I don't know what Maxine Waters said that was out of line.

[madaboutharry]

She didn't say anything wrong.

I think the criticism of her comments is just the usual response when people of color or another minority speak up about their refusal to take shit anymore.

[joetheman]

1. The judge is just trying to help the defense without it being obvious.

[FalloutShelter]

5. I agree...

That judge, fully expecting conviction, gave the defense a path to appeal that should not exist.

[LymphocyteLover]

24. yeah, that seemed way out of line and just dumb

[GoCubsGo]

2. It wasn't.

Nancy Pelosi also said as much, so all this posturing from the GQP will go nowhere.

[Demsrule86]

3. I don't think her comments were awful either. But she not have said anything about an

outgoing court case. I hope this isn't used as an excuse to acquit Chauvin.

[StarfishSaver]

8. Everyone else in America is talking about the case

The comments of a Member of Congress in no way prejudice a jury - especially a Member who doesn't represent their district.

This is a ruse and a racist one at that.

It's funny that people are criticizing her for speaking, but seem to have no problem with a presiding judge publicly castigating a Member of Congress for expressing her opinion.

[Demsrule86]

12. I didn't criticize her. But she is an elected representative, her words carry more weight than

mine or yours. And the judge may use this as an excuse to force a mistrial. I don't think any elected official should comment on an ongoing court case. We have to consider every word we say as the GOP types (this judge is one of them) will misuse our words. There is a first amendment so anyone can say what they want, but is it wise? I don't know...time will tell.

[murielm99]

56. When Crazy Old Manson was on trial,

President Nixon made some reference to the trial during a news conference. Everyone was horrified. Manson found a way to bring in a newspaper that headlined Nixon's comments. He threw the paper down on the table in front of him.

The judge did not declare a mistrial. This was a much more egregious incident.

P.S. If I have some details about this incident wrong, please correct me. I am fairly sure I remember the incident accurately, but it was a long time ago.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2019/08/08/how-charles-manson-almost-won-mistrial-courtesy-richard-nixon/

[panader0]

15. The jury is sequestered.

The only way the jury can know anything about Waters' comments would be if they
violated the terms of their sequester. I ask you, as a legal expert, is that right?

[StarfishSaver]

18. They weren't sequestered until yesterday

But they were instructed by the judge not to watch or listen to anything about the case.

But even if something slipped through and they heard it anyway, it's pretty difficult to argue that a juror hearing what Maxine Waters said about the case would have any influence on how they voted in the end.

[LymphocyteLover]

20. I mean, it's not like Maxine Waters is the only prominent person talking about this case FFS

[spooky3]

51. Cynthia Alksne (sp? attorney on MSNBC) said it's not a

Problem because the jury were told at the beginning of the trial not to watch the news, so unless they broke their oaths they would not have heard the comments.

The judge didn’t order a mistrial, so he probably will not later (unless something else happens). But he did say there may be grounds for appeal. That may be routine, but that sounds inappropriate to me. Shouldn’t that be the defense team’s job to figure that out?

[StarfishSaver]

60. The more common - and appropriate - comment for the judge to make

Would be to deny the motion for mistrial but to tell the defense attorneys that this issue could be brought up on appeal. Instead, he injected his personal views into it, which was very inappropriate.

[spooky3]

61. Thank you Nt

[USALiberal]

23. If Mitch said they should vote not guilty we would throw a fit! Nt

[StarfishSaver]

29. I wouldn't

Besides. She didn't tell the jury how to vote. She wasn't even talking to them. She told people what they should do if the jury acquits.

[Elessar Zappa]

71. Speak for yourself.

I absolutely would say the same thing if Mitch gave his opinion.

[LymphocyteLover]

26. as far as I can tell, she just called for more protests

I don't see the problem except the "more confrontational" line could be misconstrued in bad faith. The right just loves to pick on her.

[SheltieLover]

4. She is: #1 Female and #2 Black. #3 she doesn't take shit

So of course they are going to whine. Fk them!

