SMNTY Classics: Larry Nassar's Crimes

A & B revisit the story of Larry Nassar, who was convicted for decades of serial sexual abuse. Here's what his crimes tell us about how society sees women and girls. 

Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:05):
Hey, this is Bridget and this is Annie and you're
listening the stuff mom ever told you? We have a
another update episode for you. Um, this is about Larry Nastir,

(00:27):
the Larry NaSTA case. Um. You and Emily covered this
a little while back. We did. It was an intense, intense,
intense episode. You may recall that the disgraced former USA
Gymnastics and Michigan State University doctor was sentenced to forty
to a hundred seventy five years in prison after more
than a hundred and fifty women and girls set in

(00:47):
court that he sexually abused them over the past two decades. Well,
now we have some new information about just how complicit
USA Gymnastics was in enabling the situation. Yes, they were
portly enabling the doctors in appropriate behavior. Um. Leading up
to the Olympics, when NASA was under investigation for child
sexual abuse, the doctor and a USA Gymnastics attorney conceived

(01:11):
of cover stories to explain NASA's absence at two major events,
rather than divulged to parents and athletes that the doctor
was under investigation. That's right. In one of the emails
obtained by The Star, Indianapolis attorney Scott D. Himsel told
NASA that while USA Gymnastics was reviewing his quote, therapy techniques,
which we know we're just gross illegal miscarriages of trust

(01:34):
and you know, abuses of power and sexual abuse. Well,
USA Gymnastics actually said that it was in quote everyone's
best interest, and he tells people that he was skipping
the event for personal reasons. Now in these emails, NASA replied,
can be to say that I'm sick? It would make
more sense to everyone? Would that be okay? We'll let
Ron know to advise people that you weren't feeling well

(01:56):
and decided to say home himself responded on July twenty, two,
thousand and fifteen. So basically, rather than tell people the
truth about what was happening, which was that he was
being accused of horrific and widespread sexual abuse of athletes,
they allowed him to say that he was sick and
that's why he was not going to these Olympic events.

(02:18):
Yeah makes my skin crawl. Um. On another occasion, on
July twenty nine, at which point USA Gymnastics had reported
NaSTA to the FBI, himself asked NASA to skip the
U S, A, P and G Championships, to which NASA
wrote back, if I'm not going to be at the Championships,
then it is due to financial reasons with my clinical practice,
which is an accurate statement. Gross So you know, us

(02:42):
A Gymnastics can say all they want that they weren't involved,
they didn't know, blah blah blah. To me, this seems
like the smoking gun that that wasn't the case. These
people knew, may enabled it. And really, I mean, they
could have put a stop to this because they knew,
and they chose not to. Yeah, they chose to cover
it up instead. So let's hear more about why that
was such a horrible choice. Now today we have to

(03:11):
give a trigger warning and because we're going to be
discussing the absolutely intense case of Olympic gymnast doctor Larry Nasser.
So if that's going to be something that's tough for
you to listen to, just know that's what we're talking
about today. Now you probably have seen what happened with
this case. It's one that I think really illustrates the

(03:31):
magnitude to which someone can go on abusing women and
girls for a very very long time with very very
little consequence. I mean, one of the biggest questions for
this case, which we'll get into, is how many people
seem to apparently have been complicit in allowing this to continue,

(03:52):
which the question now is what level of complicity is
criminal exactly. A lot of people have been comparing it
to the Penn State Jerry Sandusky situation, which, interestingly enough,
I saw a lot of journalists and folks on Twitter
asking when this thing was just sort of bubbling up
and people weren't really talking about it that much. The
Penn State situation was such a huge story and scandal

(04:15):
as it should have been. Why did it take so
long for this to gather steam. Why did this story
which had been out there for a while, why was
it not a similar thing? It also just puts another
thing on the list of things that enraged me about
how much higher education is failing women. Oh, absolutely, absolutely,
when you think about the fact that very likely, you know,

