Saturday, 5 November 2011

Note to Cain accuser: Saying "very specific instances" does not equal specifying instances.

The still-unnamed woman communicates through a lawyer:
The lawyer, Joel P. Bennett, who represents a former employee of Mr. Cain's at the National Restaurant Association, said the accusations did not center on a single exchange that could be easily misinterpreted, which is how Mr. Cain has characterized it. Mr. Bennett said there were multiple episodes that led his client to file a formal complaint with the restaurant association.

"Mr. Cain knows the specific incidents that were alleged," Mr. Bennett said during a brief news conference outside his Georgetown office. "My client filed a written complaint in 1999 against him specifically and it had very specific instances in it, and if he chooses not to remember or to acknowledge those, that's his issue."
This is maddening. Very specific instances. Okay. That's what we need to hear about. What are they?! They don't become very specific instances because you say "very specific instances"! That's still completely abstract. Get specific. Get specific to the point where we can judge for ourselves whether the details amount to something that counts against Cain and that exposes you to a defamation lawsuit if the details are false.
Mr. Bennett described his client as "anxious" to rebut Mr. Cain's comments while maintaining her desire not to become "a public figure." 
You want to accuse and remain impervious to any tests of your truth-telling.

Mind-boggling!
Source - [...]



Submit your suggestion / comments / complaints / Takedown request on lookyp.com@gmail.com

No comments:

Post a Comment