The Daily - Thursday, Jan. 25, 2018

Episode Date: January 25, 2018

Dr. Lawrence G. Nassar was lauded as the go-to doctor for the United States’ best gymnasts. After he pleaded guilty to multiple sex crimes, Judge Rosemarie Aquilina cleared her docket to give each of his accusers a chance to speak at the sentencing hearing. More than 150 women, including several Olympians, confronted Dr. Nassar in the courtroom and spoke of their abuse over seven days. It was an extraordinary use of the courtroom — and a new way of thinking about justice. Guests: Emily Bazelon, who covers legal issues for The New York Times Magazine; Makayla Thrush, a former gymnast, spoke to Sabrina Tavernise, a Times reporter. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.

From The New York Times, I'm Michael Barbaro. This is The Daily. Today, over the course of seven days, more than 150 women recounted their experience of sexual abuse at the hands of the same doctor in a marathon sentencing hearing in Michigan. It was an extraordinary use of the courtroom and a new way of thinking about justice. It's Thursday, January 25th. All right. Thank you. Please come up to the podium, Mr. Client. Sir, you pled in docket

17-526FC, count one, criminal sexual conductREE, PERSON UNDER 13, DEFENDANT 17 OR OLDER, THAT IS PUNISHABLE BY UP TO LIFE. DO YOU RECALL THAT? NEW SPEAKER Yes, Your Honor. NEW SPEAKER COUNT 2, CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONDUCT, FIRST DEGREE, PERSON UNDER 13, DEFENDANT 17 OR OLDER, PUNISHABLE BY UP TO LIFE. DO YOU RECALL THAT AS WELL? NEW SPEAKER Yes, Your Honor. NEW SPEAKER CO Criminal sexual conduct, first degree relationship. So, Michaela, tell me about walking into the courtroom on Tuesday morning. Well, when I walked in, the first thing that I really noticed was all the girls that I recognized, that I've competed with, trained with. My colleague Sabrina Tavernisi talked with a former gymnast, Michaela Thrush.

I really wasn't nervous or scared or anything. I was just ready to give my statement. I've had to be quiet for so long, so I was really excited just to be able to speak. It's been over maybe like a week span I've been putting together my statement. I did a lot of editing, a lot of adding things, a lot of taking things out. And then my whole way there, I kept thinking that maybe it's not complete. Maybe it is. I don't know. Your Honor, the next survivor you will hear from has agreed to be publicly identified. Her name is Michaela Thrush. She is right behind me.

They called my name, and I looked at my fiancé because he was supposed to go up there with me. And he was like, are you sure? It's your turn. And I was like, yeah, my picture is up there on the screen. So I'm getting up, and I'm walking up with my head down the whole time. And then they're all looking at me because they all know me. You know, it's girls, you know, I trained with that are there. Thank you. Could you please state and spell your name for the record?

Makayla Thrush. M-A-K-A-Y-L-A-T-H-R-U-S-H. Thank you. What would you like me to know? Well, I promised myself I wasn't going to cry, and I was okay, but then I took a deep breath. I would like to start out by saying that I was a gymnast at Getterts Twist Arts from the age of 7 until the age of 17, but I've been doing gymnastics since 3. been doing gymnastics since three. Gymnastics isn't just about fancy leotards, beautiful medals,

trophies you can get from winning a competition. It's blood, sweat, lots of tears. And I didn't even make it like through the first couple words and I already started crying. You stole every little innocence I had out of me, out of a little girl who simply didn't know what was going on. I saw you almost every Monday night after practice, even if I was the last one on the list. During those 10 years there, I really didn't know. I mean, I thought it was normal medical treatment. This was hours of nonstop sexual abuse that didn't help my injury. When you asked if I felt any better, I'd only tell you yes so you'd stop because it hurt, not because it helped. I pray that you, Larry, spend the rest of your life behind bars. Thank you.

Man, you and your sister survivors are great successes. And the magic is in the power of your voice. Thank you for speaking out and breaking your silence. Thank you. Thank you. Next. The next survivor, I believe, wishes to remain anonymous. So Larry Nassar was an incredibly trusted doctor for athletes, particularly gymnasts, for many years.