(04:37):
a college Michigan State University was letting these women and
girls be abused without really doing a lot to stop it.
When you think about that, it really I mean, you
send someone to a doctor to help them, to take
care of them, and if they were knowingly putting these
girls in harm's way, it's just you really look at
the university and you say, what do you do? How

(04:57):
did you let this continue? So wait, let's take a
step backward. Let's review sort of baseline of the case.
What happened? Why did this make the news so dramatically?
So basically, here's what went down. Nasser was the team
doctor for USA Gymnastics, and through four Olympic Games he
treated hopeful young gymnasts and gold medal winners alike. He
treated people that you probably have heard of if you
follow gymnastics at all. I'm talking folks like Gabby Douglas, MICHAELA. Moroney,

(05:21):
Ali Riceman, So he was really dealing with some of
the biggest athletes in the world. He also worked for
Michigan State University from to twenty sixteen as an associate
professor and served as the gymnastics and women's crew team physician.
So basically, under the guise of medical treatments, he had
been digitally penetrating women and girls under his care for

(05:44):
quite some time. So they would go in for, you know,
to get medical help, and he would put his finger
inside of them and tell them it was some sort
of a special treatment to realign you know, their body, right.
And part of what made this so enraging the fact
that he was a very well known and beloved doctor
in the community. Right. So what's scary about this is

(06:07):
this is a person who used his power and his
sort of persuasive persona to befriend people, make people feel
like they could trust him, to use his position of
power as a medical professional to completely violate the medical
Professions Code of ethics of doing no harm. Absolutely. There's
this podcast, it's very very popular in the gymnastics community

(06:29):
called gym Castic, and he's actually in an episode of
that podcast that I listened to in preparation for this episode,
and you really see that he presented himself as the
good guy right the community. He was beloved by this community,
and in a sport that is so focused on women
person themselves to their physical limits, he very likely gained

(06:51):
their trust by presenting himself as someone who cared about
their physicality, someone who talked about their mental health and
emotional health. And listen to that podcast, you know it's
it's so creepy after the fact, so I do how
you can recommend listening to it because it's so creepy,
But you see the way that he used that to
gain trust, you see, the way that he used that
to sort of gain that status that we give doctors

(07:13):
in our communities. Yes, and back in November, he pled
guilty to ten charges of molestation and in a separate case,
was found guilty of having more than thirty seven thousand
images and videos of child pornography found on his computer.
So this guy is a world class can creep, Yes,

(07:35):
honestly is. So these allegations weren't really taken seriously until August,
when former gymnast Rachel Denhillander became the first person that
foult a criminal complaint against him. And what's so enraging
is that it took until sixteen to bring this guy
to court for these charges after he's been doing this

(07:57):
since nineteen, he admits, And there were so many opportunities
to take action, and all of the governing organizations that
he was involved with failed to do so despite concerns
and complaints. So back in n seven or mid a
gymnast alleges that she complained to the MSCU gymnastics coach

(08:19):
Kathy Klages, saying that she was concerned at the time
about NASA's treatments. Klages discouraged her from filling a formal
complaint and informed Nasser of the conversation, basically going straight
to the guy who she's trying to report. And this
person who's reporting is a teenager at the time, who
are then coach dissuades from reporting, right, So the power

(08:42):
dynamic there is something to take into consideration. A teenage
child says there's something wrong here, her coach goes to
the person she's reporting, tattles on her, which is a
totally wrong thing to do, want to talk about a
violation of trust, and then discourages her from making any
kind of formal complaint instead of maybe listening. You see
that time and time again in this case, for several

(09:03):
years in n and again in two thousand, an M
s U softball player told three athletic trainers that he
sexually inappropriately touched her during a medical treatment. She alleges
that those trainers dismissed her concerns, and one of them
even said that she should feel grateful to be treated
by such a world class doctor, an Olympic doctor who
quote knew what he was doing. Basically, don't question anyone,

