Trump's Harvard Problem Just Got Bigger, Disturbing ICE News, & Big Tate, Diddy, Weinstein Updates
PDS Published 04/15/2025
-
Harvard University is refusing to give into President Trump’s demands… and it’s paying the price.
I mean that almost literally cause the federal government just froze about $2.2 billion in multi-year grants as the rift between the university and the president grows.
That’s a crazy amount of money even for a school like Harvard, which is already well-funded, and would mean shutting down entire research teams and programs.
In a letter to the university, the Trump administration demanded that Harvard deplatform certain speakers, ban masks at campus protests, defund pro-Palestinian groups, and do a check to make sure that no other faculty members plagarized.
And obviously this is all on top of Trump’s normal anti-DEI crusade… kinda.
In the past, the administration has come out as solidly anti-Diversity, but in its letter to Harvard, its now pushing for SOME diversity, quote:
“Every department or field found to lack viewpoint diversity must be reformed by hiring a critical mass of new faculty within that department or field who will provide viewpoint diversity; every teaching unit found to lack viewpoint diversity must be reformed by admitting a critical mass of students who will provide viewpoint diversity.” []
AKA, it wants conservatives to be the new diversity hires and demands that the school audits for this.
In a statement yesterday, the Health and Human Service Department’s Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism -- which has to be one of the longest names for a government group -- claimed that:
“It is time for elite universities to take the problem seriously and commit to meaningful change if they wish to continue receiving taxpayer support.”
Harvard has responded to all this in a few ways, such as changing its website’s homepage to be a tribute to its researchers. []
At the same time, its president wrote that “The University will not surrender its independence or its constitutional rights.”
And he went on write: “No government—regardless of which party is in power—should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.”
It’s also responded legally, with its lawyers sending out a statement that highlighted that the schools has tackled some of the issues Trump has a problem with, like antisemitism, and writing:
“Harvard is committed to fighting antisemitism and other forms of bigotry in its community. Antisemitism and discrimination of any kind not only are abhorrent and antithetical to Harvard’s values but also threaten its academic mission.”
It went on to highlight how it has disciplined people who break school policies around this and make sure it’s “a welcoming and supportive learning environment for all students….”
Harvard is actually just the latest school the administration has gone after.
Columbia, Princeton, Cornell, and Northwestern have all also been targeted by the administration with similar demands.
In Columbia’s case, the school gave into a more limited set of demands from the administration to get back about $400 million in funding.
Princeton had $210 million in funding frozen after its president said that the Trump administration was “the greatest threat to American universities since the Red Scare of the 1950s.”
Cornell and Northwestern lost access to $1 billion and $790 million respectively, with the Trump administration claiming it was in connection to “...several ongoing, credible, and concerning Title VI investigations.”
To be frank, the details about what exactly happened there are unclear.
And it’s kinda unclear in general what Harvard and these other schools are going to do.
Some might give in to claw back this vital funding, like Columbia did.
While others might just take a stance and shut down their programs.
So what do you think?
Is it better for these schools to stick to their principles and lose this funding?
Or is the funding more important in the long run because what it allows the schools to do?
And don’t worry about commenting that the “real” answer is the administration shouldn’t be doing this, because that’s not an option the schools have.
-
And then, we’ve got some big updates in a few legal cases and trials we have been covering, starting with Andrew Tate.
Because he is set to face a civil trial in the UK in 2027 over claims of physical and sexual abuse from four women.
According to Reuters, their allegations stem from between 2015 and 2017, and two say they were in relationships with Tate at the time, while two say they were working for his webcam business.
With one alleging that he threatened her with a gun and said there would be “hell to pay” if she did not do as he said, another saying he strangled her to the point of losing consciousness during sex.
And this case actually had a preliminary hearing ahead of its trial today, and it stands to be a historic trial even outside of the Tate attention element.
With a lawyer for the women saying:
"this will be the first occasion (coercive control) has been brought before the High Court in a civil context" to decide if it amounts to an intentional infliction of harm.
That lawyer adding that coercive control is a “relatively recently identified form of violence,” and describing it as a:[]
“form of grooming and manipulation where the victim becomes less and less able to respond in what might be perceived as a normal way.”
The women are reportedly seeking damages reaching six figures, but Tate’s lawyer was not required to and did not attend the hearing. []
And Tate has denied the allegations as “unproven” and claims any sexual activity was consensual.
So we will have to see where this case goes.
But that brings us to our next legal update, which comes from Diddy’s case.