Emily Bazelon writes about the law for the New York Times Magazine. He was the physician that you tried to go to see if you were struggling with your body, which of course many gymnasts are. You're doing a two and a half front tuck and what did you do? Landed the two and a half and felt it pop. Where'd you feel the pop? So the pain is here, comes across, and a little bit through here. Yes, but like this part, really just when you touch it. When you touch it. And what we've learned since 2016 when the indie star did an expose

is that he was abusing his position of trust. He was molesting many, many girls who've come forward. At first, when these charges were brought, Dr. Nassar denied all of them. Michigan State University, where he's on the faculty, said they had no evidence he'd done anything wrong. But he was criminally charged. And in November, he pled guilty in court in Michigan to seven counts of criminal sexual misconduct. Count 18, criminal sexual conduct, first degree relationship, person 13 to 15, punishable by up to life. Do you recall that? Yes, Your Honor.

Count 20. This is a man who has pled guilty, and what is at issue is the degree of punishment he should receive. The sentencing will be January 12th. And now we're at the sentencing. The judge is deciding how to punish him. The judge is deciding how to punish him. Sir, please raise your right hand. You swear or affirm the testimony you're about to provide will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury? Yes, Your Honor.

Thank you. And put your hand down. And she first made a statement that she was planning to punish him to the maximum degree possible, that she thought he should live out the rest of his life in prison. But then... At this time, are there victims who wish to speak? There are, yes. All right. She really opened the mic to survivors who wanted to come forward to testify about their experiences.

The first time I stepped into one of the two exam rooms Larry Nassar had at MSU Sports Med, I was 12. I saw you from the time I was 14 until then. I was 11 years old when I first went to see Larry. I was 7 years old. I was only 12. I saw you from the time I was 14 until then. I was 11 years old when I first went to see Larry. I was 7 years old. I was only 12. I had been his patient since I was 8 years old. The pain you have caused me mentally and emotionally is unexplainable.

This is what we're seeing happen not just once or twice. Larry sexually assaulted me repeatedly under the guise of medical treatment for nearly a year. But over seven days... I remember the first time very vividly, a wave of women came forward and testified. I remember how absolutely mortified I was when you asked me if I had started my period yet because you couldn't do the treatment if I had a tampon in. And I was taught that it is not okay for anyone to touch you down there unless it's a doctor. And you were a world-renowned doctor.

People who had not testified during the guilt phase of the trial, who had not been cross-examined, but were there to speak to the effect that Nassar's abuse and misconduct had on them when they were growing up. The crimes that Larry Nassar committed against me have altered my life forever. In the end, we have over 150 women coming forward in this way. In the end, we have over 150 women coming forward in this way. It's an incredibly unusual, even unprecedented moment in a United States courtroom to have this kind of impact from the testimony of victims at a sentencing. I've just never seen anything like it before. And what is the judge saying, meanwhile? I can't imagine in 1997 this happening to you and not one person paying attention and they were all talking.

So the judge made it clear that this was for the victims, for the survivors. Your words are a sign that you are healing, that you're taking your power back, that you're giving him back his kryptonite, that he will fall and you will rise. Acting in a way that's quite unusual from the bench. You and your sister survivors are enabling defendant to remain behind bars for the rest of his natural life. She was thanking each woman as she came forward.

Survivors are all victorious and your words are those of victory. I don't know if you all feel it now, but you will. And you are so strong and wonderful. What we're having here is a kind of cathartic moment. It has to do with the therapeutic effect, if there is one, for survivors in giving voice to what happened to them and striking back. You know, I served in the military for 20 years and the army of women who've come before me, I'd be proud to fight any battle with you as my leader. So this judge is making a choice about the role that victims should be allowed to play in a courtroom.

You know, we've been, as a society, debating about the role that victims should play, how much they should be at the center of the criminal law for a very long time. We often talk about, in a kind of shorthand way, the idea that, like, a victim is pressing charges against someone. But that's not actually how it works. It's the people versus Larry Nassar, not Ali Raisman or any other particular woman who's pressing these charges. And Emily, when we say the people, we mean the state, right? We mean the state, the government as the representatives of the people. And what's important about that is that the prosecution doesn't actually represent a person. They don't represent the victim. There's this idea of a kind of larger motivation of justice that doesn't depend on an individual victim. But around the 1970s, a lot of victims started complaining that they felt left out of the process, that sometimes prosecutors and defense