(09:26):
and you know what I've been a part of sports
leagues throughout my childhood and teenage years in college years,
and that kind of blind obedience is drilled into players
in a way that sets that kind of arena up
for sexual predators to get away with it for years.
And it's it's totally wrong. It's totally wrong. I really

(09:46):
see so many intersections that allowed this to fester for
so long. I think part of it is what you're
talking about, where they just drill in that these people
know what they're doing. I think part of it is
that the elevated place we give medical professionals. I also
it's part of it is not taking the complaints and
the pain of women and girls seriously, because these athletes
did exactly what you're supposed to do in this situation.

(10:08):
But you know, they did everything right, they did nothing wrong,
and yet their concerns were dismissed again and again and again.
And I think you see that so often in situations
like this. Yeah, it's it's just a total failure of
chain of command to it. It reminds me of sexual
assault in the military in a way where soldiers are
expected to fall in line and obedience is expected, and

(10:32):
if you have a problem with a superior. The avenues
for reporting those problems are extremely hard to come by,
and there's a total failure when it comes to the
chain of command for holding people in positions of power accountable. Well,
talk about a failure of a chain of command. Inen
The Ingham County Prosecutor's Office actually investigated this doctor after

(10:52):
there was a flurry of complaints, and they found that
his treatments were quote medically sound, And it just enrages
me that they supposedly looked into this and they just
found nothing wrong. The fact that this man was not
even using a gloved finger to insert his finger inside
of people without getting their consent without another person in
the room for injured hamstring. Um, No, like, no, you

(11:18):
know what I mean, that's there's no it's not like
her vagina was broken exactly exactly. You come in for
like a headache and he says, I need to do this.
It doesn't make any sense. Um. It also needs to
be said that one of the people involved in that investigation,
Stuart Dudding's, actually resigned himself in March for his own
sexual misconduct allegations. So it's really just creeps the whole

(11:39):
way down, and it's really enraging, and what's incredible is
that rage was clearly put on display this past month
when beyond the actual criminal lawsuits and him being found
guilty after pleading guilty to all of these charges, this
past month, we saw a lurry of viral attention brought

(12:02):
to this case because of the sentencing, which is where
this story really gets interesting. We'll be right back after
this quick break to break it down, and we're back,
and I think we can all agree that this person,
Larry Nasser, was troublingly allowed to continue lusting women and

(12:28):
girls and abusing his power as a medical professional, and
that's disgusting and abhorrent and he should be punished for it.
I think we can all agree on that. Yeah, hopefully
there's not anybody out I mean, maybe other creeps, but
hopefully most reasonable non creeps. I think we can all agree.
What gets interesting, however, is how this sentencing went down.

(12:50):
Isn't that right, Bridget That is an interesting development in
this story. So this was a situation where many of
us watched the sentencing happened live on television, and I
definitely watched it with bated breath, and you really can't
help but highlight how It was really a powerful, powerful
thing to watch. You had these victims getting up and

(13:12):
reading these impact statements about what happened to them. And
in fact, The Daily, the podcast by the New York Times,
did a really good job of running through some of
these powerful testimonies, which is what brought this case into
the mainstream. By the way, it's not the fifty some
oddcounts of child molestation that brought this case into everybody's

(13:33):
collective consciousness. It was the fact that the judge presiding
over the sentencing process, Judge rose Marie Aquilina, allowed victims
open opportunities, open mic basically, the opportunity to come make
a statement that it helps explain to the judge what
kind of impact this person's crime has had on their lives.

(13:55):
And The Daily did a really great rundown of what
a relative, heavily historically new phenomenon that is. And I
want to first play a few of the impact statements
which have been so moving and so heartbreaking, but so
important in the era of me too, of getting this
point across of why this was so horrific. I was
eleven years old when I first went to see Larry.

