Connect with us

MSNBC’s Joy Reid Apologizes Over Unearthed Decade-Old Blog Posts Mocking Charlie Crist as Closeted



Were Reid’s Posts ‘Homophobic’?

Joy Reid is apologizing for blog posts she wrote between 2007-2009, in which she addressed Charlie Crist as “Miss Charlie.” The right-leaning website Mediaite called the MSNBC political analyst and host of “AM Joy” out on Saturday for what it questionably claimed are “homophobic conspiracies and anti-gay jokes.”

On Sunday, Reid offered an apology to all who are “disappointed,” including her friends, viewers, and the now Democratic Congressman Crist, saying her “choice of words and tone have legitimately been criticized.” She posted this tweet before releasing her apology:

Mediaite’s Caleb Ecarma had reported that “Reid wrote numerous bigoted blog posts smearing, mocking, and attacking former Florida governor Charlie Crist,” basing that claim on unearthed archives of Reid’s Miami Herald blog. “These rants included calling Crist ‘Miss Charlie’ and sarcastically using the tags ‘gay politicians’ and ‘not gay politicians’ — despite the fact that the twice-married, heterosexual man has never come-out as gay.”

Rumors that Crist is gay have circulated for well over a decade. He chose to deny them in 2006. Republican turned independent turned Democrat, Crist was forced to apologize for his anti-gay record as the GOP governor of Florida when he unsuccessfully ran to retake his old office as a Democrat.

Reid, who is the co-author of the upcoming We Are the Change We Seek: The Speeches of Barack Obama, had claimed that Crist married a woman so he could be chosen as John McCain’s 2008 vice presidential running mate, which also was widely rumored at the time. 

In fact, Reid’s remarks, ill-chosen as they may be, appear to be not attacking gay people or the LGBT community so much as attacking an anti-gay politician she – and many others – have long believed is gay. Many in the LGBT community for decades have supported attacking politicians believed to be gay when they hold anti-LGBT views or execute an anti-LGBT agenda.

“My critique of anti-LGBT positions he once held but has since abandoned was legitimate in my view,” Reid says of her attacks on Crist. “My means of critiquing were not.”

Let me be clear: at no time have I intentionally sought to demean or harm the LGBT community, which includes people whom I deeply love,” she adds. “My goal, in my ham-handed way, was to call out potential hypocrisy.”

Over at LGBTQ Nation Alex Bollinger writes, “accusing Reid of being homophobic just because she thought Crist was gay – or even because she criticized him for being a closeted gay Republican or the GOP for wanting a heterosexual VP pick – is overwrought. Those rumors were rampant because a lot of people who knew Crist were contributing to them.”

Bollinger adds, “it’s not like Reid said that Crist was going to burn in hell. If anything, her overall position is that the GOP is wrong for being homophobic.”

Those who know Reid are also defending her.

“I’ve had the pleasure to call Joy a friend for a little over 10 years,” LGBTQ representative for the Broward Democratic Party Michael Emanuel Rajner told NCRM via email. “We met when she co-hosted a radio show in South Florida and reported how Fort Lauderdale’s then mayor was attacking the LGBT community.”

“While Joy could have expressed herself differently, it was a tough time for Florida’s LGBT community as we battled against a constitutional ban against marriage. Joy understood and supported us in our struggle and over the years has reached out to learn from her friends and colleagues in the LGBT community,” Rajner adds. “Joy is among one of my sheros with the courage to speak up and challenge authority and injustice.”

Mediaite author Caleb Ecarma, who authored the piece highlighting Reid’s remarks about Crist, has a history of attacking the MSNBC host via Twitter. He has called Reid a “bad person,” claimed she has never read the Bible, and asserted that “she immediately resorts to calling [leftists] sexist or racist.”

To comment on this article and other NCRM content, visit our Facebook page.

Image via Facebook

If you find NCRM valuable, would you please consider making a donation to support our independent journalism?


Continue Reading
Click to comment

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.


Dominion Wins ‘Blockbuster Victories’ Against Fox News – Last Legal Issue Will Be Decided by a Jury: Report



Dominion Voting Systems won what are being called “blockbuster victories” Friday afternoon when a judge ruled the company suing Fox News for $1.6 billion in a major defamation lawsuit had met its burden of proof that Rupert Murdoch‘s far-right wing cable channel had repeatedly made false statements.

The final, and likely greatest legal issue Dominion will have to prove will be actual malice. That issue will be decided in a jury trial, Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric M. Davis ruled Friday, according to Law & Crime.

Unlike previous cases, Fox News will reportedly not be able to argue the on-air statements its personalities made were opinion.

CNN legal analyst and Brookings senior fellow Norm Eisen calls Friday’s decision a “huge win for Dominion on their summary judgment motion against Fox News.”

READ MORE: Capitol Police Issue Warning Over Possible Trump Protests ‘Across the Country’

“Dominion won partial summary judgement that what Fox said about them was false! Now they just have to prove actual malice and damages,” Eisen says. “Meanwhile Fox’s motion was totally denied.”

Former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance, an MSNBC contributor adds: “Dominion’s evidence Fox made false statements with reckless disregard  is as strong as any I’ve seen.”

The judge was very clear in his ruling.

“While the Court must view the record in the light most favorable to Fox, the record does not show a genuine issue of material fact as to falsity,” Judge Davis wrote. “Through its extensive proof, Dominion has met its burden of showing there is no genuine issue of material fact as to falsity. Fox therefore had the burden to show an issue of material fact existed in turn. Fox failed to meet its burden.”