Yesterday, he pleaded not guilty to new charges in the indictment he is facing in New York.
With this new superseding indictment, he is now facing five charges, including racketeering conspiracy, transportation to engage in prostitution, and sex trafficking.
With his lawyers recently saying of these new charges:
"These are not new allegations or new accusers. These are the same individuals, former long-term girlfriends, who were involved in consensual relationships. This was their private sex life, defined by consent, not coercion."
But every update in this case is starting to feel like it has higher and higher stakes, because the trial is just around the corner.
Or, it’s at least supposed to be.
According to CBS News, jury questionnaires are going to be distributed at the end of this month, and by May fifth, jurors will be questioned individually ahead of opening statements, which are set to start May 12.
But Diddy’s legal team is reportedly trying to push this back.
With one specifically saying the defense might ask for a two week adjournment over discovery issues.
And we have another hearing set for Friday, so we will have to see where that goes and if it gets delayed or not.
But then there’s the last big trial story of the day, because Harvey Weinstein (Wine-steen) is back in court in New York.
And this one has a bit more background, because back in 2020, he was convicted of two sex crimes in New York.
But last year, that conviction was overturned by an appeals court, who said that the judge unfairly allowed testimony of witnesses whose accusations were not part of the indictment’s charges.
That news just shocked activists and advocates everywhere, because at the time, his conviction was major, the New York Times calling it:
“a watershed moment for the #MeToo movement and a crucial test in the effort to hold influential men accountable for sexual misconduct.”[]
So it was no surprise that even after it was overturned, accusers still said they wanted a new trial.
And that new trial begins this week, with jury selection starting today.
In this case, we will hear from two of the alleged victims who testified back in 2020, as well as an additional accuser who has been added to the case. []
But you have outlets like Variety noting that this trial is coming at a very different cultural moment than the last one.
Right, we are not at the height of the MeToo movement like we were then, with Weinstein really being the face of it.
And there’s even been a sort of backlash to it, so you had one of his lawyers telling the outlet that:
“It’s going to be a very different trial. The mob mentality that was so pronounced at his first trial, I think, has subsided… He’s going to have the trial that he should have had all along.”
Variety also noting that there are now right-wing commentators like Candace Owens talking about his case in a way that could sway opinion more in his favor.
The likes of Joe Rogan even recently mentioned he was watching her coverage and said:
“I watched the first episode of that. It’s crazy, crazy. So, I can’t believe I’m on Harvey Weinstein’s side.” (58:43-58:48)
So you have outlets like CNN stating that under a new cultural climate, the stakes feel a lot higher for those who want him behind bars. []
With Gloria Allred, who is representing one of his accusers in this trial, telling CNN:
“It’s painful to go through the process again about a traumatic event.”
“I commend her. It does take a tremendous amount of courage.”
“I think much of the public was aghast when this conviction was set aside…The women who testified at the last criminal trial, they refuse to be ruled by fear.”
And it is worth noting, part of why the Harvey Weinstein story is so big is because it is not just this New York case, right, those are far from the only allegations.
Over 100 women have accused him of some form of misconduct, and while he has denied the allegations,[]
He was previously convicted on sex crime charges in California and faces a sentence there, though he is looking to appeal that. []
And per the New York Times, Weinstein thinks he stands a better chance during this second New York trial, saying:
“I’ve been waiting for this day for a long time. Tomorrow, I walk into court a free man in New York — and I expect to walk out the same way.”
Though, again, that is only in the state of New York, right, like I said, he does face time on the west coast.
So we will have to see where it goes, right, the charges he is facing this time around include criminal sexual act and rape.
And I would love to know your thoughts on this one, whether it be about the Tate or Diddy cases, this new potential turning point in the Weinstein case, anything here.
-
ICE has arrested and detained another pro-Palestine Columbia activist who is in the U.S. legally with a green card.
But this time, they did it while he was at an appointment to take a naturalization test in Vermont in order to gain U.S. citizenship.
And now, the Trump administration is trying to deport him to the West Bank — an active war zone that has been decimated by Israel — even though he has not been charged with any crime.
Right, according to legal documents challenging the arrest, Mohsen Mahdawi (Moe-Sin Muh-Dow-Wee) was born in a refugee camp in the occupied West Bank and lived there until moving to the U.S. in 2014.
And for more than a decade, he has lived here as a permanent resident with a green card.
