aggressive plaintiffs' lawyers out there. This is beyond the adverse publicity from DESPICABLE PEOPOLE (like those at CNN) who take the settlement as an admision of liability.


Okay, the lawyer told the facts, including the fact that he does not know exatcly who "leaked" the SETTLEMENT to Politico, or why. Again, this is actually a red herring by CNN, trying to protect itself. It does not matter WHO "leaked' the NON-SOTRY. It is CNN, and the rest of the media RACISTS, who are SMERING Herman Cain with an UNIMPORTANT story. You can see why a settlement is NOT really a "story". It means NOTHING. If you don't undestand that, read what I wrote above. I fyou still dont' understan---always assuming my typing did not fail me--then you are readyu to apply for a job at CNN. You 'qualify" as a TERRIBLE HUMAN BEING: both stupid and willing to let your agenda control over your reason. Now the FACTS behind the settlement MAY men something, but the media are uninterested in those (unless they can LYNCH Herman Cain by USING this poor woman). The ettlement merely means that a claim was made, and says NOTHING (zilch, nada) about the merits of the claim. This is exably the opposite of how the media has been trying to "spin" this settlement. And look at the poror National Resturant Association. They, in good faith, tried to BY THEIR PEACE with a BARGAIN relating to a "doubtful and disputed claim". They have been totally deprived of tthe benefit of their bargain, as has Herman Cain (who, although not a party tot he settlement, was realy represented by the National Resturant Association in terms of obtainning a release for him, and buying HIS peace).


You think I am harping too much on what a settlemetn is? Not in view of that LYNCHING tonight on CNN---where Anderson Cooper brought together about FIVE "hanging judges' to join the RACIST LYNCHING. David Gergen? He actually suggeted to this lawyer that this settlemetn represented "compensation" to the woman for wrongdoing of Herman Cain (or maybe he suggeted it to CNN's own legal "expert"). I already told you that CNN's legal "expert" totally FAILED to explain what a settlement is all about, AND LIED in one or more places. Then there was Gloria Borger, lirar, racist and all around despicable human being. David Gergen showed himself to be a despicable human being, and participant in a LYNCHING, as did Anderson Cooper. But it was left to Gloria Borger, TERRIBLE PERSON, to 'sum up. She did not disppoint, as the main "prosecutor" at a LYNCHING.


I could nto maek this up. Borger said that--even though the lawyer produced not one word from the woman herself--what this LAWYER had said showed that the woman (the one who made the complaint 12 years ago against Herman Cain) would say that Herman Cain is a "liar", and has been "llying" about her. The clear implication was that Borger would automatically believe the woman, and further that Borger DOES NOT CARE exactly what this is al labout. To Borger, this is a LYNCHING of Herman Cain. Does Borger have FANTASIES about black men? You think that is outrageouus? ti is not nearly as uotragous as that LYNCHING I saw tonight. Need I note that the LAWYER (and you kow our reputation) carefully did NOT say what his client would say, if she spoke. He would not even say that she would speak out, even if she had the opportunity. Borger MADE UP what the woman would say--putting the words in her mough--as befits a persn justifying a LYNCHING. Talk abut "prejudging". without ever hearing any actual EViDENCE!!!! Qu.E.D. Borger is PREJUDICED--a truly despicable human being.


No, I am not through. Borger went on to say, in her final sentence, that the woman WOULD CLEARLY SAY (this woman who was not there, and has never spoken) that the settlemnt meant that she had a VALID claim. Wll, we already know that BORGER is a LIAR. If the woman truly said THAT, she would be a ""liar" (more accurately,k ignorant of what a settlment is, which cannot be used as an excuse by the people of CNN). This is, by the way, why Herman Cain should not have called the woman a "liar",m and I have not heard that he did. Saying that the claim was FALSE and BASELESS is NOT the same as calling her a "liar' In my experience, MANY peoiple have come to me with BASELESS calims that were LEGALLY false. There is, for example, the illusion of many people in Texas that an eployr has to be FAIR. Not true. an employer can be the most OBNOXIOUS, UNFAIR person alive, and fire you for NO REASON. You have no claim, UNLESS the "real" reason was race, religion, sex, ethnic origin, sexual harrassment or the like (Othe "prohibited" reasons). But these clients, and MOST of the clients for whom I actually obtainned maybe unjustified settlements, BELIEVED that they had a "valid" claim. That, too, means NOTHING. What is it about a "doubtful and disputed claim" taht you (really CNN and Gloria Borger) don't understand? The "claimant' may believe in her case. The "ccused" party may believee in its case. That is whyyou SETTLE--because it is just too costly and risky to find out who is right. In fact, Cain may BELIEVE she is a liar, when she actually is not, because Cain KNOWS his won intentions. The woman could nonly GUESS at those intentions, based on whatever "cues" she thought sehe was getting. That is why Cain shoul not call her a "liar", even while he can say that the CHARGES against him are FALSE. Now if he says that specific FACTS she alleges are lies--major facts that people would remember--then that is a different thing. Btu jsut because Cain was not "guilty" of sexaul harrassment does not make the woman a 'liar". She might have a perception problem. On the other hand. Gloria Borger IS a lliar, on the The Liar Network.