lawyers ignored them, and that their needs just were not being met. At the same time, there was some concern about the emotional effect that hearing from a victim can have on a jury and on a judge and a fear that there was something kind of biased about this that could turn people toward more punishment and toward retribution in a way that seemed prejudicial. In number 86, 50, 20, Booth against Maryland. So in the 1980s, the Supreme Court entered this debate in the context of the death penalty. I've used the victims in two ways. Victims obviously meaning the murder victims. Victims as included in this case included those people, family members, who obviously were upset by the crime, as anyone would be,

but were not present in any way at the crime. The question in this 1987 Supreme Court case was whether a statement could be offered into evidence where the probation officer was talking about the people who'd been killed and the impact of the crime on their surviving family members. That's not exactly what was introduced in evidence here, Mr. Burns? Here we have the testimony of or the statements of the immediate family. So this is what's called a victim impact statement. And the Supreme Court was deciding whether it was proper and constitutional

to allow such a statement at the penalty phase of a death penalty proceeding, at the sentencing phase, in other words. And at first, the 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. And why not? What was the reasoning? They decided that because they said that the effect of the crime on family members was not related to the blameworthiness of the defendant. And so I think what you're sort of seeing here is this fear that when we allow victims to inject emotion into the courtroom, that there's something prejudicial about that, that we're going to end up with heavier punishments for bad reasons. And Emily, then what happened?

It was overturned at some point, right? That's right. I have the opinion of the court to announce a number 90-57-21, Payne against Tennessee. So four years later, the Supreme Court essentially hears a very similar case and reverses the earlier judgment. We hold that the Eighth Amendment erects no automatic bar prohibiting a capital sentencing jury from considering victim impact evidence relating to the victim's personal 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 the harm of the crime has been in the process of apprehending and prosecuting criminal defendants, the interests of the victim and the victim's family are often lost sight of.

The victim becomes simply a statistic. How are victim impact statements used today? I mean, what's the common usage now? The common thing that happens now is that when someone is being sentenced, there's a moment where the judge will let the people who were the most affected by the crime come forward and talk in a kind of open, pretty informal way about what happened to them. That, I think, is a very powerful element of what we saw in the Michigan courtroom this week. You know, women seeing each other, wanting to support each other, wanting to make it clear that the person who should feel shame and guilt here is Dr. Nasser. Not any of them. We'll be right back. Your Honor, do you mind if I address the defendant directly throughout my statement? Please do. Thank you. Larry.

Larry Nassar. Larry. Larry. Larry. Larry. I trusted you, Larry. You were my dearest friend. You, Larry, were the gentle one.

You never insisted on being called doctor. You were Larry, my doctor, my idol, and most importantly, my friend. Or so I thought. I was abused in my own home by you. I was abused at your office at MSU. I was abused in your basement when my mom sat on the couch and your children were upstairs. Today I can say that I'm finally ready to face you. If you haven't listened to one thing I have said, you need to look at me and listen.

You, Larry, turn the sport I love into something I hate. You violated the very principle of your calling. Do no harm. I pray that you, Larry, spend the rest of your life behind bars. You cannot break me, Larry. I am a survivor. Any moment now, former USA Gymnastics doctor Larry Nassar is going to learn what his punishment is for sexually abusing more than 160 girls under his care.

Good morning. You may be seated. Thank you. Take us through what happened in the courtroom on Wednesday. It's just a short statement. What happened on Wednesday was that Larry Nassar apologized. Your words these past several days, your words, your words, have had a significant emotional effect on myself and has shaken me to my core. So before all this outpouring of testimony, Nassar actually complained to the judge that he shouldn't have to sit there, that it was mentally difficult for him to hear. And he also kind of blamed the women. difficult for him to hear, and he also kind of blamed the women.

So that made him seem like someone who had really not reckoned with his own guilt. I also recognize that what I'm feeling pales in comparison to the pain, trauma, and emotional destruction that I'm experiencing. He read a short statement in court that was very different from the statements he made earlier, in which at least it appeared that he was really absorbing what these women had to say to him. There are no words that can describe the depth and breadth of how sorry I am for what has occurred. An acceptable apology. Sir, you need to stay at the microphone or they can't hear you. An acceptable apology to all of you. It's impossible to write and convey. I will carry your words with me for the rest of my days.