Attending Columbia as an undergraduate student with intentions to graduate next month and enroll as a master's degree student at the university’s international affairs school, which he has already been admitted to.
And following the outbreak of the war in October 2023, Muh-Dow-Wee became a leader of the pro-Palestine student protest movement, helping co-found several groups.
But, per the legal filings, he stepped back from organizing in March of 2024, before students established encampments and took over buildings on campus.
And in interviews at the time, he said his decision stemmed partly from concerns about his immigration status, but also by his beliefs as a practicing Buddhist and his desire to build bridges with Jewish and Israeli communities at Columbia.
With him also giving an interview with “60 Minutes” in December 2023, where he spoke about seeing his best friend killed by an Israeli soldier when he was a child, and emphasized that he wanted a peaceful end to the conflict, saying:
“My motivation comes out of love now, not out of anger, not out of hate.”
And after that, he became the target of hard-line Zionist groups that have been seeking the detention and deportation of pro-Palestine student activists.
This including one organization called Betar (Bay-Tar), which tweeted a video of him back in January and said he was on their “deport list.”[]
With the group also going on to tell The Washington Post last month that Muh-Dow-Wee was on their shortlist of three people they were encouraging the Trump administration to deport.
Though the Department of Homeland Security denied that ICE was working with Bay-Tar.
But regardless, after Trump took office, Muh-Dow-Wee began fearing for his immigration status, and asked Columbia to help find him a safe place to live so he wouldn’t be arrested by ICE agents.
But the school did nothing for him, according to emails reviewed by The Intercept, which also reported that he sheltered in place for over three weeks following the arrest of Mahmoud Khalil (Mawk-Mood Kah-Leel — “Mawk” like “hawk”).
And, very notably here, the outlet — which broke the story of Muh-Dow-Wee's arrest — also seemed to imply that immigration authorities intentionally scheduled his citizenship test so they could take him into custody when he arrived.
With Muh-Dow-Wee telling The Intercept that he received an email from officials earlier this month notifying him that he was scheduled for a citizenship interview.
But adding that he thought it may have been a trap because he wasn’t anticipating the interview to take place until December or January, which lined up with the expected timeline to move his green card status through the naturalization process.
In fact, he was so wary that he contacted his representatives in Congress — including Sen. Bernie Sanders — to inform them of the situation and ask them to intervene if necessary.
And, clearly, his fears were legitimate, with Sanders and the other representatives issuing a statement saying that when Muh-Dow-Wee arrived for his citizenship appointment:
“he was arrested and removed in handcuffs by plainclothes, armed, individuals with their faces covered.”
And calling the move “immoral, inhumane, and illegal.”
With video posted online also showing a handcuffed Muh-Dow-Wee being escorted by immigration officials toward a motorcade of vehicles, which took him to an undisclosed location.
And, as we’ve seen with other similar arrests, it was not immediately clear where ICE had detained Muh-Dow-Wee, leaving his family and lawyers scrambling to locate him.
Though, notably, his legal team was able to move quickly and file a temporary restraining order to prevent immigration officials from transferring him to a more conservative jurisdiction.
Which is something we’ve also seen in other cases, with the Trump administration specifically trying to move pro-Palestine detainees to Louisiana.
But a federal judge quickly granted the request to keep him in Vermont, and his legal team was able to confirm that he was still in the state as of Monday afternoon.
So, as far as what happens next, that remains unclear because, again, there have not been any official charges brought against this man.
And, what’s more, ICE and DHS have not made a statement or responded to requests for comments regarding the reason for his arrest or where he is being held.
But in the petition challenging his arrest, Muh-Dow-Wee’s lawyers say the administration is using an obscure law that gives the Secretary of State power to remove people who pose a threat to the foreign policy and national security interests of the U.S.
Right, that’s the same legal basis they have used to detain Kah-Leel and others who have spoken out against Israel, alleging — without evidence — that they have enabled the spread of antisemitism.
But, again, it’s unclear what evidence they have against Muh-Dow-Wee right now.
So, as a result, his lawyers are accusing the Trump administration of punishing him for free speech related to Palestine in violation of his statutory and due process rights, with one telling reporters:
“Moe-Sin Muh-Dow-Wee was unlawfully detained today for no reason other than his Palestinian identity. He came to this country hoping to be free to speak out about the atrocities he has witnessed, only to be punished for such speech.”
Right, and to that point, legal experts have also said that this represents a whole new front in the administration’s efforts on this front.