[Evolve Dammit]

30. Whine, villianize and whip up the racist anger and fear. Works every time. nt

[dem4decades]

6. Please, if Trump had called for a jury to vote a certain way we'd be furious.

Why give the defense any ammunition for an appeal?

[NH Ethylene]

21. I agree. I wish she hadn't said that - at least not at this moment in time. n/t

[LymphocyteLover]

22. she's not president and I don't think she told the jury how to vote

[USALiberal]

25. Yep? Or Mitch too! Double standard here! Nt

[hadEnuf]

58. Trump said whatever he wanted about anyone he wanted and the GQP just fawned over it.

Maxine Waters has a long, long way to go to catch up, so the Right can shove their phony outrage sideways.

[uponit7771]

73. Cause he was the president at the time? False equivalency much? tia

[dem4decades]

81. Aren't they both national leaders? Sometimes the mirror sucks.

[uponit7771]

83. no

[dem4decades]

85. No? If Waters isn't national why is she in Minnesota giving an interview?

Is that her district?

[uponit7771]

86. She's a US citizen? thx in advance

[Bucky]

7. Here's what she said wrong....

She said American citizen should exercise their rights to free assembly and petitioning the government for redress of grievances.

This is deeply offensive to people who apply a paper bag test to other peoples' inalienable rights

[StarfishSaver]

9. Thanks you

Moreover, while white people being "confrontational" is the exercise of a valued Constitutional right, the thought of Black and Brown people being "confrontational" absolutely terrifies some white people because "confrontational" Black and Brown people, in their view, are violent thugs.

[Eyeball_Kid]

45. I'm looking for the "confrontational" statement. Where is it?

Waters was commenting on the trial as an extension of a larger social/racial problem. That's free speech that is not directed at the jury or the trial. It's directed at communities that are paying attention to the unequal application of justice to people of color. Why is that considered "confrontational"?

[orleans]

52. it's in this article

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/19/politics/maxine-waters-derek-chauvin-trial/index.html

[Demsrule86]

14. It was the confrontational part that is causing trouble...the GOP is misuing her words on this.

I don't think any elected official should call for a particular verdict in a court case. I am sure that makes me persona non grata here... but I just don't. I want Chauvin convicted, and I don't want to give the GOP judge an opportunity to declare a mistrial.

[StarfishSaver]

19. The idea of people of color being "confrontational" scares the crap out of some white people

[Evolve Dammit]

33. Used with the George Floyd "crowd", BLM protestors, border "caravans" or just one person. "Free

speech" is only for whites. Otherwise you're a threat and need to be smashed. Goes back centuries. Watch this FL law enabling by signal, that protestors of color can be abused. Won't apply to whites, unless you're viewed as a radical environmentalist, peace or justice protestor. Then you will be a threat as well. Getting closer to full blown facism.

[StarfishSaver]

38. The "crowd" was a "mob"- "protesters" are "rioters and looters"

Meanwhile, white people with guns and zipties and gallows and nooses staging an insurrection by storming the Capitol and beating police with batons and flagpoles and spraying bearspray and mace are just "exercising their First Amendment rights."

[Evolve Dammit]

65. It's as different as well, ....black and white. Is anyone ever going to be convicted from 1/6?

[bdamomma]

80. not a peep

about Jan 6th. Hmmm....there were many in the Congress who knew about the insurrection and the jerk who incited it.

[Evolve Dammit]

84. Seriously. I want the names and connections of those who enabled and abetted this attack. nt

[bdamomma]

87. We need

to never forget or let them forget. Justice must be done.

[geardaddy]

53. + 1 million

Thank you for saying this.

[uponit7771]

74. RIGHT ?!!?

[2naSalit]

10. She went there and she spoke...

That was the offense to the racists.

[Tommymac]

55. This. nt

[Maxheader]

11. Representative Waters,

Just needs to temper the talk since congress just spent considerable

time debating whether stumpy actually incited a riot...with deaths..imho...

[mopinko]

13. compared to the former guy telling his goons to march on the capitol?

like that? yeah. not actionable.

[mzmolly]

16. Our representatives can't exercise First Amendment rights when there is a trial?

What a crock.

