What The Fuck Happened Over The Weekend?


Indeed :woman_shrugging:t2:


Does anyone else find Stormy Daniel’s account part of a much larger societal issue with consent and self blame, or is it just me? :thinking: I respect that she does not want to be perceived as a victim, that she is not coming forward to accuse Trump of assault and does not want to be part of the #metoo. However, her own words blame a victim and sadly it’s herself. Makes me feel so profoundly sad for her right now. :unamused:

She opens with this statement:

Stormy Daniels: They’re trying to. Like, oh, you know, Stormy Daniels comes out #MeToo. This is not a ‘Me Too.’ I was not a victim. I’ve never said I was a victim. I think trying to use me to-- to further someone else’s agenda, does horrible damage to people who are true victims.

Then about half way through the interview:

Stormy Daniels: I asked him if I could use his restroom and he said, “Yes, you know, it’s through those-- through the bedroom, you’ll see it.” So I-- I excused myself and I went to the-- the restroom. You know, I was in there for a little bit and came out and he was sitting, you know, on the edge of the bed when I walked out, perched.

Anderson Cooper: And when you saw that, what went through your mind?

Stormy Daniels: I realized exactly what I’d gotten myself into. And I was like, “Ugh, here we go.” (LAUGH) And I just felt like maybe-- (LAUGH) it was sort of-- I had it coming for making a bad decision for going to someone’s room alone and I just heard the voice in my head, “well, you put yourself in a bad situation and bad things happen, so you deserve this.”

Anderson Cooper: And you had sex with him.

Stormy Daniels: Yes.

Anderson Cooper: You were 27, he was 60. Were you physically attracted to him?

Stormy Daniels: No.

Anderson Cooper: Not at all?

Stormy Daniels: No.

Anderson Cooper: Did you want to have sex with him?

Stormy Daniels: No. But I didn’t-- I didn’t say no. I’m not a victim, I’m not–

Anderson Cooper: It was entirely consensual.

Stormy Daniels: Oh, yes, yes.


She’s strong and feisty, and I know she’ll be ok but damn I’m right there with you on all that.



When she said that, it just broke my heart into a million pieces. Then she was threatened physical harm? I try and look at from other directions and I can’t. :pensive:


This is a tale of foreign money being laundered into Republican campaigns in exchange for favorable legislation. George Nader, a political consultant and lobbyist working for the UAE, secretly wired $2.5 million via a Canadian company to Elliott Broidy, deputy finance chairman of the Republican National Committee. Broidy then made campaign gifts to Republican members of Congress while lobbying them to impose sanctions against Qatar (the UAE’s enemy). It is illegal to fund US election campaigns with foreign money. Broidy’s motivation for facilitating these illegal campaign gifts from the UAE becomes clear when you consider that, at about the same time he was delivering the gifts, the UAE awarded Broidy’s company a $200 million contract (the company had no business with the UAE before that time).


I thought it was a strange interview, lacking much content actually. The NYT has a profile of her in Sunday’s paper, the interview seemed to fit the profile IMO. She was described as “ambitious” and “in control” on the movie sets she worked on. She’s publicizing the incident for the notoriety as she can now draw higher appearance and performance fees, which she said in the interview.

The whole thing speaks more to Trump’s character and his lawyer’s use of the NDA with the owner of the Enquirer, the system of preventing public exposure of the incident before an election. It also speaks to the voters choices and either not being able to read a candidates character or not caring about the impact on the country of a candidates character.

Trump’s supporters wanted a bully in the office and that’s what they got. In addition they got a very self-centered individual with a narrow view of topics and world events. The implications on policy are now playing out, let’s pray that it doesn’t lead us into a military conflict but with John “go bomb them” Bolton coming back, it’s not looking good.

Things may be a bit “Stormy” for a while, pun intended.

(Lynn) #48

When “Stormy” said this I think women everywhere could relate to how we’re treated differently in our culture and made to blame themselves, & I think overall this interview boosted her credibility far beyond trump’s. The court of public opinion is in session…:smirk: There’s a great many misogynistic men who support trump, whether or not they admit it, and sadly, some brainwashed women too. Hey America…we need to talk.

I think many expected the trash to go flying…instead she showed more class than our own POTUS (which admittedly isn’t hard to do). You may have wanted or expected bombshells (especially after all the media build-up) but what she did was far more subtle & effective. She & her very competent lawyer went instead for credibility, not for the “headline du jour”. I believe time will show they were right.


:point_up_2:Absolutely. That self punishing attitude is deeply engrained in many women and it’s used by women against other women who speak out. We have a lot more work to do.


No, no bombshells expected.
She came across as intelligent and focused I think she knows she will be attacked by his supporters like the Parkland teenagers have been attacked.
Her attorney made good points and he came across well. Trumps family attorney didnt do himself well by not appearing, IMO.

She knows the exposure will help her at least in the short term with her fees and income.

(Amy Ginsburg) #51

I agree to tell you the truth. I found that much of the information had already been released, although she provided more details. I was particularly uncomfortable when she owned up to recognizing that if she went to his bedroom, it was possible that sex would be involved. When Anderson Cooper asked her about the evening she went to his room, she admitted that she went ahead and had sex with him despite not being physically attracted to him nor interested in it. She owned it, to her credit, claiming she was not a victim. But who screws somebody if you aren’t attracted or interested? That threw me because I couldn’t help but wonder what was going on in her head when she proceeded with this. Did she have a motive?

The possibility of being on The Apprentice seemed to be a factor in their interactions. I found it interesting that he was pursuing it on her behalf but when she didn’t sleep with him the next time they got together and he called within the month to say that there wasn’t interest in her being a contestant, she admitted she never saw him again. I assume this was his way of paying her back for not having sex that second time. It sounded as if it was a mutual decision.

