High-Stakes Chess May Backfire for Cain Accuser

Mark J. Fitzgibbons
Joel Bennett, the lawyer for the anonymous accuser of some soon-to-be-known incident involving Herman Cain, spoke with reporters today:  "Bennett said his client, married for 26 years, will not reveal her identity because 'she and her husband see no value in revisiting this matter now nor in discussing the matter any further publicly or privately.'"

Yet only recently, Bennett said his client sought release of the nondisclosure agreement she signed with Cain's former employer, the National Restaurant Association.  The release of that confidentiality agreement would certainly reveal her identity, and would certainly bring more "revisiting" of the matter.

In fact, she, through her lawyer, could have made the whole story go away.  Instead, they fueled the story with speculation and just enough information to keep it very hot.

So the lawyer's own statements reflect conflicting stories.

What happened that made the accuser and her lawyer change tunes?  Or else, what happened that made them change strategy?

For one, the National Restaurant Association said today it would release the Cain accuser from her confidentiality agreement.

If the legal strategy up until today had been to seek the biggest offer for an exclusive by the Cain accuser -- enough to repay the $45,000 in compensation she received in the agreement, which would assuredly be the damages for breach, plus make a hefty profit -- then the release granted today by the NRA would have diminished the value of that plan.

We don't know.  But I have yet to see a news report pointing out the troubling conflicts in the stories or strategies by the accuser's lawyer made on behalf of the Cain accuser.

Joel Bennett, the lawyer for the anonymous accuser of some soon-to-be-known incident involving Herman Cain, spoke with reporters today:  "Bennett said his client, married for 26 years, will not reveal her identity because 'she and her husband see no value in revisiting this matter now nor in discussing the matter any further publicly or privately.'"

Yet only recently, Bennett said his client sought release of the nondisclosure agreement she signed with Cain's former employer, the National Restaurant Association.  The release of that confidentiality agreement would certainly reveal her identity, and would certainly bring more "revisiting" of the matter.

In fact, she, through her lawyer, could have made the whole story go away.  Instead, they fueled the story with speculation and just enough information to keep it very hot.

So the lawyer's own statements reflect conflicting stories.

What happened that made the accuser and her lawyer change tunes?  Or else, what happened that made them change strategy?

For one, the National Restaurant Association said today it would release the Cain accuser from her confidentiality agreement.

If the legal strategy up until today had been to seek the biggest offer for an exclusive by the Cain accuser -- enough to repay the $45,000 in compensation she received in the agreement, which would assuredly be the damages for breach, plus make a hefty profit -- then the release granted today by the NRA would have diminished the value of that plan.

We don't know.  But I have yet to see a news report pointing out the troubling conflicts in the stories or strategies by the accuser's lawyer made on behalf of the Cain accuser.