I’m no fan of Sinema. She’s a disgrace as a US senator and not responsible for the break up of an adult man’s marriage. A married man has an affair with Sinema and she blamed, per the title of this piece, of breaking up his marriage. He’s responsible for his actions and their outcomes, not Sinema.
Last we'll see of Kyrsten Sinema? if only. She is like the bad penny (alas, penny, good or bad, adieu, we knew ye well) or a recurring case of herpes, which is much more appropriate. Like all grifting, lying, "show me the money" Republicans, and certainly some Dems, too, she will not go softly into the good night. And what of her boy toy? Whatever will happen to him? Mayhaps he will lose his wife, property, livelihood all because his dick got harder than his head. Farewell, trusted agent. Farewell.
It doesn't matter, actually. There is an inherent power imbalance between employer and employee. (I will also presume you don't have any firsthand knowledge of the dynamics.) Sinema was in a strong position to compromise him, which is why the military and many companies forbid boss and subordinate personal relationships. She's a narcissist who probably initiated the relationship for her own amusement.
Presume away. Why WOULD I have any " firsthand knowledge ", do you ?!
Just because you wrote " It doesn't matter, anyway, " doesn't exonerate Ammel by any means. Sure, there is an inherent power imbalance, I never stated otherwise.
I worked for years in a NY government agency that investigated human rights complaints. One of the most insidious things about boss-subordinate relationships is the intimidation. It is quite likely that Sinema used her position as a US senator to persuade this guy into a sexual relationship. Why you want to blame him is not my concern.
"...so we can’t know if the two men were serious or doing a bit or just two guys driven slightly mad by how hard it might have been to get a cup of coffee at this event."
Judas Priest, Gary, that was funny and so true. I hate this woman who convinced me to vote for her and then turned out to be such a stupid asshole.
The notable thing about this case its conversion of a tool designed to preserve the patriarchy into a weapon between politically, socially and financially independent women.
Alienation of affection is a old-fashioned tort invented to give angry ex-husbands something to do with their free time and extra money.
The real weakness of the alienation of affection law in North Carolina is not the $25,000 minimum damages to file, but that it is a dusty relic of the distant social past.
The weakness is that the law presumes that adultery is a product of one lethario who has seduced an otherwise faithful spouse.
Today we talk about consent in sexual relations, and that a lack of consent is the crime of rape. Modern people presume something greater than zero personal responsibility for each party in a sexual relationship. This tort presumes a certain demure quality to the participating spouse.
Note that the lawsuit includes only the alleged seducer and not the supposedly spouse.
The tort is a relic of a time when the fictions of romance were encoded in the law, probably because those fictions helped preserve the patriarchal social structure. And perhaps the tord was enacted to give angry male ex-spouses a way to channel their energies into billable hours rather than dueling, assault, or murder.
What makes this case interesting, and it is not the defendant entirely. What's interesting is that this is a rare case of a woman suing a woman for alienating the affections of a married man.
The law was originally designed for Victorian gender roles. But here has been adapted to some form of modern married life, and features something the original law's rich, white and male authors certainly never imagined: an allegedly sexually aggressive female authority figure.
Did Sinema threaten his job or pressure him in any way if he didn’t boff her? If so, HE should be bringing the lawsuit. If not, well, he’s to blame, too, for consensually boffing his boss. Regardless, what a 💩 show.
Eh ... in that case he's to blame for cheating on his wife, the same as he would be if he'd had an affair with anyone else, but it would still be an abuse of power on Sinema's part for which he would not be responsible.
Yes, in January 2026, Michael Cohen, the former personal attorney to Donald Trump, accused New York prosecutors, specifically Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and New York Attorney General Letitia James, of pressuring and coercing him to provide testimony aimed at securing convictions against Trump.
Key Details of the Allegations
Coercion Claims: In a Substack post and subsequent statements, Cohen alleged he felt "compelled and coerced to deliver what they were seeking" regarding testimony in both the civil fraud case brought by James and the "hush money" criminal case brought by Bragg.
Tailored Testimony: Cohen claimed that prosecutors were uninterested in information that did not align with a predetermined narrative, alleging that when his testimony was deemed insufficient, prosecutors frequently used "inappropriate leading questions" to steer his answers.
Political Motivations: Cohen accused both James and Bragg of blurring the line between justice and politics, claiming they were focused on using their high-profile cases to advance their careers as officials who "took down Trump".
Context of Cooperation: Cohen stated he cooperated with prosecutors while seeking sentence relief for his own prior federal convictions, but now believes the process revealed major issues with prosecutorial conduct.
Background and Reaction
Cohen served as a key witness in the 2023 civil fraud trial (James) and the 2024 criminal hush money trial (Bragg).
Donald Trump reacted to these claims via Truth Social, describing the investigations as a "SET UP from the beginning".
Reports indicate that Bragg's office has previously denied wrongdoing in their handling of the case and the investigations.
I don't rely on Google as my news source.
Yes, it IS really annoying.
Well, God bless you for making the effort. Much needed.
This comment was supposed to go on a different section of this thread, not the one about sexual positions. * blush *
Positions you made up: " The Flatiron, " " Johnny on the Spot, " And the left legged one which I've already forgotten the name of.
Omitted in the Positions List was “Side-Doggies”. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
I’m no fan of Sinema. She’s a disgrace as a US senator and not responsible for the break up of an adult man’s marriage. A married man has an affair with Sinema and she blamed, per the title of this piece, of breaking up his marriage. He’s responsible for his actions and their outcomes, not Sinema.
Agree that Ammel broke up his own marriage, with Sinema's full participation.