Saying that it is highly unusual for authorities to arrest a legal permanent resident who has not been charged with a crime while at a naturalization interview.
With a professor and the director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School explaining:
“The arrest sends a chilling message — no one is safe, and non-U.S. citizens must be silenced. The First Amendment is supposed to protect all people on U.S. soil, regardless of immigration status. But the executive branch is pushing its authority well beyond the system of checks and balances set up by the U.S. Constitution, testing the rule of law, risking our constitutional democracy and pushing our nation toward authoritarianism.”
So once again, this appears to be yet another front for a major legal battle.
Especially because the Trump administration is trying to deport him to an active warzone.
With Muh-Dow-Wee himself telling The Intercept that being forced to return to the West Bank would be “kind of a death sentence.”
And on the note of legality and testing the Constitution, that brings us to another related update I want to hit on today regarding the case of another student who was arrested for pro-Palestine speech: Rumeysa Ozturk (Roo-May-Suh Oz-Turk).
Right, as we talked about before, she is a Turkish student visa-holder at Tufts University who was seen in now-viral security footage screaming while being arrested and loaded into a car by plain-clothed and masked officers.
With that shocking video getting widely condemned by many who argued it looked more like a kidnapping or abduction than an arrest.
What’s more, others were also alarmed by the Trump administration’s reasoning for detaining and deporting Oz-Turk.
Noting that the only reason it has cited for its action is the fact that she co-authored an opinion piece in Tufts’s student newspaper criticizing the university’s response to the Gaza war.
With the op-ed specifically calling for the university to divest from Israel and “acknowledge the Palestinian genocide,” among other things.
Now, that said, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has insisted that there are other infractions beyond the op-ed, but so far, it appears that he hasn’t been able to give specific examples or produce any evidence.
And there are also no indications that she participated in pro-Palestine student protests, as Rubio also implied at one point.
Which brings us to the reason we’re talking about her case now.
Right, yesterday, The Washington Post reported that just DAYS before her arrest, the State Department had determined that the Trump administration had no evidence linking her to antisemitism or terrorism.
According to the outlet, the State Department wrote a memo explicitly stating that the administration was unable to find any evidence showing that Oz-Turk had engaged in antisemitic activities or made public statements supporting a terrorist organization.
In fact, the memo allegedly said outright that Rubio didn’t have sufficient legal grounds to revoke Oz-Turk’s student visa under the law that gives him the authority to remove people who pose a threat to national security.
Now, notably here, the State Department did say that Oz-Turk could be deported using a different authority that allows the Secretary of State to revoke a visa at their own discretion.
But, of course, that isn’t how the Trump administration has painted the arrest — right, Rubio and other officials have repeatedly said it’s because she has spread antisemitism and supported terrorism.
With The Post explaining that the revelation of this memo, quote:
“raises doubts about the public accusations made by the Trump administration as it has sought to justify Oz-Turk’s deportation.”
Additionally, this news also came the same day that a judge in Vermont questioned whether the Trump administration would incite a “constitutional crisis” by refusing to release Oz-Turk if the court ruled her arrest was illegal.
Right, and those comments were made during a hearing about whether to move her case from Louisiana, where she is being detained, to Vermont, where she was located when her lawyers first sued the administration for her arrest.
And when the judge implied that he might order authorities to move her, lawyers for the Trump administration argued that he lacked authority to make that call because Congress has given the executive branch broad discretion over immigration.
With the judge then responding:
“If the government then says, 'oh, no, she can't be released because we have a detention order in immigration, which is inviolate, and she's not going to be released,' then we're in a constitutional crisis.”
And then at one point also asking: “What if she is right? What if there was a constitutional violation in her arrest? The only remedy she is seeking is release, and you are suggesting that the court has no power to release her.”
But for now, we’ll just have to wait and see how all these various cases play out, and for now, I’d love to know what you think in those comments down below.
Use code “PHIL” for $20 OFF your first SeatGeek order & returning buyers use code “PDS” for $10 off AND your chance at weekly $500 prizes! SeatGeek
-
Trump’s trade war just hit new heights!
Right, Bloomberg reports that China just ordered its airlines not to take any further deliveries of Boeing jets, according to their sources. []
As well as requesting that Chinese carriers stop any aircraft-related purchases from US companies.
Which is the latest move in the global trade war - coming right after China boosted retaliatory tariffs on the US up to 125% in response to the tariffs Trump placed on China.
