Filling in for Morning Joe hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, fellow MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace brilliantly explained why the Alabama women who came forward to accuse Judge Roy Moore of sexually molesting them their teens should be believed.
After an earlier segment where she called out the “depravity” of conservative media outlets like Fox News and Breitbart defending Moore — who now stands accused of sexually molesting a 14-year-old in 1979 — Wallace was asked by co-host Donny Deutsch to explain the pitfalls of a woman exposing herself to public scrutiny.
“Nicolle, you were so passionate and articulate in the first hour,” Deutsch said. “Explain to men — so it’s not a he said/she said — what it’s like, when a woman does come forward, what she is putting on the line, because I don’t think the average guy understands, and, ‘oh, well, she said that, anybody could say anything.'”
With USA Today reporter Heidi Przybyla setting up Wallace, by saying “At least one of these women, preemptively put information out there about herself knowing that this is what would happen to her and knowing all of these years that ultimately this is what would happen to her, but also at this point, realizing this is a critical point for the country and that she just couldn’t keep it inside anymore,” Wallace then broke down what Moore accusers are already facing.
“There is no glory in this for a woman,” Wallace began. “I mean it is — it is reliving the most humiliating, the most debasing moments, days or hours of a woman’s life. To put this in the newspaper attached to her name, and as Heidi says, the story is in exquisite piece of journalism, because these interviewers got these women to understand not just the the risks they were taking to their own reputations, but the risk they were taking that they wouldn’t be believed.”
“I think to re-traumatize the women, is to say, ‘if true.’ To re-traumatize the women is to say, ‘if this costs him the election.’ I mean, yes, it’s true, because no woman lies about being sexually molested as 14-year-old, or being taken advantage of.”
“These women are coming from small communities,” GOP consultant Susan Del Percio jumped in to add. “They’re not movie stars. These are women going to the supermarket every day. Some of their children are in school, there’s real risks they’re putting out.”
“Not to take anything away, the actresses that came out were brave and brilliant and they are our heroes. But Gwyneth Paltrow has an Oscar, a job, a career and a lot of wealth,” Wallace stated. “The victims in this story, and I’m sure she would agree and most famous women who went out and did this and took great risk. It is harder when you have nothing to gain, everything to lose. To see people on television say, ‘oh, if it’s true.’ It’s true!”
Watch the video below via MSNBC:
NBC SCOTUS reporter Pete Williams: ‘I don’t know what the Court wins’ in anti-gay Sweetcakes case ‘except time’
NBC News' Pete Williams has won three national news Emmy awards. He has a reputation for offering very factual reports with little to no personal opinion. Williams for decades has primarily covered the U.S. Supreme Court and Justice Department.Monday morning on MSNBC Williams gave his report on the Supreme Court's order in the "Sweetcakes" case, involving an Oregon Christian couple who refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. The case is exceptionally more complicated than that – including alleged doxxing of the same-sex couple and the subsequent death threats they say they received.The U.S. Supreme Court set aside the $135,000 the anti-gay bakers, Melissa and Aaron Klein of Sweetcakes by Melissa, were ordered to pay to the same-sex couples they refused, and told the lower court to re-examine the case in light of the SCOTUS ruling in favor of Colorado anti-gay Christian baker Jack Phillips – which the court had originally made clear applied only to the Phillips case. The Court ruled Phillips was the victim of anti-religious animus by the state.Now, Pete Williams appears to be wondering about the Supreme Court's order, sending the case back to a lower court for review.Asked what today's decision means, Williams responds, "I'm not sure," then delivered his report."So today the Supreme Court sent this Oregon case back with instructions to reconsider in light of the Colorado case, but none of the infirmities that existed in the Colorado case are present in the Oregon case, so I'm not exactly sure what the Oregon courts are going to conclude from this," Williams told viewers."My guess is that if the state sues again, and it probably will, the Oregon courts will rule the same way and the case will come back here," meaning to the Supreme Court."I don't know what the [Supreme] Court gains here other than perhaps time, and letting other cases like this percolate up," Williams said.Exactly.It would appear the Supreme Court is attempting to lay the groundwork for special religious rights that would supersede the rights of LGBTQ people to not be discriminated against.It would appear Williams might agree.Watch:
Cops briefly suspended after video of them beating 16-year-old girl goes viral
Officers in Lansing, Michigan, were placed on leave after video appeared on social media showing them striking a 16-year-old girl, reports WILX.
The officers approached a home where they suspected the girl and a 14-year-old boy -- wanted on probation violations, escape from custody, and runaway warrants -- were staying, police said.
The teens tried to flee, but were captured soon after. After the girl resisted being put into a police car, video shows an officer beat her on the leg.
Trump’s golf courses fired these five undocumented workers — now they have a plan to spoil his 2020 launch
Five undocumented immigrants who worked for President Donald Trump's golf courses for years are planning to crash his big 2020 campaign kickoff rally in Florida on Tuesday.
The New York Daily News reports that the former Trump workers plan on going to his rally to highlight his "cruelty and hypocrisy" for welcoming undocumented immigrants to work at his clubs until they became a political inconvenience.