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

[dutch508]

Star Member madaboutharry (35,920 posts)
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215354618

I 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.

Tim Pool on Maxine and her comments:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srwKLa_bkJ8&t=324s
National Guard Injured From LIVE FIRE In Minnesota After Democrat Maxine Waters Incites Insurrection

joetheman (339 posts)

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

Star Member FalloutShelter (7,768 posts)

5. I agree...

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

Star Member GoCubsGo (26,272 posts)

2. It wasn't.

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

Star Member StarfishSaver (14,451 posts)

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.

Star Member panader0 (22,281 posts)

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?

The jury was not sequestered.

Star Member StarfishSaver (14,451 posts)

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.

 

Star Member USALiberal (7,718 posts)

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

dem4decades (7,666 posts)

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?

Star Member LymphocyteLover (1,839 posts)

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

 

Bucky (49,642 posts)

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

 

Star Member mopinko (59,334 posts)

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

like that? yeah. not actionable.

 

Star Member mzmolly (49,477 posts)

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

What a crock.

 

[ADsOutburst]

She encouraged confrontation, based on falsehoods, or things that haven't been shown to be true. She seemed intent on influencing a trial. And she did it as street violence was already taking place. Does that clear things up, asswipes?

[SVPete]

Star Member FalloutShelter (7,768 posts)

5. I agree...

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

  The judge could have denied the mistrial motion without comment and the defense would appeal a "Guilty" verdict based on Mad Maxine's jury tampering threat. If anything, the judge's comment that he believed the jury would not be influenced went against a possible Chauvin appeal.