Oh, like Bill Clinton?

The one who was impeached?

For lying under oath, right? Not for an affair.

Was he removed from office?

You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm not saying I disagree, but you should be aware that it's just an opinion. You're stating it as if it's some sort of objective fact.

Many people could just say the exact opposite of your sentence, i.e. "not a disqualification" and "can still be trusted". Furthermore, These people could supply many historical examples of leaders who did similar things and went on to remain great/effective leaders of the things they were charged to lead.

>> You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm not saying I disagree, but you should be aware that it's just an opinion. You're stating it as if it's some sort of objective fact.

It may not be a fact per se, but in the United States it is widely agreed upon that romantic relationships with subordinates is a big no-no from an ethics perspective (due to power dynamics and high potential for abuse), in addition to being a serious liability for the company.

Exactly how would this constitute a “serious liability” for the company?

When a manager has a romantic relationship with a subordinate they could, theoretically, show that employee favortism and/or make their work life miserable. Now any promotion or raise or privilege the employee earns is under scrutiny. Did the Manager have any say in it? Was another employee dismissed out of hand for the position because they passed on the manager's advances? All of this is a problem when the romantic relationship is known and on the level, when its an affair it is VERY problematic. The employees involved in the affair may sue for retaliation due to some circumstance, or another employee may sue because they feel they were passed over for a promotion or position. Others might have suspected something and been made to feel their job was in danger if they asked questions.

This is moral grandstanding with no substance.