I read it (correctly or not) as saying: "Travis started and runs the company, and his respect for women is well known and public. Of _course_ the people working in HR know this, and were quite likely selected/employed by him or one of his trusted douche-bros..."

Is it _not_ as obvious to everyone else as it seems to be to me?

It is beside the point whether it's obvious or not; clearly it is not obvious enough. You treat it as if it's some purely academic pursuit, not of interest to anybody. No, the question should be repeated incessantly until the right people go to jail.

Go to jail? I think that is a little bit harsh considering the crimes committed. When will America stop being so damn protestant when it comes to punishment?

> clearly it is not obvious enough

It is very obvious though, if your basic working principle is that your fellow comments aren't sexist monsters.

It's a good principle to work off.

I read that question as implying: "it is HR's job to ensure the company does not get successfully sued over personnel-related matters; since company metrics apparently indicated the harassers were businesswise quite valuable, why did you expect HR to accomplish their objective by ousting the (valuable) harassers instead of running interference for the harassers?"