(14:17):
I was seven years old. I was only twelve. I
had been as patient since I was eight years old.
The pain you have caused me mentally and emotionally is unexplainable.
And I was taught that is not okay for anyone
to touch you down there unless it's a doctor, and
you were an a world renowned doctor. I mean, the
reality is that the reason this case is so newsworthy

(14:40):
right now, beyond the horrific nature of how long this
total criminal creep was allowed to continue harming women and girls,
is the fact that this is an unprecedented amount of
victim impact testimony that was not only delivered in the courtroom,
but also publicized on television. Yeah. I mean, you actually

(15:01):
even saw his lawyer and Larry himself saying, it's not
okay that I have to listen to this amount of
victim's impact statements. This is too much. It's psychologically damaging. Which, interestingly,
that statement from Larry was read aloud in the courtroom
by the presiding judge, to the laughter of folks in

(15:22):
the courtroom. Because, of course, his pain in this instance,
his psychological torture pales in comparison to the damage he's done.
But it was a very interesting public shaming of this person,
which is understandable and rightful, but from a do you
process standpoint, it's it's an interesting development. So here's his

(15:43):
letter as read by the judge. Everything wrong there. They
feel Hell, that is awful. Hell hath no fury like
a woman scorned. By the way that portion of the letter.

(16:04):
People gasped when they heard that, because it's such a
I mean what, it's such an ignorant demonstration that he
has nocking concept of the damage he's actually done and
somehow is still justifying his behavior like it's somehow the
seven year old girl's fault, like she's a woman scorned
and that justifies what he did. Yeah, calling I hadn't

(16:26):
even I hadn't even zeroed in on that part of
how horrible that is, to say, calling a seven year old,
a thirteen year old or fourteen year old that you
abused a quote woman scorned. That is really next level,
And it really demonstrates that he doesn't understand that he
could hear story after story after story of how damaging

(16:46):
this was and still say I don't think it was
that bad. The media twisted it. Yeah, And honestly, what's
interesting is that poured gasoline on this fire. Right that
enraged everyone even further, I think, which added to the
long list of people who were ready and willing to
give their testimony, give their impact statements, and accelerated the

(17:09):
attention that this was getting. Everyone was cheering for this
guy to go down in flames, understandably. What's interesting is
that later on in sentencing he did give another statement
that accepted responsibility, and he had sort of come around,
or at least maybe his attorney talked to him into
writing a better statement, because he really changed his tune.
You know, he went from saying, this is psychologically tortuous

(17:33):
for me to listen to these victim impact statements too,
I understand your pain. I should pay for my crimes.
I'm sorry for what I did. But only after I
think the media attention became even more intense. And this
judge was very interestingly emphatic in how she decided to
preside over her court. Ran wasn't shame, she was judge.

(17:56):
She really had no regard for this man. You could
tell she found it as enraging as the rest of
us watching at home. She was as piste as we
felt in this situation, and she didn't she really didn't
hold back to a point to which I almost don't
think we see very often. I don't think we see judges.
Is that Yeah, I don't think we do. But then

(18:16):
then then that's what gives me pause. I think a
lot of us wouldn't say this out loud because we
want to see this guy go down and flames, myself included.
But she's the judge, right, she's the judge who's determining sentencing.
She's supposed to be. You know what is that that
um that statue of Lady Justice who's thedering, weighing the

(18:41):
scales of justice or whatever. And she's up there saying,
you know, good for you, you, sister survivors. This is
a really important process in your healing process. She's sort
of verbally coaching the women who came up to give
victim impact statements, which is cool, Like she's saying, this
is part of your healing process. You're a serve where
you're not a victim. Take your power back on your voice,

(19:02):
all of which I agree with. And then she's laughing
as she reads this, I'll be it ridiculous statement from
Larry Nasser, And you're just like, is that the person
that's sentencing this person, is she's supposed to be that
flagrant lee. On one side of this issue, I can