Always thought she was a self centered bitch. Smug, in your face, entitled. Ya just knew she was always there for “the perks”.
Those “perks” aint gonna jerk themselves…
Last we'll see of Kyrsten Sinema? if only. She is like the bad penny (alas, penny, good or bad, adieu, we knew ye well) or a recurring case of herpes, which is much more appropriate. Like all grifting, lying, "show me the money" Republicans, and certainly some Dems, too, she will not go softly into the good night. And what of her boy toy? Whatever will happen to him? Mayhaps he will lose his wife, property, livelihood all because his dick got harder than his head. Farewell, trusted agent. Farewell.
I'm trying to imagine WANTING to have an affair with that clown show.
Ew.
Sounds like a case of sexual harassment, to coerce or intimidate an employee into a sexual relationship. There's no "romantic relationship" here.
Ammel didn't exactly seem unwilling and uninterested.
It doesn't matter, actually. There is an inherent power imbalance between employer and employee. (I will also presume you don't have any firsthand knowledge of the dynamics.) Sinema was in a strong position to compromise him, which is why the military and many companies forbid boss and subordinate personal relationships. She's a narcissist who probably initiated the relationship for her own amusement.
Presume away. Why WOULD I have any " firsthand knowledge ", do you ?!
Just because you wrote " It doesn't matter, anyway, " doesn't exonerate Ammel by any means. Sure, there is an inherent power imbalance, I never stated otherwise.
Try not to be so antagonistic, please.
I worked for years in a NY government agency that investigated human rights complaints. One of the most insidious things about boss-subordinate relationships is the intimidation. It is quite likely that Sinema used her position as a US senator to persuade this guy into a sexual relationship. Why you want to blame him is not my concern.
"...so we can’t know if the two men were serious or doing a bit or just two guys driven slightly mad by how hard it might have been to get a cup of coffee at this event."
Judas Priest, Gary, that was funny and so true. I hate this woman who convinced me to vote for her and then turned out to be such a stupid asshole.
The notable thing about this case its conversion of a tool designed to preserve the patriarchy into a weapon between politically, socially and financially independent women.
Alienation of affection is a old-fashioned tort invented to give angry ex-husbands something to do with their free time and extra money.
The real weakness of the alienation of affection law in North Carolina is not the $25,000 minimum damages to file, but that it is a dusty relic of the distant social past.
The weakness is that the law presumes that adultery is a product of one lethario who has seduced an otherwise faithful spouse.
Today we talk about consent in sexual relations, and that a lack of consent is the crime of rape. Modern people presume something greater than zero personal responsibility for each party in a sexual relationship. This tort presumes a certain demure quality to the participating spouse.
Note that the lawsuit includes only the alleged seducer and not the supposedly spouse.
The tort is a relic of a time when the fictions of romance were encoded in the law, probably because those fictions helped preserve the patriarchal social structure. And perhaps the tord was enacted to give angry male ex-spouses a way to channel their energies into billable hours rather than dueling, assault, or murder.
What makes this case interesting, and it is not the defendant entirely. What's interesting is that this is a rare case of a woman suing a woman for alienating the affections of a married man.
The law was originally designed for Victorian gender roles. But here has been adapted to some form of modern married life, and features something the original law's rich, white and male authors certainly never imagined: an allegedly sexually aggressive female authority figure.
Did Sinema threaten his job or pressure him in any way if he didn’t boff her? If so, HE should be bringing the lawsuit. If not, well, he’s to blame, too, for consensually boffing his boss. Regardless, what a 💩 show.
Is Erika Kirk available for laying-on of hands and witnessing?
Eh ... in that case he's to blame for cheating on his wife, the same as he would be if he'd had an affair with anyone else, but it would still be an abuse of power on Sinema's part for which he would not be responsible.
A really BIG 💩 show
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-reacts-michael-cohen-alvin-bragg-letitia-james-11375836
https://www.mediaite.com/media/news/anti-trump-resistance-hero-michael-cohen-now-says-he-felt-coerced-to-give-damning-testimony-by-trump-prosecutors/
Yes, in January 2026, Michael Cohen, the former personal attorney to Donald Trump, accused New York prosecutors, specifically Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and New York Attorney General Letitia James, of pressuring and coercing him to provide testimony aimed at securing convictions against Trump.
Key Details of the Allegations
Coercion Claims: In a Substack post and subsequent statements, Cohen alleged he felt "compelled and coerced to deliver what they were seeking" regarding testimony in both the civil fraud case brought by James and the "hush money" criminal case brought by Bragg.
Tailored Testimony: Cohen claimed that prosecutors were uninterested in information that did not align with a predetermined narrative, alleging that when his testimony was deemed insufficient, prosecutors frequently used "inappropriate leading questions" to steer his answers.
Political Motivations: Cohen accused both James and Bragg of blurring the line between justice and politics, claiming they were focused on using their high-profile cases to advance their careers as officials who "took down Trump".
Context of Cooperation: Cohen stated he cooperated with prosecutors while seeking sentence relief for his own prior federal convictions, but now believes the process revealed major issues with prosecutorial conduct.
Background and Reaction
Cohen served as a key witness in the 2023 civil fraud trial (James) and the 2024 criminal hush money trial (Bragg).
Donald Trump reacted to these claims via Truth Social, describing the investigations as a "SET UP from the beginning".
Reports indicate that Bragg's office has previously denied wrongdoing in their handling of the case and the investigations.
Well if Cohen says that it's gotta be tr....I couldn't finish that sentence....either a mini-stroke or I remember he's a lying sack of shit.
Indeed. If he pushes this I wonder if he can be tried for perjury…