General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsKyrsten Sinema: Yes, I Banged My Bodyguard in Lots o' Places ...
I seriously never liked this woman
https://www.tmz.com/2026/03/13/kyrsten-sinema-confirms-affair-with-bodyguard/
Kyrsten Sinema says she did in fact sleep with her bodyguard while he was still married ... admitting as much in legal docs -- though she says his estranged wife shouldn't be allowed to sue her in North Carolina for it.
The former Arizona senator filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit in which she's being sued by her lover's estranged wife in North Carolina Thursday. In the papers, she admits she and Matthew Ammel began an affair about five months before he separated from his wife, Heather Ammel.
Kid Berwyn
(24,167 posts)A fraud.
leftstreet
(40,279 posts)She gets things done!
Celerity
(54,250 posts)According to the Bipartisan Index created by the Lugar Center and the McCourt School of Public Policy, Sinema was the sixth most bipartisan member of the U.S. House of Representatives during the first session of the 115th Congress. The National Journal's 2013 vote ratings placed Sinema near the center of their liberalconservative scale. In 2015, she voted with the majority of her party 73% of the time.
In 2015 and 2016, Sinema did not vote for Nancy Pelosi for speaker of the U.S. House. In 2016, the National Journal gave her a composite ideology score of 57% liberal and 43% conservative. She was one of the most conservative House Democrats during her House tenure.
According to GovTrack, Sinema has a centrist to center-right voting record in the Senate, to the right of Republican Senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski. According to FiveThirtyEight, as of January 2021, Sinema had voted in line with Donald Trump's position on legislation about 50% of the time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyrsten_Sinema
mopinko
(73,627 posts)City Lights
(25,722 posts)not fooled
(6,656 posts)to the maximum extent possible.
FascismIsDeath
(151 posts)unblock
(56,167 posts)Generally loss of affection isn't easy to prove and usually it's reasonable to figure the cheating spouse had a change of heart and the jilted spouse is just out of luck.
But in this case there's a coercive:harassment element due to the employment relationship and that makes it much easier to believe that sinema acted inappropriately and that the jilted spouse was damaged as a result.
FascismIsDeath
(151 posts)The idea that you can sue someone for having an affair with your wife or husband is ludicrous and has no place in the year 2026. And though it may be hundreds of years old, its definitely catnip for culture warriors who want to control people.
If your husband or wife cheats on you, your beef is with them for cheating on you.
unblock
(56,167 posts)because the vast majority of affairs are voluntary on the part of the cheater and it's silly to sue the "homewrecker" over the cheater's rotten ethics.
however, when there's a coercive element, i don't think it's unreasonable to say a spouse is injured by the person outside the marriage and therefore has a legitimate tort claim.
in an extreme case, if i'm kidnapped and tortured and brainwashed into being revulsed by the sight of my wife, or permanently nauseated by the thought of sex, don't you think she's injured by the kidnapper's actions and should have a right to sue for damages, independently from any claim i would have?
in this particular case, to the extent the bodyguard was a willing or even eager cheater, then i agree that the ex-wife's beef is with him and there's nothing to sue a third party over. but if she can make the case that he only did it because he thought he would lose his job, then i think she has a reasonable case.
the fact that they're now divorced does work against her; it suggests that she left him because she thought he voluntarily cheated rather than was completely coerced. if i was on the jury i'd want to see an explanation for the divorce more convincing than that she left him because he cheated. for instance, if he left her instead.
FascismIsDeath
(151 posts)Its based on "alienation of affection". If you can prove that someone made your spouse not want to be with you anymore, you can sue them. There was a case in 2019 where some guy sued this other guy who had an affair with his wife and was awarded over 8 million dollars. And there definitely was no professional relationship in that case. He just said "he screwed my wife, it destroyed our marriage".
Based on the details I've read about the case, the wife isn't claiming that he was coerced either. She just claims that he was seduced. The truth is, her husband or ex-husband or whatever their status is now, is an asshole who betrayed her. If you are tempted to cheat on your spouse, you should go ahead and get separated. Its obvious that you aren't into the marriage anymore if you no longer want to be with just them and you aren't in some open marriage agreement.
And the whole thing was originally designed around the thinking that your spouse is your property, particularly women being the property of their husbands.
I understand your extreme case and I think there are probably a whole host of other laws that could cover compensation for something that insane. This law wasn't designed to punish an extreme case like that, though it incidentally would work I suppose.
FSogol
(47,596 posts)FascismIsDeath
(151 posts)If your wife or husband has an affair, its categorically stupid that people can sue the person they had an affair with. Its 18th century horse shit and only 6 states have been ass backwards enough to allow such a law to still exist.
Responsibility for an affair, as far as the married are involve, is on the person who had the affair. But go ahead and try to defend this nonsense.
Baitball Blogger
(52,228 posts)Last edited Fri Mar 13, 2026, 02:15 PM - Edit history (1)
she was a vile, indecent creature.
EdmondDantes_
(1,699 posts)Would you call Bill Clinton a skank because he has had a whole lot of affairs? Gary Hart, JFK?
Or is it only a woman or a political opponent you would call that?
Baitball Blogger
(52,228 posts)mopinko
(73,627 posts)Baitball Blogger
(52,228 posts)mopinko
(73,627 posts)and on and on.
good choices.
whathehell
(30,443 posts)as your choice of words?
Baitball Blogger
(52,228 posts)Word, but wasnt sure how others felt. For instances, I dont object to calling vile men, dicks. But under the same gender rules of engagement it also should be avoided,
whathehell
(30,443 posts)your lack of objection might be due to your being male.
As for calling vile men "dicks", I (and I'd guess the majority of women here) would gladly stop calling them that if they, in turn, stopped calling us "cunts", "whores" "bitches" and "sluts".
walkingman
(10,739 posts)whathehell
(30,443 posts)Baitball Blogger
(52,228 posts)Just an old woman who has a lot of windmills to fight.
Bobstandard
(2,268 posts)No wonder their lobbyists are welcoming her with open arms. Shed do well in a Republican primary somewhere. Florida of course, but perhaps Utah too. They seem ok with hypocrisy.
La Coliniere
(1,899 posts)showed her true colors soon after she was elected we should all be glad shes finally out of government. Now we need to work on getting Fetterman out of Congress and replaced with a true progressive.
whathehell
(30,443 posts)but I see more than a little 'slut shaming' in your subject line. The fact is, she did not say "Yes I banged my boyfriend in lots of places".
While you avoided putting quote marks around those words, the intention seems clear and it's not the kind of thing one sees when 'the accused' is male.
quakerboy
(14,841 posts)What?
whathehell
(30,443 posts)the chargeable offense, but there used to be something called "Alienation of Affections"...Sounds very Victorian, so I don't know if it's still standing.
nilram
(3,536 posts)(sorry, gratuitous dig at North Carolina.)
Torchlight
(6,740 posts)towards rewarding the lowest common denominators among us with office, perks, and bennies if the stage-craft behind them is at least catoonishly plausible.
AZ8theist
(7,279 posts)Dressed and acted like one as well.
