There are so many lessons to take away from this still-developing story that it's hard to know where to start. Do we talk about the absolute necessity of vetting your own team before your opponents do? About how not to answer a reporter's question on live television? Or, even for that matter, the lack of journalistic integrity with the liberal use of unnamed sources cited to tell the stories' vague, faceless accusers.

But, from an HR perspective, I've wondered more than once about the bigger picture. The number of claims (accusations?) and their veracity might still be up for debate, but there's little doubt that settlements – or "agreements" – were signed, to use Cain's own vernacular.

So we're left to wonder, was it a bad joke, a worse pick-up line or actual physical contact? Does it matter anymore? Not to discount the reality – and the horror – of sexual harassment at the workplace, but these are not only incidents alleged to have occurred more than a decade ago, but these are stories from people who've already cashed their checks and long since spent their hush money.

Are they fighting for justice? Where was the ideological zeal back then? Why not take their charges to the proper authorities back then instead of just taking the money and running?

Or are they looking for another payday? They've already settled. The paper's signed, the check's cashed. Shouldn't there be some kind of double jeopardy attached to this? Or at the very least, since these people are obviously breaking their own agreements, don't they forfeit their payouts?

Or maybe I'm asking the wrong question. Stepping back, maybe I should be asking if it's ever OK to sign off on these confidential, back-room deals in the first place.