(19:23):
completely understand where you're coming from. I had some really
conflicting feelings about this. On the one hand, I was like, Rara,
you tell them, this is our moment. And then I
remember a friend of mine said, you know, your little mislefty,
look at you like championing the criminal justice system. Look
at you watching this gleefully waiting for this guy to

(19:46):
go down. Shouldn't you be advocating for the criminal justice
system to be more neutral? I thought, yeah, but I don't.
I'm not. It was It's hard. It's hard to reconcile.
It really is hard to reconcile. I don't understand this
queasy feeling that I get. You know, on the one hand,
I'm gleefully watching this, and I was so ra Rod

(20:08):
if you followed the stuff I've never told you Twitter,
I was retweeting everything like yes, yes, yes, yes, And
then I took a step back and thought, wait, what
am I actually celebrating here? Like I said, okay to
watch this, I don't know. I just want I totally
understand what you're coming from. And I think the feeling
stems from how overdo this justice was? Right. There were

(20:30):
so many opportunities for this to be solved, for this
justice to be delivered earlier, for hundreds of women and
girls to be spared, and so this is long overdue,
not to mention, historically overdue, because so many child molesters
and predators of sexual assaults against women and girls especially,

(20:51):
but sexual assault in general, have gone unpunished. So it
was this sort of cathartic collective moment for when our
culture is saying, you know what, we're actually listening to
women victims now, so let's come down on this guy
as a symbol of the hashtag met moment that we
find ourselves in. But honestly, the whole concept of victim
impact statements has never been used this way before, and

(21:14):
for anybody who cares about equal justice under the law,
this raises some concerning questions. One thing that's really important
to keep in mind is that victims role in sentencing
has long been a debate in the legal community. These
cases are typically the state versus or the people versus

(21:35):
some predator in this regard, and so our country has
been wrestling with the role that victims should play in
seeking justice without necessarily creating an environment that seems prejudicial
against more and higher and more severe sentencing. So back
in the Supreme Court weighed in on how victim should

(22:00):
be involved in the sentencing part of the due process
that our our justice system carries out. So in this
case Booth versus Maryland, the victims were saying, we're left
out of the process altogether. We want to be able
to make victim impact statements at sentencing. And the case
was specifically focused on sentencing that included the death penalty.

(22:23):
And I want to throw it to The New York
Times excellent podcast called The Daily from January twenty five
that features a really interesting interview with Emily Baslon, who
covers legal issues for the New York Times magazine. Versus
Supreme Court said, no, when a judge is deciding whether
to sentence someone to death, they are not allowed to
hear about the effect the murder has had on family members.

(22:47):
It was overturned at some point, right, that's right. We
hold that the Eighth Amendment erects no automatic bar prohibiting
a capital sentencing jury from considering victim impact evidence relating
to the victims person characteristics, And in this later decision,
what the court says is the hearing from victims helps
educate the judge who's meeting out the sentence about what

(23:08):
the harm of the crime has been. The point that
they're making is that they should not be able to
hear from folks who were not there for the crime,
that that has no relevance on guilt or innocent in
the court of law. And also they're unpacking our historical
discomfort with the injection of raw emotion and impact directly

(23:30):
from victims and survivors themselves. Yeah, and that's the thing. Obviously,
emotion is part of this. I mean, I almost don't
even know where how I feel about this feelings, but
you know, obviously this is an emotional crime, and I
don't think we can pretend that emotions have no place
in the courtroom. Well, it does depend on your philosophy

(23:53):
around sentencing. Think about mandatory minimum sentences. That takes all
the power out of the judge to be considered of
unique levels of impact that someone's crime has had on them.
And the question is where what is the role of
the judge in sentencing. Should it be oh, you're guilty
of fifty six crimes you're gonna get X numbers of
years because of that. Is it a simple equation or

(24:15):
is it? Let's listen to the robust emotional impact that
a hundred and fifty women plus come forward to discuss
and share with the cord to then give the judge
more of a sort of understanding of how much damage
this person has done. See in this case, I actually
think that's exactly what was happening. I think that the