I was interested in learning more about the threat of physical harm, but beyond that, I felt as if the entire interview was one big “meh”. I found her very straightforward and forthright which was positive, but there was nothing she said or did that made me feel very sympathetic to her. She didn’t seem nearly as passionate about all of this as her attorney. It felt as if she was backed into a corner by intimidating her, but she admitted the amount of money was also appealing. Whatever the reason, she took the cash. I still don’t quite understand why this has come up now, all of a sudden. Is she exploiting his apparent weakness given the chaotic state of the WH? Is she trying to get her name out there for her own purposes? Has somebody offered her a deal of some sort if she shares this information?

Frankly, I don’t think most Americans really care about this kind of incident anymore. Morality is no longer on the priority list for the GOP as near as I can tell. If you compare how everybody responded when Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinksy’s story got out, everybody seemed to condemn him. Yet, we have a President who had affairs shortly after his wife gave birth. The latter seems more immoral to me. But I feel like I’m in a minority. What it comes down to is that I don’t care who he sleeps with. He’s a fool for having unprotected sex but he’s a fool in a lot of ways. I do care about the threats and the hush money if it was illegal because it was paid on behalf of a candidate and therefore, a violation of campaign legalities. But, if it wasn’t tied to the election and he wished to pay off somebody to keep quiet and she was willing to take the money and sign off, I don’t see where it should be this big a story. I keep wondering if I’m missing something. She claimed she was not a victim, she was not pressured into anything. So, somebody please help me understand why this deserves so much of the media’s time and attention? I just keep wondering how Melania and Baron are dealing with this. They are the real victims in all of this.


I think she’s promoting herself for the appearance fees.


[quote=“Amy0204, post:51, topic:2674”]
So, somebody please help me understand why this deserves so much of the media’s time and attention?
[/quote]Some media has interest in the campaign finance law issue some because its salacious and draws readers, IMO.


My track record is not pristine therefore I am able to somewhat put myself in Stormy’s shoes. Her ire justifiably stems from being told she is a liar notwithstanding the FACT that she was paid to keep quiet when, and only when, Trump needed her to do so. Given that others have come foward with accounts of bring threatened by Trump’s operatives for various activities I totally believe her account of having been threatened. That has never happened to me but, if it had, I would have been very very very scared. We women need to support other women…even opportunistic porn stars …when they are honest.

(Amy Ginsburg) #55

She has every reason to be scared and I believe that she was threatened. Her affect when she told the story, however, was so matter of fact. She claimed people say she doesn’t have a heart, so maybe she just always comes off as uncaring or non-emotional. But I just didn’t hear the fearfulness or anger in her voice. I don’t doubt for a second that hearing somebody claimed you’ve lied about something that you know really happened is enough to get you out there publicly telling your story. But I just keep wondering why it came to a head now? Why not last year or next year? I believe what @SEPTGUY wrote and she may be doing this for appearance fees, although she claims she wasn’t being paid by CNN. I hate to be cynical; I just don’t get the timing of this. It happened so long ago. The only rationale I can come up with is that she is concerned that Trump may not be President that much longer so while this may still be a legitimate claim that Michael Cohen spent campaign funds illegally, it may not garner the same attention if it’s no longer POTUS who is involved. It reverts back to Trump, the ex-POTUS, should that happen. I guess there was so much build-up around this interview. I just felt let down that there wasn’t more new stuff. And whatever happened to that CD that her attorney kept waving around? And what could there possibly be on it that would be so incriminating?

  • She was not paid to be on 60 Minutes, which is on CBS

  • This affair happened in 2006, however the non-disclosure agreement was not drawn up until just days before the 2016 election

  • She was paid $130,000 by Michael Cohen, who drafted the agreement. He said he had paid her out of his own pocket but has denied the affair.

  • Common Cause, a government watchdog group, filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission stating that the payment was an in-kind contribution to the Trump campaign. In-kind contributions of that size are illegal.

  • Cohen and Trump deny any of this happened, even though the NDA has Cohen’s signature.

  • Stormy and her lawyer believe the NDA is invalid because Trump never signed it. She is sueing in civil court.

It’s actuallly not the affair that’s the big deal but the cover up, which may have been done in an illegal manner.

(Matt Kiser) #57

bingo. campaign finance violations.


The NYT profile in last Sunday’s paper helps fill in the holes. She’s traveling and performing, her fees have gone up. I don’t have the link to the article but I suspect you can still find it.


Was she threatened? I wouldn’t doubt it Trump has a history of ties to an unsavory element of NYC.


@SEPTGUY According to that interview she was threatened shortly after she approached the publication associated with In Touch Magazine. After that she stayed quiet.

(Lynn) #61

But as she said (credibly, IMO) in the interview, it’s a double-edged sword (my words, not hers) because while she may get more fame & bookings now, she also risks pissing off many who blindly support trump, and who knows if he could still send someone to mess with her or her daughter. Hey, trump is a thug! I wouldn’t put that shit* past him, & that was the word* she used too, though it was bleeped rather ineffectively.

Amy, as far as her sounding so unemotional about this stuff, first of all, this has gone on for a long time, second, she’s an actress so presumably has some control over her emotions, and three, since when don’t women get criticized for being “hysterical females”, so either way she gets criticized, thanks to our lovely double-standards. Personally, I thought she was credible. And that’s another big reason this matters: we have a POTUS who lies constantly, & while his followers are in denial about this, there may come a tipping point. So I take heart that so many thought “the women” have more credibility than trump, after hearing the 60 Minutes-Stormy Daniels interview.