Vetting the Accuser

In yesterday’s post, I wondered if any of the media would vet Sharon Bialek as vigorously as they have Herman Cain. Some have taken up the challenge; the result is a personal history that is anything but sterling. Now, it must be noted that no matter how checkered her own past might be, that doesn’t necessarily mean that Cain is guiltless. For me, the jury is still out on that; the verdict is far from clear. Yet the Bialek story does raise questions of credibility.

The Chicago Tribune has done the heavy lifting thus far on piecing together just who the accuser really is, and what her character may be. In short, Bialek is not a stranger to controversy of the legal and financial type. Here are some of the facts the Tribune uncovered:

  • She has filed for bankruptcy twice, first in 1991, then again in 2001.
  • In the 2001 bankruptcy, she had more than $36,000 in liabilities and only about $5000 in assets. A management firm was seeking payment of four months of back rent, four credit card companies sought payment, and a lawyer was trying to get her to pay his legal fees.
  • Afterwards, she borrowed $4500 from a boyfriend, who she then accused of harassing her for repayment. The former boyfriend now believes she never had an intent to pay him back.
  • The IRS filed a tax lien against her in 2009 for $5200.
  • Also in 2009, the Illinois Dept. of Revenue claimed that Bialek owed the state more than $4300.
  • Court records show that creditors took legal action against her during the last decade, including one lawsuit filed in Cook County [Chicago].

There is also an incident in which she spoke to Cain at a Tea Party event earlier this year. One observer said she hugged Cain, which would be a little odd given her story. That same observer, though, said the conversation [which she couldn’t overhear] was tense, and Bialek left in a huff. The observer, a reporter, took that as evidence that she is telling the truth, but I can see how one can interpret that in the opposite way.

There are also a few comments from CBS newsman Bill Kurtis, who was a guest on Mark Levin’s radio program on Monday. Kurtis, commenting on the time Bialek spent working for CBS, said the following: “She has a history. . . . There is a lot more to this story. . . . Let’s put Herman or Sharon in the car and say their roles may even have been reversed, given her track record here.”

Hmmm.

I would add one more item, which is mentioned in the Tribune article but not in a negative way: Bialek apparently has never been married, but has a son out of wedlock, and seems to have spent her life moving from one man to another. She currently lives with a man she met via the Internet; she has lived with him for four years, and they are engaged to be married. Well, making it legal would be nice. By the way, she lives in the same apartment building as David Axelrod, who is in charge of the Obama reelection bid.

Double hmmm.

Concurrently with the Bialek spectacle, one of the women who filed a complaint against Cain went public yesterday as well. Her name is Karen Kraushaar, a spokeswoman at the Treasury Department and an Obama appointee.

Triple hmmm.

While we should be concerned, and properly, that a candidate for the presidency who claims to be a Christian, live up to his profession in his personal life and not be a hypocrite, we also have to take into account the lifestyle of the accuser. She already has shown herself to be anything but a moral person in a number of ways. Prior to Cain’s tenure at the National Restaurant Association, there appear to have been no accusations against him.

Either he suddenly became something he never was before, or there is a concerted attempt to undermine his candidacy. In his press conference last night, Cain again denied all allegations as fabrications. I freely admit I am predisposed to believe him, but more than that, I want to know the truth, and if that truth is not what I am predisposed to believe, I will accept it. In the meantime, though, I continue to be skeptical with regard to the accusations.