Reading through your acceptance of the scenario prior to knowing all of the details (he could be in front of a jury in the near future) I, personally, think it's a pretty flippant way to dismiss his actions. Rules are in place for a reason. As others have said Jensen showed extremely poor decision making capabilities in situations where he chose to take advantage. That appears to be fact. Beyond that all of the facts are not fully known... But to pretend like nothing happened and it's OK to "interpret" your way out of this. C'mon... Standards have really fucking flown the coop when you have random Internet personalities trying to defend a billionaire who couldn't keep his dick in his pants and likely broke national security interests because of that. FFS.
I just care about ACTUAL wrong doing. I don't care about the affairs, people have them at all levels from billionaires to paupers. I think action is only warranted once we move beyond "likely" "maybe" "could have" "possibly". C'mon, where's your standards of evidence flown to?