[Lulu KC]

17. I'm with Maxine

She said nothing wrong.

[Sunsky]

27. Not one thing

I think the criticism of her comments is just the usual response when people of color or another minority speak up about their refusal to take shit anymore.

I agree and I include Cahill's rebuke in this sentiment.

[niyad]

28. Rep. Maxine Waters was exercising her Constutional right of free speech. We have been

hearing from the defenders of white supremacy ad nauseum, ad infinitum. They can jolly well get over it.

[Escurumbele]

42. Sorry, we cannot condemn trump and gang for things they said and then give a pass to Waters

just because she is a Democrat, and what she said can be taken as incendiary.

Nope, she should have kept thoughts to herself until the verdict was given by the jury. Why throw gasoline to fire that has been burning but it is low?

What if the judge calls it a mistrial because of what she said, then what???

[niyad]

44. Perhaps you read the part about no mistrial, but possible grounds for appeal? Slight difference.

We do not excoriate the rwnj's for speaking. We excoriate them for lying. Slight difference.

[Escurumbele]

66. Lets go back to common sense. And Common Sense dictates that she hold her thoughts while

the trial is still going on, no one wants to be the cause of a mistrial, or give republicans a chance to make a lot of noise about what what she said.

One may be speaking the truth, but one must know when to do it. It would be a travesty is Chauvin got out free because of a mistrial, and because someone who is not part of the jury, or the trial said something in public the judge deemed worthy of a mistrial.

I saw when the judge denied the mistrial request, and when he said "possible grounds for appeal", and why did that happen? because Maxine Waters said something in public.

[fescuerescue]

49. Why not?

Trump was inciting a riot to keep HIMSELF in power.

Maxine was inciting a protest to send a bad cop to jail.

Totally different circumstances.

[Escurumbele]

68. No they are not, in this case she needs to stay quiet and wait for the verdict

Yes, trump and his gang blatantly incited the crowd for violence, but her comments could have waited because, as we all know, republicans will start calling her comments an attempt to influence the jury, which is exactly what the defense claimed in order to request a mistrial.

This is not very difficult to understand.

Democrats must stay a couple of steps ahead of republicans, they need to "THINK BEFORE THEY ACT" at all times, making sure no doors are opened for republicans to begin their disinformation and lying efforts.

[stopdiggin]

72. a voice crying in the wilderness

It was ill advised. But many on this site play 'team sports' -- so it's 'our guys, right or wrong!' We're not real good at seeing our own faults (or even recognizing ...)
----- -----

[uponit7771]

76. Overt false equivalency noted

[Dreampuff]

31. She didn't say anything wrong.

The defense has been using any excuse they can find for who is to blame for this whole situation except the one person who is actually the most to blame, along with his three accomplices.

Maxine Waters is in good company since it was the fault of George Floyd himself, the bystanders who supposedly distracted the four officers who were involved, while they were only trying to help, the fact that an alternate juror lives in the same community where the twenty-year-old was just murdered, Etc. The defense even started in on the fact that the ambulance ended up being there are two minutes later than expected. They are grabbing at straws because there truly is no defense for what he did.

I'm not sure I feel the same way about the judge as a few of you. I really think he is trying his best to be fair, but that is just my opinion.

[ProudMNDemocrat]

32. Eric Nelson's Defense of Chauvin was WEAK....

He using the excuse of Maxine Waters to cover that up.

I mean, saying George Floyd was responsible for his own death did not go over well with the African-American community or the jury for that matter.

[Evolve Dammit]

36. Siezing on any thread, because the majority knows it was murder. nt

[Escurumbele]

40. That is his job, he has to defend the guy, even if he knows the guy is guilty of murder.

But he was appointed to him, and as a lawyer he has to do everything in his power to defend him, then we get Waters to give him an excuse to ask for a mistrial, he will use it.

[Escurumbele]

39. Actually, Nelson is brilliant, he knows he did not have much to work with, but he has done well

with what little he had.

Maxine Waters opened the door for him to ask for a mistrial, that was wrong from Waters.