(24:37):
unprecedented amount of victims impact statements that we heard in
the courtroom in this case was to demonstrate just how
many victims there were, and just how long this abuse
went on for, and the magnitude and sheer scope of
Nassar's crimes. I think that was meant to paint that
portrait so that anyone watching would have no misunderstanding about

(24:58):
how serious what he did was and how long it's
banned for and how many victims he created. And I
get that. I get it too. But where's the tension then?
Because we could think of a million other examples in
which trial by public opinion would influence a judge, perhaps

(25:19):
not rightfully so right if I if you know, if
every sentencing was publicized live for all of the world
to see. It would be a matter of who has
the most compelling victim impact statements to bring someone down,
you know, like this can also be abused. And I
hate saying that. And I don't want to be the

(25:39):
due process person here because I think this guy should
burn in hell, quite frankly, and I think the victims
who came forward did so bravely and courageously and powerfully. Um,
but it was weird. It was weird to see a
judge at sentence saying saying things like I wouldn't send
my dogs to you to Dr Nasser. You know, It's
just it's uncomfortable. Don't know why. I don't know. I

(26:03):
wonder if I'm gonna get. I know I'm gonna get
so much for saying this, But where is the line
with due process in this case? Yeah, Emily, I'm so
conflicted about this, and I totally totally hear you. One
of my biggest pet peeves as someone who cares a
lot about the criminal justice system and how that works,

(26:23):
is that when she was in courtroom, she said, our
constitution does not allow for cruel unusual punishment. If it did,
I have to say I might allow what he did
to all those beautiful souls, these young women in their childhood.
I would allow someone or many people to do what
he did to others, and that's really not okay with me, right.

(26:43):
Sexual solving prison is not a joke. It is not something.
I mean, we it is a joke because you know,
we watch TV and movies and don't drop the soap
is you know, supposed to be a ha ha line.
But our criminal justice system and our prison industry is
really really messed up. I don't think it's funny. And honestly, Bridget,
we're not alone in this. Diana Moskovitz at Deadspin wrote,

(27:04):
even Larry Nasser does not deserve to be raped in prison,
and it's sort of underscores the conflicted feelings that a
lot of us have watching this, thinking, yeah, he should
definitely go to prison forever um, But she would be
should we be relishing in the live sentencing process that's
turning into a courtroom performance? Yeah? I know the judge

(27:28):
took a lot of flak for her, you know, style
Claire in that courtroom, but I actually did love that.
To her critics, she basically was like, oh, you guys
should watch me in court every day. I'm like this,
every day cameras are no cameras. This is who I am.
So part of me was like, hey girl, at least
she's being consistent. But it does. It does raise questions

(27:49):
about due process, and you know, what are the ramifications
of having a courtroom conversation like that, or having our
criminal justice system pushed to the him in this way,
like we might see a backlash on victim impact statements
or some other dramatic things might happen right before you
record a podcast about this particular subject, which we'll talk

(28:12):
about when we come back from this quick break. And
we are back and we're talking through the very dramatic
sentencing and case regarding Larry Nastter and his disgusting long

(28:32):
term abuse of women and girls in gymnastics. And right
before we started recording today's episode, we got some more news.
We noticed that he was trending on Twitter again. So
what happened? So basically, right as we sat down to
record today's episode, we noticed he was trending. And the
reason why he's trending is because he's back in court
today and the father of three of his victims basically

(28:56):
physically tried to attack him in the courtroom, he lung
to him, he had to be held down. He asked
the judge as part of sentencing, if he could be
granted a few minutes alone with Nasser in a locked room,
and the judge was like, no, that's not how this works.
But clearly this is an emotional situation. And you know
the fact that a father had to be restrained in

(29:19):
a courtroom from physically attacking this monster. I mean, really,
it's it's really something. Well, I understand it, right. I
feel like every parent out there is like, yeah, you
know who else understands it? That judge, because when asked
if she was going to be holding this father in
contempt of court, she said absolutely not. Get I understand it.
It's interesting and yet at the same time, this is

