While Herman Cain's sexual harassment troubles have been going on for over a week now, the three women who made the accusations were bound by settlement agreements from discussing the details of the incidents. Unfortunately, this lack of detail made it easier for some to dismiss the claims as irrelevant or even falsified, using the bizarre one-two argument that you can't pass judgment on Cain without knowing what happened and whatever did happen was probably just a misunderstanding these women used as an opportunity to get money. But now a fourth woman, Sharon Bialek, has come forward (with noted media-savvy lawyer Gloria Allred at her side) with a similar claim — and she's able to speak freely about her charges against Cain.

So, what happened? Did Cain maybe tell Bialek that she was wearing a nice skirt and she just doesn't know how to accept a compliment? Did he tell a racy joke and she, like all dour, fun-hating feminists, overreacted? No and no: he tried to put his hand up her skirt and pushed her head toward his crotch in exchange for helping her get a job, allegedly. Via Politico:

Bialek, a Chicagoan, had raised money for the restaurant association before being terminated in 1997, Allred said. When she lost her job, Bialek reached out to Cain for help.

"Mr. Cain instead decided to try to provide her with his idea of a stimulus package," Allred said.

Bialek detailed Cain's sexual overture, explaining that he spent money on a palatial hotel suite for her at the time of their meeting. When they saw each other in the evening, Bialek said he put his hand on her leg, "reached for [her] genitals" and pushed her head toward his crotch.

When Bialek objected, Cain asked her: "You want a job, right?"

First of all: so, so gross. Second of all: terrible joke, Gloria. Third of all: still so gross! It should be stated, obviously, that this is Bialek's word against Cain's; I'm not even sure how something like this would be "proved" as undeniably true or false. But the fact that Bialek didn't file a suit or look for a settlement, nor is she now; she simply wanted to come forward to support the women who could not disclose the facts of their own incidents. And no matter how you slice it, this doesn't look good for Herman.

Commentarium (14 Comments)

Nov 07 11 - 7:49pm
Eric

This liberal doesn't love Bill Clinton. I wish he resigned.

I am, however, well aware that now anybody who worked with Cain and didn't like him may slander him.

Nov 07 11 - 8:31pm
Tim

@Greg are you seriously comparing a legal, mutual indescrition to sexual harrasment?!?!

Nov 08 11 - 12:00am
Greg (not the fake)

Uhhh, Paula Jones was not legal, mutual, etc, forget about that one?
Of course there also was Juanita Broderick, and Kathleen Willie.

Nov 08 11 - 11:19am
Publius

Also Kathleen Willey (sp?). Let's not forget that the mutual indiscretion was with an employee. It doesn't rise to the level of the others but it was breathtakingly bad judgement.

Nov 08 11 - 11:18am
Publius

I'm a big Herman Cain fan and just watched an interview with Bialek. I no more believe her than I do him, in the absence of more data but Cain needs to explain himself.

I do agree, though, that the accusations are similar to those made against Clinton but if Clinton did what he was accused of, it was wrong. If Cain did what he is accused of it, too, is wrong.

Disqualifying for high office? That's for each voter to decide.

Nov 08 11 - 11:20am
Publius

Wow - sorry for the run-on sentences.

Nov 08 11 - 3:02pm
Failed Strategy

If your favorite candidate does something wrong, blame it on someone else and then point to Bill Clinton.

Nov 10 11 - 1:25am
Publius

If my "favorite candidate" is accused of doing something wrong, then it needs to be investigated but an accusation is not, by itself, proof. I admit that I'm taking this more seriously based on this woman coming forward.

I will say that her behavior earlier this fall is strange and I just read that she lives in the same building as David Axelrod. I'm not sure if that's true but if it is then that, too, needs to be investigated. I mean, what are the odd?

Nov 10 11 - 3:45am
You mean

Odds? As if you are insinuating guilt by association via real estate? Come on...you can do better than that.

Nov 20 11 - 12:06pm
Biana

Wow, that's a raelly clever way of thinking about it!

Nov 21 11 - 2:28pm
yrrlzxygz

6o2UMd ykgwugpcqclw

Nov 24 11 - 1:37pm
gjpvmhhjbsw

TSIBDC orzcoyezfdzg