And those can reportedly be as much as 145% for certain products. []
Now, this is a pretty big deal - this year alone, Boeing has reportedly delivered 16 planes to China with 29 remaining, according to one JP Morgan analyst. []
And deliveries are crucial for Boeing because that’s when they get paid - building the plane first and then getting the money when the finished product is delivered. []
So China refusing to accept the planes means that those deliveries are just not happening.
It is important to note that there will be exceptions here, though - according to Bloomberg, there are 10 Boeing jets that are currently being prepared to enter Chinese fleets. []
And some of those jets had their paperwork and payment handled before the tariff announcements.
With Bloomberg’s sources saying that those planes will be allowed to enter China on a case-by-case basis. []
So far, there hasn’t been any comments from Boeing or Chinese authorities,
But on Truth Social, Trump himself accused China of backing out of “the big Boeing deal” that was signed during his first administration.
Now, the impact that this move will have on Boeing is undeniable - in fact, their shares have dropped by more than 1% today.
And this is just the latest problem for Boeing in the last few years - including their sales dropping in the face of fatal crashes and quality concerns.
Not to mention a labor strike, supply chain disruptions, and the increased regulatory scrutiny because of the aforementioned quality concerns.
So we’ll have to keep our eyes on them in the coming weeks and months.
But Trump’s rapidly escalating trade war is set to have broader effects than just one company.
With Bloomberg also reporting that the US economy is on track to lose billions of dollars thanks to boycotts of American goods and foreign tourists staying away.
Noting that plane arrivals by non-citizens dropped by 10% in March by comparison to last year. []
For now, we’re just going to have to wait and see how things escalate from here.
In the meantime, let me know your thoughts about this in those comments down below.
-
Despite being home to some of the largest companies on Earth, Silicon Valley is not paying its fair share of taxes to the rest of us.
That’s according to the nonprofit Fair Tax Foundation, whose new report looks at tax avoidance by the so-called “Silicon Six,” comprising Apple, Amazon, Meta, Microsoft, Netflix and Alphabet, the parent company of Google and YouTube. [Report]
With that small handful of corporations reportedly generating a combined 11 trillion dollars of revenue and 2.5 trillion of profits over the past decade. [Quote, find “2.5”]
And reportedly, when you look at what other companies paid on their profits, the rates average out to nearly 30% in the United States and 27% worldwide. [Quote, find “27”]
But during that same time, the Foundation found that the Silicon Six only paid 18.8% in combined national and federal corporate taxes on average. [Same quote]
With that percentage falling to just 16% if you exclude one-off repatriation payments in the U.S. connected to historical tax avoidance. [Quote, find “16”]
But even with the 18.8% rate, that means the tech giants paid nearly 278 billion dollars less than they would have under average rates for other industries. [Quote, find “277”]
And the Foundation explains this gap in a few ways.
First, American corporations enjoy a tax break on foreign-derived intangible income, and of course Silicon Valley’s products are the epitome of intangible. [Quote, find “intangible”]
Second, their overseas sales get taxed less thanks to lower profit margins and profit-shifting to low-tax jurisdictions like Luxembourg. [Quote, find “Luxembourg”]
And third, the companies allegedly inflated their stated tax contributions by 82 billion dollars by including contingent taxes they didn’t expect to actually pay. [Quote, find “82”]
So all in all, you have the Foundation’s head, Paul Monaghan [Monna-han], concluding:
“The Silicon Six’s corporate income tax contributions are, in percentage terms, way below what sectors such as banking and energy are paying in many parts of the world.” [Quote]
“Our analysis would indicate that tax avoidance continues to be hardwired into corporate structures.” [Quote same link]
But not all corporations are the same level of bad, according to the report.
With it finding that Netflix paid the lowest tax rate on its profits, at just 14.7%, while Microsoft paid the highest at 20.4%. [Quote, find “20.4”]
Though to be fair, there are legit reasons why one company might pay a lower rate than another, so you actually have to analyze its conduct to see how it’s playing ball.
And by that metric, Amazon reportedly comes in last. [Quote, find “obvious”]
Now in its defense, an Amazon spokesperson told The Independent:
“Tax is paid on profit not revenue. Amazon is primarily a retailer with low-profit margins, so comparisons to technology companies with much higher operating profit margins are deeply flawed.” [Quote]
But the Foundation’s analysis compares the Silicon Six to companies earning equivalent profits, so that objection is debatable.
Also, the report notes that these tech giants, as well as the larger-than-life personalities who head them, convert their economic power into political power.
