In general I agree that we're getting about 10% of the story in public, but I don't think this take makes any sense. If he did something nefarious and you didn't want to prosecute him, it'd be quite trivial to tell him privately that it was time to 'step down and spend more time with the family.'

That runs the risk of his open secret personal life coming up later when whatever has gone on has had time to settle, bringing him back into the spotlight at a time when it can be easier to then discover the 90%.

Getting that out of the way now means nobody will give him another thought again and this won’t try digging for the story down the road. It’s not like it really makes any difference to him which story gets told anyway.

Congress is changing hands soon and there are multiple angles to investigate using its oversight power. I guarantee that you’ll be hearing about this story well into next year.

It might be useful to bring forward the memory of Mark Hurd, CEO of Hewlett Packard.

In spite of his success, he was forced to resign due to a $20k expense in his pursuit of Jodie Fisher.

https://knowledge.insead.edu/leadership-organisations/mark-h...

My link above also mentions Boeing CEO Harry Stonecipher, forced out for similar reasons.

It is never wise to be intimate with coworkers, a distressing theme for corporate governance.

Well, I know quite a few people who got intimate with their coworkers, then married them and had kids.

You never said whether or not they regretted it. Getting ousted from a job isn't necessarily unwise.