Double standard or simply another gleaming example of class warfare?

OK first and foremost I am making no accusation about Cain. Evidently there is a chance that he did have more than one sexual harassment charge that was settled, uh sorry, resolved mutually between the corporate entity Mr. Cain worked for and the employees who made the claims, when the charges were leveled.
　
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/67194.html
　
　
Now beyond that, two issues are strikingly more obvious here.
　
　
#1, Fox News was all over these, alleged victims this morning, disgruntled employees, taking advantage, and extorting with false charges, as they do so often with the poor unsuspecting rich/elites. Really?? But the corporate entity he worked for settled, uh sorry resolved the matter by giving the women a fine letter of recommendation, a 5 figure settlement/payoff, and a contractual guaranteed obligation that the matter could never be discussed by the alleged victims ever again.
　
But when an average Joe accused of an impropriety such as a criminal act in which they settle, or plea for a lesser offense, it is considered an admission of guilt without any other doubt, and the prosecutor gets a little feather in their hat for a successful conviction of a criminal accusation that indeed turned out to be true. And you always hear later, you know about the average Joe, that they wouldn’t have settled or admitted guilt if they were not indeed guilty. I mean seriously how often do you hear, especially from rich/elitists who must constantly expressing their own indignation on others while emphasizing how special they are, as if it is important that everybody knows and understands their superiority over the common man/peasants, make the bold statement that they themselves would never ever admit to any criminal act, if they were not indeed guilty of the offense?
　
Yet here we are in the wake of these alleged accusations, and the GOP entertainment news network is in full damage control mode. So here we have a news source, justifying the payoff of employees who have made alleged sexual harassment, for a crime, but Mr. Cain himself is still in denial mode. Doesn’t that seem a bit strange? I mean seriously you would think that a news source that claims to be fair and balanced, would be more inclined to address the facts, the actual evidence, the truth of the matter, rather than jumping into defense mode for someone who hasn’t even admitted to anything yet. Am I wrong?
　
#2, I guess I don’t get this sort of contractual obligation either. Say you saw somebody shoplifting candy bars, and they noticed you were noticing them in the act, and they slid a king sized Snickers in your pocket, and gave you the shhh, hand gesture, is that a legal binding contract to keep your silence? If you got to feeling bad about it have you left yourself wide open for a lawsuit, if you bring the candy back and report the criminal act of the other individual who actually perpetrated the crime? Could he then sue you in court for the cost of the king size Snickers bar in a civil suit, since you reneged on the original verbal agreement? Little absurd don’t you think?
　
OK maybe that isn’t the best example. Here’s a better one. You hear noise in your shed, and when you get there a young local hoodlum has just past your mower over the fence to another partner in crime, but you tackle the yoot in question, and his partner jumps in his
Truck and drives away. The yoot immediately starts begging for forgiveness, please don’t call the police, and for God’s sake don’t tell my parents, my dad especially. Look he goes on I have $300 in my pocket, you can use it to get you a new mower, just please don’t turn me in, (crying) I don’t want to go to jail (bawling to all get out). So you take the kids money, boot him in the arse on the way out the gate, go inside, call the cops and give them a complete detailed report on the crime, license number, vehicle description, the identity of both boys involved. Are you civilly obligated to keep the verbal agreement? Were you wrong for reporting the criminal act that took place?
　
Of course not. But here we have a rich/elitist, who has been allegedly accused of a criminal act, and to silence the alleged victim a lucrative settlement is offered and accepted to eliminate the risk of further embarrassment for the firm, and possible criminal prosecution of one of your executives, for the criminal activity, with a written agreement/contract that if the victim discusses the alleged crime at a later date they can be held civilly liable for not keeping the information pertaining to the alleged criminal activity silent.
　
Is the contract valid? Would it be wrong for the victim to pursue criminal prosecution for the original criminal act, and/or going after the firm for their involvement in trying to cover up the crime? Of course I can see how the victim wouldn’t be able to sue the criminals in court since they had already reached a settlement, uh excuse me resolved the monetary issue, as long as their was no coercion or threats of bodily harm/slander. IMHO the contractual obligation should be consider a fraud, to elude prosecution for an alleged criminal act.
　
Maybe somebody can tell me what I am missing here, because in my eyes if somebody sexually harassed or assaulted somebody, then tried to pay them to make it go away, it is still the duty of the victim to come forward and make the charges, so as to not have this happen to somebody else at a later date. And if this is true, the first person who didn’t bring it forward has some shared guilt for the second parties alleged harassment and/or assault.

 

Once again, BuckNaked, you are very mistaken.

Fox News has grilled Herman Cain and his spokesman J.D. Gordon on the latest story reporting that two female employees of the National Restaurant Association complained of being sexually harassed by Cain when he was the head of the organization in the 1990s.

Please check this out.

"On Sunday night, spokesman J.D. Gordon called into Rivera's show, and Rivera put him on speaker phone live on air so that the audience could hear the conversation.

"What you're saying, what you're doing right now is a recipe for disaster, mate," Rivera said. "I'm telling you, the morning papers aren't past their deadline yet." He asked Gordon point blank if he was denying the accounts. Gordon refused, instead casting aspersions on the Politico story."

 

That is good to see but that isn't what was going on this morning on Fox. They were not declaring the actual facts of the case they were demonizing anyone who dare accuse Mr. Cain. If I missed any of the program that was actually informing the public based on the factual evidence that has been obtained up to this point then it is my mistake.
　
　
Unfortunately that's not what I saw or heard though. What I saw and heard was damage control for a GOP candidate that doesn't even seem to realize there was two separate incidents with females against him in the 1990's. Fox was running interference, and playing loose with the reality of the situation/facts. That is not the job of a so-called news organization, wouldn't you agree?
　
　
And yes I see the same bias on MSNBC and CNN. Anybody who says the entertainment cable news sources are not bias is delusional IMHO.

 

So do you have a comment on the second part of my post or were you just defending Fox news James?
　
Should a company, corporation, business, or private citizen be allowed to enter a contractual obligation, to keep the details of an alleged or otherwise criminal act secret, either by threat or payoff? Should that contract be upheld in a court of law?