272
top 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] just_another_person@lemmy.world 104 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

If you haven't heard her interview with Rachel Maddow last week, go listen to it. This woman doesn't deserve any of this shit, and is currently being threatened with jail if she doesn't give up identifying information about her 13-year old daughter in a court sanctioned harassment campaign by Trump's lawyers, is not able to work to support herself, has had her identifying information posted on Twitter by a DHL driver Trumpist, and may also lose her home. All of this because she told the truth. It's fucking disgusting.

Regardless what you think of her lifestyle choices, she doesn't deserve to be constantly hunted and harassed by MAGA psychos who are doing nothing but ruining this woman's life, and potentially her young daughter's. Listening to the Interview, I honestly thought her to be an absolutely lovely and intelligent person who is just trying to do the right thing, and getting her life ruined in the process.

Edit: find the GoFundMe and toss her a couple bucks if you have some to spare. I'm really hoping E Jean Carol steps in with some of the money Trump owes her and pledges some support. A bigger "fuck you" to Trump than us all having to do so to make sure Daniels stays safe.

[-] worldwidewave@lemmy.world 49 points 1 week ago

They’ll torture any woman who comes forward to scare the next ones out of speaking up. This is a tactic to ensure that no other Trump victims come forward, and it’s disgusting.

I’m glad people are supporting her, but the justice system should do more to protect her from this harassment.

[-] foggy@lemmy.world 26 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I heard a story in this vein that made my skin crawl. I won't assume so this will over explain, but I'll be brief:

Popular stream trope is to go to drunk areas and interview attractive people while they're drunk

Some dude interviews drunk girls about sex stuff.

Girl says "you gotta give it that hauk tua" implying you gotta spit on cock for a good blowjob/get sloppy/etc.

She gets bizarre instant fame. If you search "hauk tua" you will find her and her new ...career? Anyways

She's now "influencer" overnight. Is on tons of podcasts.

Some podcast asked "you into older guys?" She said "oh yeah" podcaster proceeds to ask her if she'd give Donald Trump the old "Hauk Tua", asking her if she'd suck DJTs cock.

Hard pass. No thanks.

Now, she's getting dragged through the mud. People have said that her response was "disrespectful to the former president."

Like... What the actual fuck.

So much about the story is bizarre, but... Disrespectful to the former president to not suck his dick.

Monica Lewinsky must be pissed.

[-] sensiblepuffin@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

Damned if you suck, damned if you don't.

[-] lennybird@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago

I was just thinking of the woman who came forward about Brett Kavanaugh. I hope she's doing okay.

[-] barsquid@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

I think they would commit witness intimidation and threats to anyone perceived as an enemy. They just like it even more when they can be misogynist, homophobic, or racist at the same time.

If Donald gets back in there he will eventually have witnesses like these killed as "official acts." His Trumpanzees will celebrate each one, until their turn comes up.

[-] rayyy@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Trumpanzees will celebrate each one, until their turn comes up

[-] idiomaddict@feddit.de 23 points 1 week ago

Among those who expressed support for Daniels after her interview with Maddow was writer E Jean Carroll, who sued Trump over allegations of rape and defamation – and won nearly $90m in civil penalties from him. “I’d be happy to help!!” she wrote Tuesday night on X.

Sounds like she will

[-] just_another_person@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago

Oh man, that would be awesome. I hope she sets aside enough of that money to directly go to his other victims. What a great turn to make.

[-] rayyy@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Don't fear too much for her. I heard Eugene Carol might give Stormy some of Donald's money she won in her suit as a show of unity.

[-] tacosanonymous@lemm.ee 58 points 1 week ago

Just another reason we need reform. Rich assholes shouldn’t be able to bury their victims in legal debt.

[-] Rocketpoweredgorilla@lemmy.ca 16 points 1 week ago
[-] sunzu@kbin.run 8 points 1 week ago

Always has been or you can take your chances by "trusting the process" 🤡

[-] hypnoton@discuss.online 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

200% yes.

The reform would be extensive and require some thought. How about a hypothetical element of the reform below:

We ban the use of the legalese so that the law is understandable to all in plain English. So that we don't need an exclusive class of law-priests every time we encounter a legal situation.

To go along with the above court procedures can also be simplified/streamlined.

Basically do away with the legal elitism.

[-] HakFoo 9 points 1 week ago

I always found it fascinating how the law is such a unique and cloistered ecosystem.

The sciences and arts encourage self-education and self-discovery. Constructive disruption is admired and moves the fields forward. Those who make it accessible and reachable are celebrated.

I love your phrasing "law-priests". The law is the religion in a secular state. It has all the same trappings:

  • The ranks and orders of clergy, where only they are fit to interpret the sacred scripts, with strong bias and penalty for trying to do so as an uneducated layman
  • Adherence to doctrine and continuity (precedent) even as the environment it was established in no longer exists
  • The constant urge to obfuscate and revel in exclusive language, to continue the air of mystery and impermeability.
  • An overall attitude of fear and submission encouraged by the impenetrability. Even our richest and most powerful still fear the legal system for its caprice, and attempt to ward themselves from it with sigils and charms made of contracts.

Someone needs to nail up some theses to the door of the Supreme Court.

[-] hypnoton@discuss.online 4 points 1 week ago

Brilliant writing! Thank you! Normally I just upvote and move on, but this is too good, please pardon my little comment here.

[-] thisbenzingring 26 points 1 week ago

The interview with Rachel Maddow this past week was powerful. I wish Stormy the best, she has some powerful enemies but it's good she got this kind of response to her dire situation.

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 10 points 1 week ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Stormy Daniels’ supporters have raised more than $900,000 meant to help her move to a safe house and repay legal fees after testifying in the criminal trial that led to Donald Trump’s conviction on 34 felonies.

The money comes from an online GoFundMe campaign started by a friend and former manager of the adult film actor, who recently appeared on MSNBC and described how supporters of Trump have bombarded her with social media harassment as he seeks a second presidency, including threats to rape and murder her daughter and other family.

The so-called I Stand with Stormy Daniels campaign – which had raised more than $940,000 from about 17,600 donors as of Friday – follows her key role in getting Trump convicted in late May on charges of falsifying business records.

The US supreme court on Monday held that presidents enjoy broad immunity from prosecution in connection with their actions in office – which should aid Trump substantially as he tries to defeat criminal cases pending against him on charges of improperly retaining classified records and of trying to subvert the outcome of the 2020 election that he lost to Joe Biden.

Crawford, the Daniels fundraiser organizer, wrote that he had been motivated to get involved after he and his friends were given “front-row seats to the parts of this story that don’t fit neatly into click-bait headlines”.

“If we allow Stormy, after choosing to stand up to the president of these United States, to lose her life, her liberty or her happiness, then we have failed at the very foundational core of what this nation was built upon,” Crawford added.


The original article contains 698 words, the summary contains 271 words. Saved 61%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2024
272 points (97.6% liked)

politics

18114 readers
3649 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS