Through her lawyer, one of Herman Cain’s accusers, Ms A, says she wants to tell her side of the story.  But she is forbidden to do so by a confidentiality agreement she signed with the Restaurant Association at the time of the settlement.  She received a settlement of $35,000 contingent on the fact that she mantain her silence.  Her lawyer want the Restaurant Association to lift the agreement so that Ms A can speak openly.

Ms A’s basic argument is that Cain is going around the country telling lies about her situation and that it is only just that she be able to respond.

Should the Restaurant Association lift the confidentiality agreement so Ms A can speak?

If she speaks openly should Ms A be forced to return her $35,000 settlement?

Should Cain’s accuser be allowed to speak?

What do you think?


  1. 1

    I think that the Restaurant Assocition has never had its name printed below a picture like the one you have here, Neil.

    Whether or not she speaks, Cain`s campaign has been holed at the waterline. If she speaks without his consent,then he`ll have to pursue the matter in courts. This whole affair is so unlike the Republicans. I am shocked.

  2. 2
    Neil McKenty Says:


    I am also horrified. Cain has to deal witlh sexual misbehaviour. Then Perry gives a speech in New Hampshire while under the influence. This stuff demeans the whole Republican process.

  3. 3
    Tony Kondaks Says:

    I’d like to know the provisions of the agreement.

    Did it also bar Cain from speaking about the incident? If so, and assuming Cain has violated the terms, she should get redress in a manner determined by a court, ie the freedom to speak or additional monetary damages.

    If the terms of the agreement have NOT been violated by Cain then, no, she should not be allowed to speak, on penalty of court sanctions.

    And $35,000 does not seem to me to be a lot of money for these sorts of things. She’d probably make a million just selling her story to People Magazine…

  4. 4

    I would like to know the terms of the agreement, and someone will leak the truth soon. I am sure that there was not one modicum of protection for her in the agreement.
    Maybe she should strike a deal with i.e. People’s magazine for a million, plus legal fees and the $35,000. pay back.
    She has a right to be heard.
    This is a whole new ball game, compared to when it happened.
    The Republican party should insist.

  5. 5

    Such “confidentiality agreements” should never be allowed in the first place.

RSS Feed for this entry

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: