This will be unpopular.

I don't care that she was with someone other than her "sort of" husband (she has filed for divorce.)  I can't be married under the terms of anything called a "Christian Wedding" where I would have to file anything, so all you moralizers can stick your love for the State which apparently is superior to that of your alleged "God" where the sun doesn't shine. Get back to me when you demand the State accept an agreement -- including the terms for dissolution if indeed anything other than death is "good enough" -- the particular faith in question requires to perform the ceremony (as they and the two parties freely choose, within very broad guidelines -- such as "no more than two" if you wish) but until then you're a damned hypocrite to file with the state in the first place, so by the definition you accepted in doing that once you file for divorce any alleged commitment you had is gone, finito, kaput.  You are now negotiating who gets what between material assets and, if there are children, who's going to care for them on what schedule and who will pay the cost of that (imputed, inflated or otherwise), not whether your "commitment" is done.  Once that petition is filed if you want to sleep with other people have at it; you've declared your union kaput and your Church agreed to that definition of same when the officiant, Priest, Pastor or whoever signed the original marriage certificate from the State.  In so-signing said officiant in their capacity was fully aware and confirmed as legally and ecuminically valid that all one of you had to do was declare you no longer wanted to be married, file a sworn document to that effect with the court and it will inevitably be so even if the other party objects!

So save me all the sanctimony about "oh she filed but it isn't final yet."  Go fix the system and until you do live with the monster you bred, fed, nurtured and in fact support yourself.

I do, however, very-much care that she displayed that she will think with her genitals in public, in a wildly-inappropriate manner unbefitting any human -- a display more akin to two dogs going at it in the middle of the street than two people on a date.  This wasn't in the back of a car at the drive-in (reasonably private without someone going to quite a bit of trouble to look) it was in front of everyone in the theater, including the people seated next to her.  Not only was it a public display conducted in a theater it inevitably both distracted other patrons from the performance and attracted said other patrons to their conjugal sexual display irrespective of their age and consent to same, all of whom we can reasonably presume did not buy a ticket to attend a peep show.

We have plenty of "men" who think with their genitals in high office as well.  Weiner anyone?  Some get ejected from office, some not.  All should.

High office is not for those who are incapable -- or unwilling -- to display and use logic and analysis in their actions.  What adults do behind closed doors, or in some other reasonably-private place, I do not care -- but if you cannot display enough logic and analytical firepower to find such a place for your sexual play with another adult (and confine it to adults, obviously) then you have no business in high office, period.

I simply do not accept this because I cannot have any faith that come the time for serious decisions she can make them using analytical brainpower instead of her genitals.  This applies equally to both men and women and it is why I believed Clinton should have been removed from office.  Who he screws in a private place and on a consensual basis is between him and the other adults involved; for all I know Hillary didn't care and they had an "arrangement" in that regard.  That's none of my damn business but getting a blowjob under the desk while on the phone with a foreign head of state most-certainly is my and every other citizen's business and he should have been impeached, convicted and removed instantly for that.

Of course he wasn't.

The apologists will of course say "well she's effective advancing the GOP agenda."  To which I say:  So what?  If that's the criteria you can make the same argument with regard to Mussolini and we know what that led to!

Sorry folks, but nope.

My bet is that she'll keep her seat and thus prove that no matter which side of the aisle you're on you are an absolutely un-serious bunch of people who act without discipline, without principle and fully deserving what is inbound with regard to both political and economic instability in the months to come.