I am not a lawyer, but I love the law, and I know there are many rules that could convert this into a mistrial, and that is why people like Waters, who have a public platform, must remain quiet and wait for the verdict.

[ananda]

34. It's so easy to forget what the Reeps did to the capitol..

.. and to democracy.

Far far worse than anything Waters or any Dem has said
or done!

And yet they still walk freely among the halls of Congress
and the Senate, attacking us as though defending justice
and democracy is more evil than what they did.

Think about this.....

[Escurumbele]

35. She should know better and keep her thoughts for later. She knows repubs will jump at anything so,

why open the door to them.

What she said is exactly the type of rhetoric that we all criticized from the republicans, and trump before the insurrection. She said "They have to understand that we will not stop for nothing." or something very similar. That has a lot of meaning.

The people are holding a protest to make sure that justice is done for George Floyd, and she has to know this is not the time to arouse masses, that civility in this case is of the most importance, that anything she says will be taken out of context, although in this case she said more than she should have.

Stay quiet, and wait for the verdict, otherwise you give an excuse to the defense to claim there was jury intimidation, and other ideas that help the defense and not the case. The defense wanted a mistrial, and although I don't feel comfortable with the judge (just gut feeling), he denied it, but then again Waters was the one who opened the door to that.

I like Maxime Waters, but this time she was very wrong, we need to recognize and accept when one of ours has made a mistake.

[Elessar Zappa]

70. Comparing Waters' comments

to Trump inciting an insurrection is absolute bullshit right wing talking points. Good job.

[JI7]

37. She is a black woman

[Buckeye_Democrat]

41. Agreed.

I should've known better, but I actually gave people like MTG the benefit of the doubt and later listened to everything Maxine said in Minnesota. None of it involved lies or unnecessary instigation.

Typical right-wing deception!

[wiggs]

43. Jurors have never heard of previous unrest after unpopular verdicts? No one else has

commented on the case in this fashion? Not Fox, celebrities, friends and relatives, newspapers? Just Maxine I guess.

Judge clearly had it in for the congresswoman, and defense didn't comment very fully. Flimsy attempt at mistrial/appeal but i guess a bunch of flimsy elements could get them an appeal. Hoping for quick verdict so that a second trial is more unlikely.

[fescuerescue]

88. For reason he targeted a United States Congresswoman

instead of celebrities, friends and relatives.

Why would he choose her of all people? I'm guessing racism.

[CrispyQ]

46. Rep. Waters encouraged people to "get more confrontational."

I believe that is the phrase the right wing is referring to.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/apr/19/maxine-waters-minneapolis-remarks-kevin-mccarthy-marjorie-taylor-greene

Waters said: “We’ve got to stay on the street and we’ve got to get more active, we’ve got to get more confrontational. We’ve got to make sure that they know that we mean business."

Just like "defund the police" & HRC's "deplorable" comment, they will use our words against us.

[StarfishSaver]

78. They will use it against us if we say "hello"

[DFW]

47. If she said something that was true

To Republicans, that is already out of line.

[Poeraria]

48. She should have known better to make comments that could effect the deliberation of the jury.

This gave the Reich the distraction they always depend on to change the narrative, but more importantly, why isn't she in Washington working on legislation that can result in the change that we desperately need?

The people who have taken to the streets are demanding that those in power address this very real problem with Criminal Justice and Police Reform. We hold the House, Senate and White house, so there is no reason why this can't happen.

Rep. Waters has a powerful position in the House power structure. Instead of coming down into the streets to be a part of the protest, I believe she would be more effective in Washington writing the legislation that will be the solution.

[StarfishSaver]

79. Nothing she said would affect the jury deliberations.

I am quite positive that not a single juror said or even thought, "I don't think Chauvin is guilty, but I'm not sure I should vote to acquit him because a Congresswoman from the other side of the country said that people who are fighting for civil rights should be more confrontational if Chauvin is acquitted."

