General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI don't know what Maxine Waters said that was out of line.
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
(1,450 posts)FalloutShelter
(11,866 posts)That judge, fully expecting conviction, gave the defense a path to appeal that should not exist.
LymphocyteLover
(5,644 posts)GoCubsGo
(32,083 posts)Nancy Pelosi also said as much, so all this posturing from the GQP will go nowhere.
Demsrule86
(68,565 posts)outgoing court case. I hope this isn't used as an excuse to acquit Chauvin.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)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
(68,565 posts)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
(30,739 posts)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
(25,816 posts)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
(18,486 posts)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
(5,644 posts)spooky3
(34,452 posts)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 didnt 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. Shouldnt that be the defense teams job to figure that out?
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)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
(34,452 posts)USALiberal
(10,877 posts)StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)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
(13,991 posts)I absolutely would say the same thing if Mitch gave his opinion.
LymphocyteLover
(5,644 posts)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
(57,073 posts)So of course they are going to whine. Fk them!
Evolve Dammit
(16,728 posts)dem4decades
(11,288 posts)Why give the defense any ammunition for an appeal?
NH Ethylene
(30,811 posts)LymphocyteLover
(5,644 posts)USALiberal
(10,877 posts)hadEnuf
(2,190 posts)Maxine Waters has a long, long way to go to catch up, so the Right can shove their phony outrage sideways.
uponit7771
(90,336 posts)dem4decades
(11,288 posts)uponit7771
(90,336 posts)dem4decades
(11,288 posts)Is that her district?
uponit7771
(90,336 posts)Bucky
(54,012 posts)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
(18,486 posts)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
(7,432 posts)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
(34,051 posts)Demsrule86
(68,565 posts)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
(18,486 posts)Evolve Dammit
(16,728 posts)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
(18,486 posts)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
(16,728 posts)bdamomma
(63,849 posts)about Jan 6th. Hmmm....there were many in the Congress who knew about the insurrection and the jerk who incited it.
Evolve Dammit
(16,728 posts)bdamomma
(63,849 posts)to never forget or let them forget. Justice must be done.
geardaddy
(24,931 posts)Thank you for saying this.
uponit7771
(90,336 posts)2naSalit
(86,604 posts)That was the offense to the racists.
Tommymac
(7,263 posts)Maxheader
(4,373 posts)Just needs to temper the talk since congress just spent considerable
time debating whether stumpy actually incited a riot...with deaths..imho...
mopinko
(70,102 posts)like that? yeah. not actionable.
mzmolly
(50,992 posts)What a crock.
Lulu KC
(2,565 posts)She said nothing wrong.
Sunsky
(1,737 posts)I agree and I include Cahill's rebuke in this sentiment.
niyad
(113,302 posts)hearing from the defenders of white supremacy ad nauseum, ad infinitum. They can jolly well get over it.
Escurumbele
(3,392 posts)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
(113,302 posts)We do not excoriate the rwnj's for speaking. We excoriate them for lying. Slight difference.
Escurumbele
(3,392 posts)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
(4,448 posts)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
(3,392 posts)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
(11,306 posts)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
(90,336 posts)Dreampuff
(778 posts)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
(16,785 posts)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
(16,728 posts)Escurumbele
(3,392 posts)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
(3,392 posts)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
(28,859 posts).. 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
(3,392 posts)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
(13,991 posts)to Trump inciting an insurrection is absolute bullshit right wing talking points. Good job.
JI7
(89,249 posts)Buckeye_Democrat
(14,853 posts)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
(7,812 posts)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
(4,448 posts)instead of celebrities, friends and relatives.
Why would he choose her of all people? I'm guessing racism.
CrispyQ
(36,464 posts)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: Weve got to stay on the street and weve got to get more active, weve got to get more confrontational. Weve 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
(18,486 posts)DFW
(54,378 posts)To Republicans, that is already out of line.
Poeraria
(219 posts)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
(18,486 posts)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
(7,403 posts)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
(1,910 posts)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
(810 posts)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
(24,931 posts)-misanthroptimist
(810 posts)I corrected the post and credited you.
geardaddy
(24,931 posts)And I agree with your argument.
uponit7771
(90,336 posts)brooklynite
(94,548 posts)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
(18,486 posts)Black, female, strong, unapologetic and unafraid to call these people out.
Deminpenn
(15,286 posts)If she'd have made these statements from DC or her district in CA, they would have been preceived much differently.
ananda
(28,859 posts)They like to deflect by going on projectionist attacks on
innocent people trying to fight for democracy and justice.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)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
(18,486 posts)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
(58,785 posts)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
(153,160 posts)I wouldn't care hearing that from any Democrat
but it is fun hearing repukes whine about it
dlk
(11,566 posts)Racism, sexism, ageism all rolled into one.