The Washington Post reported last night that one of Cain’s accusers wants to tell her side of the story, but first needs to be released from a confidentiality agreement. According to the woman’s lawyer, the agreement may already be null since Cain may have breached it with some of his statements over the past few days:
According to [attorney Joel P.] Bennett, one of the stipulations of the confidentiality agreement was that neither party could make disparaging remarks about the other. Bennett said Cain violated that agreement on Fox News on Monday when he said that he had been told that the accuser’s performance in the workplace “was not up to par.”
It’s hard to believe that Cain could have broken a confidentiality agreement.
After all, he had two weeks from the time Politico first contacted him for comment to figure this out. You would think one of his initial thoughts would be to find out what exactly he could say about this legally. Invoking a confidentiality agreement would have even given him an iron-clad defense on why he couldn’t discuss the issue with the press. Either the accuser’s attorney is wrong on this, or Cain’s campaign really, really can’t hack it.
Whether the agreement was broken or not, it sounds like we may end up hearing from Cain’s accuser fairly soon. Her attorney says he’s going to request that the National Restaurant Association release her from the confidentiality agreement. At that point, the NRA will have to decide what’s worse for it from a public relations angle: allowing access to sensitive information that might shine negative light on Herman Cain and the organization as a whole; or blocking an alleged sexual harassment victim from telling her side of the story.