[DallasNE]

50. The Judge Is Known For Creating Drama

What Waters said could have been said by MLK. They are picking on a single word spoken and ignoring the context. When you read the whole sentence what she said is fine. That is why Nancy Pelosi is backing her so strongly.

[Jon King]

54. The judge could not have been any more wrong!

I know he worked for Klobuchar and is 'highly respected' and all that. But so far in this case he has made two huge mistakes, both favoring the defense.

First he wrongly decided that they could not prosecute for 3rd degree murder which would have made it hard for any jurors not quite sure to convict on anything. They would have had no lesser charge to go with. The appeals court blasted him and overturned his decision.

Then he goes out of his way to say Maxine's comments could not only lead to appeal but overturn the entire trial. That was way over the top and used by right wing media for their cause.

He had no need to say that. He should have simply said the defense has a right to appeal if they choose. Thats a generic right of all defendants.

[-misanthroptimist]

57. Remember when Manson's conviction got overturned

Last edited Tue Apr 20, 2021, 11:50 AM - Edit history (1)

Remember when Manson's conviction got overturned after the President declared him guilty while the trial was still underway? Oh, wait. Manson's died* in prison despite Nixon's declaration.

Then let's not have any bullshit about what one Congresswoman said, thank you very much.

And for the record, I agree with Waters.

*Corrected. Thanks to geardaddy. I honestly forgot the POS died.

[geardaddy]

59. Manson's been dead for four years. n/t

[-misanthroptimist]

64. Thanks for reminding me.

I corrected the post and credited you.

[geardaddy]

69. My pleasure. :)

And I agree with your argument.

[uponit7771]

77. +1,

[brooklynite]

62. I do...

If you call for potential actions after the Jury verdict, and do it BEFORE the Jury deliberates, its a distraction and puts the trail at risk (the only reason the Judge refused the Defense's motion for a mistrial was because the Jury was under orders not to watch the news.

[StarfishSaver]

63. It's not what she said. It's what she is.

Black, female, strong, unapologetic and unafraid to call these people out.

[Deminpenn]

67. It's not what she said, but

where (Brooklyn Center) she said it and that it was on the Sat/Sun before closing arguments in the Chauvin trial.

If she'd have made these statements from DC or her district in CA, they would have been preceived much differently.

[ananda]

75. Nothing compared to what Reeps have been saying and doing!

They like to deflect by going on projectionist attacks on
innocent people trying to fight for democracy and justice.

[Hortensis]

82. She may have influenced the jury. I admire her, but

potentially giving Chauvin a get out of jail card was outrageously irresponsible and disrespectful of the principles of justice and not acceptable in someone of her position. She's not a forklift driver (apologies to informed forklift drivers) ranting cluelessly over his third beer with friends. People listen when she talks. And of course the right will make the most (i.e., the worst) of it.

[StarfishSaver]

90. NO ONE on that jury voted to acquit because a Congresswoman said people should protest more

aggressively if he were acquitted.

Some people do listen to Waters when she talks. Some people don't. But no intelligent juror is going to say, "You know, after weeks of listening to testimony and reviewing a couple of hundred pieces of evidence, I was going to vote to acquit Chauvin on all three counts. But I heard somewhere that Maxine Waters said that people should protest more confrontationally if we acquit him (something that dozens if not hundreds of other prominent people have said publicly), so I'm going to ignore all that and vote to convict."

I sincerely doubt that anyone who would be likely to want to acquit Chauvin at this trial would be influenced by anything Auntie Maxine says.

And the right will make the most (i.e., the worst) of anything any Black Democrat says, no matter what it is, so that's not a reason to criticize Waters for speaking her mind.

[Hortensis]

92. That will be addressed in the appeals process. I personally doubt

it and believe the verdicts would have been the same, but then I'm not the judge who will be hearing the appeal(s) and I don't have the arguments that will be presented then. And of course those will be addressing issues of law.

[Skittles]

89. I don't like what she said

I wouldn't care hearing that from any Democrat

but it is fun hearing repukes whine about it

[dlk]

91. Especially when it's a woman and a woman of a certain age

Racism, sexism, ageism all rolled into one.