Via Newsbusters, Politico’s Jonathan Martin never met an Unnamed Source he didn’t like.
Incredibly, when Willie Geist asked him to describe specifically what Politico is accusing Cain of having done, Martin hemmed, hawed then ultimately said “we’re just not going to get into the details of exactly what happened with these women,” beyond the sketchy generalities in the Politico story.
WILLIE GEIST: Hey Jonathan, what are the allegations specifically as you understand them? There’s obviously a wide range in sexual harassment. What did he do?
JONATHAN MARTIN: We-, we-, well we have to be careful about that obviously, because we’re sensitive to —
GEIST: Of course —
MARTIN: — the sourcing involved here. And also, what actually happened to these women as well–we want to be sensitive to that, too. It includes both verbal and physical gestures. These women felt uncomfortable, they were unhappy about their treatment, and they complained to both colleagues and senior officials. In one case it involved, I think, inviting a woman up to a hotel room of Cain’s on the road. Um, but, we-, we-, we’re just not going to get into the details of exactly what happened with these women beside what’s in the story.
There were also descriptions of physical gestures that were not overtly sexual
What are “gestures?” Like this?
[youtube Yur7Jy1duFw nolink]
This story was released to affect Cain’s standing with the voters, why else would a decade-old supposedly settled, poorly sourced story be relevant now? If this is the case, we need to vet the Democrats’ candidate with the same standard, and we can start with Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and Vera Baker.
Cain has a right to face his accusers and the American public has the right to know the details of a story and not be expected to rush to a judgment predicated on “unnamed sources.”