(29:41):
exactly the kind of victim impact statement that the Supreme
Court previously back in seven said was not allowed because
the risk we run from having people give impact statements
who weren't even directly impacted, who weren't even there, like
family members, might create some kind of prejud additional situation

(30:01):
that could increase the severity of sentencing. And when that
is the norm, could that be a problem. I hate
this because this is one of those times where my
lefty pie in the sky ideals are really challenged, because
you know, I found myself watching this stuff. When I
saw the video of this dad attacking Larry, how was

(30:24):
it good for him? Right when I saw the video
of the judge bringing the SmackDown on him, I thought,
good for her? You tell him, sis, go get him.
I'm not someone who is a huge champion of our
criminal justice system, and it just makes me think, where
does this feeling inside come from? Where I'm gleefully rooting

(30:44):
for all of these machinations of our justice system to
operate in a way that in other circumstances I might
not be so gleeful. Well, that's the thing. I understand
where our glee comes from in this very specific case
and in a lot out of cases where justice is
long over too. The concern is legal precedent. I hate

(31:06):
to be the spoiler of all things feminists. I really
am not trying to make that my niche of this podcast.
Are you know I'm kidding? I swear? I mean, is
this something that could be problematic for future cases that
aren't this cut and dry, that don't have someone pleading
guilty on all of these crimes and who's long overdue

(31:27):
for a severe punishment. I mean, I don't know. Yeah,
I think I just have to accept that. I'm someone
who advocates for due process and really really wants our
criminal justice system to be fair and unbiased. I just
like it when sexual abusers get what's get what's coming.
I think I think it's like I have to just
accept that my primate brain or whatever, like it's just

(31:50):
something that feels right, it's a disceral and have to
accept that it's attention and that I can't escape it.
And I just I think, like a lot of people watching,
we're in this moment of me to this reckoning where
it feels like for so long we've been saying things.
I mean, these women and girls have been speaking up
for literal decades since nine and nothing was done, and

(32:10):
I just feel like I can't pretend like the weight
of that. But it doesn't feel good. We have some
cathartic moment of finally he's getting his and I have
to just accept that. Yeah, I have to accept it. Well,
you're relishing in that pent uprage, which is totally the
moment we have right now, and I get it. I

(32:30):
validate that. I recognize and respect that, and I also
want to validate and recognize and respect for those who
are looking at this saying I too feel a little
conflicted over it. It's okay to care about the process
and want to see this guy go down and get
his you know, get what's coming. Um, I think you
hit the nail on the head. You can hold separate

(32:51):
opinions at once. You can say he was a monster
and deserves to die in prison. It's not okay for
a judge to make jokes about him being raped in prison.
Perhaps this unprecedented use of victims impact statements. While powerful
and I applaud them, you know, wholeheartedly, perhaps it's fair
to ask questions about what that means for the criminal
justice system. I think all of those things can exist

(33:13):
at once, and they have to, and I think it's
an important discussion for us to be okay having I
do not want to be in a silo of feminist
purity tests where the only right answer is blindly falling
in line with supporting women without having the ability to
question what kind of precedent this sets up. And it's

(33:36):
not an easy position to take, but I want to
validate that position for a lot of us who are
feeling a little conflicted over what's happening right now, because
you can believe in due process and believe that women
have been long overdue and getting real justice. So, honestly,
I want to throw it to the listeners. I want
to know what you think. I'm sure y'all will tell

(33:57):
us all about it on Twitter. And I'm actually very
curious because I don't think it's a black and white conversation.
I do think there's room for tension and room for questions,
and I just want to hear what folks thought. Yeah,
so please get in touch with us at mom Stuff
Podcast on Twitter, stuff Mom Never Told You on Instagram,
and our inbox is always open at mom Stuff at

(34:18):
how stuff works dot com