As I noted in POLITICO, Cain today repeatedly used the rhetorical formulation of “false and unproven” allegations/accusations. If false, why include “unproven”? False means untrue. Unproven means possibly true – but not (yet) shown to be so. If there truly was a vast deceitful conspiracy against Cain, and all of his female accusers are liars, he could and should have stopped at “false.” But “unproven” (and last week, “baseless”) are the rhetorical equivalent of poker tells.
To quote Rick Perry, “ooops.”