That brings us to the final point (hld the applause until we actually get to the end, since people might think you are applauding that your ordeal in reading this article is almost over). Borger almost stqated that she has already LYNCHED Herman Cain, based on what she ASSUMES the woman claimant will say. By the way, the Untied States Constitution guarantees a person the right to confront the witnesses against him, to aovid a "star chamber" proceeding. Borger is, obviously, perfectly willing to subjet CAIN to a "star cahmber" proceeding, where the woman making complaint agaisnt him gets to talk through HEARSAY, without ever hainng to say a word. Further, Borger is willing to MAKE UP what the woman will say. No more despicable human being exists on this Earth than Gloria Borger, once you excude peole like serial killers and terrorists. It is lucky Borger was not around when the Constitution was drafrted. She obviusly does not believe in FAIRNESS and EVIDENCE. Rather, she believes in LYNCHING. I digress not really).


The last point is that there is NO WAY to get at the "truth" now. CNN and the mainstream media want to conduct a lYNCHING--otherwise known as a "trial by media". But it is 12 years later, and this is NOT the kind of "claim" that can be PROVEN, one way or the othr, 12 years later. Nope. It is WRONG for the media to suggest that there are "unanswered questions", which can NOW BE ANSWERED. That is an absoute LIE. We already know OST of the facts (except the exact allegations that the woman now says she made THEN, along with whatever WRITTEN evidence there is of her "claims". We have NO WAY of detetermining, especailly at this late date, the TRUTH of the allegations. We do not even have any real way of determining whether Herman Cain ever really knew the DETAILS of the allegations 9to which he may have paid little or no attention). Nope. The media LIES> An this is what Cain has to get across. All we can really say, at this point, is that 12 years ago a claim of "inapproriate conduct" amounting to LEGAL "seaula harrassment" (maybe not my or your meaning of the term) was made against Herman Can. The "settlemetn" is IRRELEVANT for any prupose. No amount of SMEAR and RACISM--LYNCHING--by the media is gong to change that . If votger think that a mere CLAIM of "sexual harrassment" against a business executive--not amounting to the kind of obvioius sexual harrassment (demanding sex) taht we think about--disqualifies a businessman from being President, then NO "in the trenches' businessman is EVER gong to be Preisdent of the United States. If it is not THIS kind of claim, it will be another kind of claim. Businesses are SUED. Taht is a fact of life in our country, today, and some owould say that it is a fact of lie that is going a long way toward destroying us.


Thus, I stand by my endorsement of Hreman Cain (made AFTER this surface), AND my opinion of Gloria Borger and CNN. This is really NOTHIGN. Oh, I have long since uuusggested that Herman Cain could always fold under the pressure of this kind of unfair attack (orf just te overall pressure). I would say it is actually Rick Perry who has so far "folded", but Cain has had hiccups. That does nto change that the ONLY way we are ever going to get away from "politics a usual" is to stop letting the mainstream media (and pliticians) play "politics as usual' to FORCE out any ture "outsider' who runs. Nope. Obama was a leftist INSIDER, and a member of the MAJORITY in the Senate when this country went to Hell. Obam a"inherited this mess" FROM HIMSELF (along with a Presient Bush who was following OBAMA policies in his last two years).


Oh. The Natinal Restaurant Association (see, I TOLD you i was premature to applaud). The RUMOR is that someone in the National REstaurant Association "leaked" the fact (irrelevant as it is) of this settlemetn to Politico. Note thow this shows the EVIL of the media. Politico knows how committed the leak, and it is a MJOR PART of this story, but Poltico is CONCEALING this MAJOR FACT. Shame on you ,m media, for letting people ATTACkK from the shadows, USING you (willingly on your part) as ASSASSINS. This is evil stuff. But CNN, tonight. is already gearing up to DEMAND that Herman Cain tell the National Restaurant Association that he wants them to WAIVE all "confidentialtiy", to allow the woman claimant to "tell her story". Firt, realistically, the woman can tell her story NOW. Who is going to sue her? And would the courts really ENFORCE a "confidentiality caluse" to lprevent the FACTS OF TRHE INCIDENT (not of the irrelevant settlemnt) from being disclosed? I think most courts would hold this to be againt public policy, and alrealdy made such an "issue" that a court should not allow a person to be "muzzlewd". That said, Cain is INSANE if he tells the National Retaurant Asociation that he wants all "confidentiality" WAIVED. Cain KNOWS that the LONG KNIVES are out for him, including within the Natinal Restaurant Association. He probably doe NOT know what is in their files. Nor is it worht his time to make an obvius attempt to find out (although, if I were him, I would have someone doing that). This culd be like a RAW FBI file. Hell would freeze over before I would tell teh NRA that I want them to viiolate everyone's privacy, 12 years after the fact. If I were Cain, I would SAY something like that (the part about repsecting EVERYONE'S privacy). What I wqould say, if I were Cain, is that he ASSUES that the WOMAN will give her version of the FACTS (not the settlemtn), if she thinks it is important. Cain can, and should, say that he does not see that anything will happento her. HE cerftainly won't sue her, nor demand that the NRA sue her. It is up to her own conscience whether she keeps the bargain she made, or thinks what she has to say is so important that it needs to be said. Cain shold also say that he is unwilling to endorse the idea of this woman again MAKING MONEY off of him. He should say that, as far as he can see, the only reason she "needs' a WAIVER is so that sehe can SELL he story, without anyone going after the woman for the amount she is paid. Cain can, again, say that this kind of thing is DESTROYING America, and that he refuses to be any part of it . Thus, he can say that he has no problem with her, AS A PUBLIC SERVICE, discussing her view of the FACTS, but has a big problem with her MAKING MONEY off of this.


YUou can applaud now.


P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight--even if I do "see" more clearly than Gloria Borger and all of CNN combined).