Here's the deal:
1) Herman Cain said that he was falsely accused. That is an admission that he was accused, whether falsely or not.
2) The Restaurant Association, of which he was Chairman at the time, paid off both women, on condition that neither party be allowed to disclose the circumstances.
Here is where it gets very interesting:
3) After the Politico article came out, Herman Cain said that the women falsely accused him.
4) In making that statement, the confidentiality agreement is now voided.
5) Which means the women who made the accusations are no longer bound by that agreement. They are free to come forward and speak up.
6) If they don't, then nothing happened in the first place, and both women were out to extort a buck by making the accusations in the first place.
Put it all together, and it shows that:
a) At this time, Herman Cain appears to be telling the truth.
b) Cain chose an ingenious method with which to defend himself from a false accusation. Had he not violated the confidentiality agreement, he could very well have been tarred and feathered with this accusation. Now, he dares the accusers to come out with their accusations, and gets to face his accusers.
Whatever you might say about Cain, he is a pretty savvy guy, and until some proof is brought forward that he committed sexual harrassment, his stock just went up in my book. I still would not vote for him, but he earns my respect.