Image 01 Image 03

About Cain’s accuser’s fiancé

About Cain’s accuser’s fiancé

You remember the fiancé of Sharon Bialek, the one who lent credibility to her story because, although he was not involved with her 15 years ago, he was the proof the mainstream media used to prove that Bialek was financially stable and not looking for a payday.

Politico on at least two occasions mentioned Bialek having a fiancé in its news stories.

Turns out not so, as reported by a local Chicago ABC News station:

A northwest suburban man says he needs to clear the air after coming to the support of his fiancee, who accuses GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain of making a sexual play for her.

For starters, Sharon Bialek isn’t his fiancee, said Mark Harwood in an exclusive interview on Wednesday night.

“We were engaged last year in June but I think there have been some assumptions that Sharon still lives here in Mundelein with me” Harwood told the I-Team. “Sharon and her son moved out in February of this year and now live in their own home … so effectively we’re no longer engaged.”

It’s one of those things that, as Robert Stacy McCain puts it, makes you go hmmm…

I don’t have a clip of Bialek or Gloria Allred saying that Bialek had a current fiancé.  I also don’t have a clip of Bialek or Allred correcting the record even though this faux-fiancé was all over television.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



Just a guess, but it sounds like he could be having or be in fear of having divorce-related issues because of the media reports.

…[looking up from the newspaper]….”Yes, dear”. “That’s nice”.

The faux fiance gave her cover for not being money hungry. Remember how they kept saying “she doesn’t need money” because her fiance is rich and she lives in a great house. Translation: she isn’t a gold digger. She’s got her own sugar daddy.


The cover did its job. No one remembers the corrections. That’s why the MSM needs to be held to higher standards. Crafting a story for presentation that tells one tale, only to “correct” it later is a form of lying.

“Where were you last night?”

“I was at the library until closing.”

Would the above engender any level of trust if days later the respondent were to issue a “correction”:

“I know I said library but I meant I was at a bar until closing.”

The MSM does this continually. Ombuds at NYT and WP and other MSM outlets point to such corrections when the original reporting mislead the public. “We corrected the record.”

But the tale is told and people have moved on, basing their actions on poor information. This should not be tolerated in organizations which proclaim they are “journalists”.

Tell the truth the first time. If you don’t know something don’t say it is so.