Enabling billions of dollars of export-restricted chips to be shipped to China is probably more of an issue than the affairs, legally speaking.

And someone using their influence to have the DOJ squash the investigation into the matter that Commerce was running? Filthy.

Huang doesn't decide national policy. Were the chips shipped legally?

They were shipped to a sketchy Singaporean company that his Chinese spy-mistress worked at, and IIRC he tried to prevent investigations into whether those chips were being redirected to China.

The whole “Chinese operative” reeks of a grossly cobbled together smear campaign, spoken with the voice of a BW cinema newsreel from the McCarthyist era

The accusal is that he has broken US federal securities and export control laws. There also may be some light treason.

Reducing this to “an unconventional sex life” is a weird and sort of stupid take when matters of global trade and export sanctions policy are concerned, but sure, we’re all a bunch of violent prudes over here.

Give me a fucking break.

Engaging in a relationship of any sort with a direct report (the second woman he reportedly had an affair with) is typically prohibited behavior. The imbalance of power between a boss and a subordinate in their report line just screams sexual harassment lawsuit waiting to happen.

It's nothing to do with prudishness about his sex life and everything to do with his actions endangering the company.

Typically prohibited because it comes with the *risk* of sexual harassment accusations.

But so does walking around in public without covering all body head to toe, indeed some countries ban women from doing so.

Simple risk aversion or trespassing on personal freedom?

Walking around in public isn't carrying the same power imbalance between a boss and subordinate that I'd mentioned.

It is simple risk aversion. A CEO has a whole world of people to have an affair with outside of his or her direct reports, and indeed company. Everyone has equal access to walk around in public. Surely this difference is obvious?

To use an example where we aren't talking about lawsuits, teachers are typically prohibited, by policy and / or law, from relations with their students before they graduate from highschool, even if the student is of legal age. There's both the power difference as well as an implicit duty of care where, even if the relationship is nominally consensual, the teacher is abusing their role as a trusted adult in power. Once the student graduates, there's no longer any official prohibition.