READ MORE: ‘Propaganda Network’: Media Reporter Says Dominion Filing Exposes Fox News as ‘Void of the Most Basic Journalistic Ethics’

Attorney and MSNBC host and legal analyst Katie Phang points to this key passage in Judge Davis’ ruling.

Court watchers and news junkies are familiar at this point with the massive legal filings Dominion has made in which it exposed how Fox News knowingly made false statements regarding the 2020 presidential election. Those filings, each hundreds of pages, also detail internal Fox News communications and bombshell conversations between the company’s top personalities, executives, and even Chairman Rupert Murdoch.


Image of Rupert Murdoch via Shutterstock

Continue Reading


Capitol Police Issue Warning Over Possible Trump Protests ‘Across the Country’



The U.S. Capitol Police and the Senate Sergeant at Arms on Friday jointly issued a statement warning they “anticipate” Trump protests across the country. The statement is not time-specific, and it states it has no information on “credible threats,” but some Democratic offices are allowing staffers to work from home Friday and Tuesday.

“The Sergeant at Arms and United States Capitol Police (USCP) anticipate demonstration activity across the country related to the indictment of former President Trump. While law enforcement is not tracking any specific, credible threats against the Capitol or state offices, there is potential for demonstration activity. USCP is working with law enforcement partners, so you may observe a greater law enforcement presence on Capitol Hill,” the statement reads.

“The SAA and USCP are monitoring the potential nationwide impacts to Senate state offices,” it adds.

The House Sergeant at Arms was conspicuously absent from the statement. Speaker Kevin McCarthy has control over that office.

READ MORE: Trump Trial Could Go Well Into the 2024 Election – Or Possibly Even Past It: Former Prosecutor

Additionally, Axios is reporting, “several House Democrats are allowing staffers to work from home as a safety precaution,” noting that “the memory of Trump supporters ransacking the Capitol on Jan. 6 is still fresh on the mind.”

U.S. Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI) is allowing staff to work from home for safety reasons. She told Axios, “I don’t ever want to see a Jan. 6 again.”

“I’ve been in the Trump hate tunnel, Donald Trump has gone after me, and quite frankly I don’t have security. I don’t have entourages.”

She’s not the only Democrat to raise concerns.

“Much of the language from the former President and his devotees is similar to what inspired Jan. 6th,” U.S. Rep. Dean Phillips said. “I’m concerned about safety for my colleagues and my staff.”

READ MORE: ‘Lighting the Match’: Marjorie Taylor Greene Blasted for Off the Rails Rant Defending Trump

Meanwhile, House Republicans are issuing full-throated support for Trump and calling for protests.

U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), who was called out by name in a six-page letter Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg sent to Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan Friday morning, announced she will be in New York on Tuesday to support Trump when he is arraigned. She has posted several tweets since Trump was indicted.

Speaker Kevin McCarthy issued a statement Thursday seemingly designed to gin up rage and action in the MAGA base.

“Alvin Bragg has irreparably damaged our country in an attempt to interfere in our Presidential election. As he routinely frees violent criminals to terrorize the public, he weaponized our sacred system of justice against President Donald Trump. The American people will not tolerate this injustice, and the House of Representatives will hold Alvin Bragg and his unprecedented abuse of power to account.”


Image by Elvert Barnes via Flickr and a CC license

Continue Reading


Trump Trial Could Go Well Into the 2024 Election – Or Possibly Even Past It: Former Prosecutor



Donald Trump, and all of America, could spend the next 18 months – or longer – engrossed in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s trial of the ex-president, and that could bring the trial close to Election Day.

That’s according to a former prosecutor in the Brooklyn District Attorney’s office, Charles Coleman, who is now a civil rights attorney and MSNBC legal analyst.

Asked by MSNBC’s Chris Jansing, “How long typically might a case like this take?” Coleman offered a two-tiered answer.

“A case like this is usually going to take a year or a year and a half,” Coleman said.

That could be through September of 2024.

READ MORE: ‘Lighting the Match’: Marjorie Taylor Greene Blasted for Off the Rails Rant Defending Trump

“Wow,” a surprised Jansing replied. “So it’s going right up into the campaign.”

“Absolutely,” agreed Coleman. “But it’s important to understand I said a case ‘like this.’ This particular case, I expect may take longer because I am anticipating a number of different legal maneuvers by Donald Trump’s defense team.”

That theoretically means into October of 2024, or longer.

“I do see motions to dismiss at a number of different terms, more likely than not to the point that the judge probably will ultimately end up admonishing them and telling them stop filing motions to dismiss. I think that that’s going to happen,” Coleman explained.

“I’ve said before, and I’ll say again, I do believe that we are going to see an attempt to try to change the venue, in this case outside of somewhere in the five boroughs. All of that is going to extend the time deeper and deeper into election season.”

READ MORE: Manhattan DA Unleashes on Jim Jordan With Stern Warning: You May Not ‘Interfere’ With Trump Prosecution

Reuters agrees, reporting Friday morning, “any potential trial is still at minimum more than a year away, legal experts said, raising the possibility that the former U.S. president could face a jury in a Manhattan courtroom during or even after the 2024 presidential campaign, as he seeks a return to the White House.”

And because “Trump’s case is far from typical,” Reuters notes, his trial could extend “past Election Day in November 2024.”





Continue Reading


Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.