So essentially, these victim impact statements, this whole process, yes, it works potentially as a healing device for survivors and victims. But maybe this says something about what it does for the perpetrator of the crime. Is that right? Sometimes if you bring together both sides, there's a kind of reckoning and a healing that can come out of that that is more powerful than perhaps sending someone to jail or prison because it really creates more understanding. And I think sometimes what victims want is the sense that the person who's hurt them really understands what that means and what they've done. Sir, I'm giving you 175 years, which is 2,100 months. I just signed your death warrant. You know, the judge has really set herself up as a kind of figure of wrath and retribution in this case.

And so she sentenced Dr. Nassar to 175 years in prison. And then she also talked about why she was doing that. I'm not special. I'm doing my job. If you come into my courtroom any Wednesday and watch sentencing, I give everybody a voice. So there's a moment where the judge says, I'm not special. I'm just doing my job. And to me, this kind of feels like the heart of what we're talking about. I mean, is she doing her job or is this inappropriate behavior for a judge in a criminal case? You know, we are going to have a long debate about that. It's an example of a judge, I'd say, pushing the boundaries of her job. And there, I think, has been a lot of catharsis as a result of the risks she's taken. Other people are going to,

I'm sure, accuse her of kind of grandstanding and of going too far, of making this kind of personal and making Nassar into a kind of scapegoat figure. That's the debate I'm sure we're going to be having. And I think there is also a recognition that victims have to be in some way at the heart of criminal proceedings, that what we're talking about when we talk about a crime with the victim is something that has had an effect on a human being, often a quite terrible effect. And so if we don't allow victims to talk about what's happened to them, if we don't pull them inside of the criminal justice system, then kind of what's the point? When I, you know, was addressing him, I went to go glimpse at him. I didn't really want to because I didn't know if he was actually going to like look at me and acknowledge what I'm saying.

But finally, I kind of got the guts to do it. And I looked at him and he was actually looking at me. And I mean, I don't know if he was taking in everything I was saying, but he was somewhat acknowledging me to some extent. And Benkela, talk me through the end of your statement. So when you finished, how did you feel? So when you finished, how did you feel? Well, towards the end, I kept thinking that there were things that I forgot to say or that I skipped through. I mean, I walked up there feeling like I was carrying a hundred pound weight on my shoulders. And then you walk away from it and it's like it was just gone. Did it feel like something had changed for you? What did that mean for you?

I mean, I don't want to say that I feel great now because I don't. I feel as if it's a step. It just feels like a step. That's one person that we can remove and not have to deal with anymore. But there's other people that need to be dealt with too. I mean, you have to think of everyone else that enabled him. But I definitely feel about maybe 50% better. There's still other things that when they get dealt with, I'll be a completely different person. Thank you so much, Michaela. Thanks. Many of the victims who addressed Larry Nassar in court this week also demanded accountability from USA Gymnastics, the U.S. Olympic Committee, and Michigan State University, where Nassar was employed as a doctor. Since the testimony began last week, the chairman and several board members of USA Gymnastics have resigned. The head of the Olympic Committee apologized for not attending the hearing.

And on Wednesday evening, the president of Michigan State University, Luanna Simon, stepped down. Here's what else you need to know today. In a surprise exchange with reporters on Wednesday evening, In a surprise exchange with reporters on Wednesday evening, President Trump said he was willing and eager to be interviewed by special they're saying, oh, well, did he fight back? If you fight back, you fight back, John. You fight back. Oh, it's obstruction. So here's the thing. I hope so. The president's lawyers have been negotiating with Mueller's teams about the terms of an interview for weeks. And the president noted to the reporters that any interview would be, quote, subject to my lawyers and all of that. And on Wednesday afternoon, with two weeks until government funding runs out again, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders held a news conference. In some of these negotiations, the White House will release a legislative framework on Monday that represents a compromise that members of both parties can support.

We encourage the Senate to bring it to the floor. will fulfill the four agreed upon pillars, securing the border and closing legal loopholes, ending extended family chain migration, canceling the visa lottery, and providing a permanent solution on DACA. After decades of inaction by Congress, it's time we work together to solve this issue once and for all. The American people deserve no less. The first question Sanders was asked was about what a permanent solution for DACA would mean. Does that include a path to citizenship for the recipients? Well, if I told you now, it would kind of take away the fun for Monday. But hours later, in his conversation with reporters at the White House, the president said the solution could be a path to citizenship after 10 to 12 years.

That's it for The Daily. I'm Michael Barbaro. See you tomorrow.