Whether it’s Jeff Bezos turning The Washington Post into a propaganda mill for exclusively pro-free market opinion pieces,
Or Mark Zuckerberg realigning Meta’s content moderation policy to suit Donald Trump’s preferences.
Or both men, as well as Tim Cook, attending Trump’s inauguration in January, apparently currying favor with the new administration.
With the Foundation reporting that the Silicon Six spent 115 million dollars directly lobbying government in the United States and Europe in 2024. [Quote, find “115”]
And while it is true that companies like Apple are hurt severely by Trump’s tariffs,
It’s also true, according to The Guardian, that the White House is using the tariffs as leverage to get the U.K. to cut taxes on American tech giants. [Headline]
So even despite Trump’s eagerness to barge ahead with his disruptive economic plans, more tech titans than just Elon Musk appear to hold sway in Washington.
-
And for the good news story to keep you sane today, I’d like you to meet Tamie Konzier.
Recently, Tamie and her son Leo were out to lunch in Pittsburgh at a little local place called Eat n Park.
Their server was an 81-year-old woman named Betty and Tamie overheard her tell another table that she can’t afford to retire.
Saying she needs to work because her bills cost her more than the $900 a month she gets in Social Security. []
And Tamie, who is an esthetician and TikToker, decided to do something about it.
She whipped out her phone and made a video - promising that every cent made on that video from TikTok’s Creator Fund would go to Betty. [B Roll 0:15-0:39]
On top of that, she also left Betty all the cash she had on her as a tip - a total of $40.
“Tamie: This is for you. We heard you say that you can’t retire yet. Betty: I know. Tamie: So we gave you a little extra. Betty: Thank you. I mean, I worked all my life as a waitress and I still can’t retire. Tamie: I’m sorry, I feel so terrible. So does he. Yeah, how old are you? Oh, I shouldn’t ask that, sorry! Betty: I’m 18. I’m 81. Tamie: Oh my goodness! You look great! Betty: Thank you! Tamie: You’re welcome. Betty: And I can still outdo these young whippersnappers.” 0:52-1:23
Then Tamie’s video absolutely blows up - with people flooding the comment section asking about a GoFundMe and other ways they can help.
With Tamie telling People Magazine,
“Honestly, I didn’t think about a GoFundMe. I thought maybe I’d make $100 from TikTok.” []
But once the fundraiser was launched, it immediately took off - within a week, it made over $300,000.
With additional donations numbering in the thousands from Venmo and Cashapp.
And another $1,000 from TikTok. []
It is worth noting that we don’t have any pictures or videos of Betty because she told Tamie that she’d prefer to keep her face off camera as much as possible.
And Tamie respected that wish for privacy.
But Tamie did record the call she had with Betty to share some of the details and tell her how much had been raised after just a few days.
“Betty: How much is it? Tamie: Right now, it’s at $140,000. Betty: Uh, wh-what? $140,000? Tamie: Yep. Betty: I guess I better get a financial advisor. Tamie: I guess so, right? Betty: Oh my god, $140,000. Tamie: Yeah, I know. Betty: You’re a - god.” 0:00-0:31
And throughout this process, Tamie herself learned more about Betty and shared more.
It turns out that Betty has been working tirelessly her entire life to support her children on her own after her husband passed away when they were young. []
With Tamie telling People Magazine,
"She’s so deserving. Hearing stories from her coworkers about how giving she’s been her whole life makes me feel even better about what we’re doing.” []
The total amount that was raised, as of right now, is over $330,000 and Tamie is working with an attorney to get it set up into a trust fund so it won’t impact Betty’s Social Security.
With Tamie adding,
“I want to do this the right way. It’s more complicated than I anticipated, but it’s worth it.” []
As of now, we don’t know how Betty specifically plans on using the funds but reportedly she plans on prioritizing taking care of herself and her family.
So Tamie is absolutely our BAMF of the Day for going out of her way to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for a complete stranger.
And Betty, however you decide to use these funds, I hope you enjoy it because Tamie is right - you absolutely deserve it.
Level up your health at ARMRA and use code DEFRANCO at checkout to get up to 15% off your first order.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():focal(748x427:750x429)/Diddy-Justin-Combs-01-060923-578d3f78679a4fc890b13ae330a56633.jpg){kind=link}
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():focal(733x337:735x339):format(webp)/Tamie-Konzier-1-040325-b3158acd978a4d66ac8f47ca1073dd6d.jpg){kind=link}