Trump’s Surprise Witness: Rep. Waters Becomes A Possible Witness Against Her Own Lawsuit

With rioting continuing in Brooklyn Center, Minn. and around the country, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-CA, went to Minnesota and told the protesters that they “gotta stay on the street” and “get more confrontational.”  The statement is ironic since Waters is one of the House members currently suing former President Donald Trump and others for inciting violence on January 6th with his words on the Mall.  Waters insists that Trump telling his supporters to go to the Capitol to make their voice heard and “fight” for their votes was actual criminal incitement. Conversely, Waters was speaking after multiple nights of rioting and looting and telling protesters to stay on the streets and get even more confrontational. There was violence after the remarks, including a shooting incident where two National Guard members were injured. Waters has now guaranteed that she could be called as a witness by Trump in his own defense against her own lawsuit.

Waters’ most recent words could well be cited in the ongoing litigation over the January 6th riot on Capitol Hill. As I have previously discussed, the lawsuit by House members and the NAACP may prove a colossal mistake. It is one of a number of lawsuits, including a lawsuit filed by Rep. Eric. Swalwell, D-Cal, that could ultimately vindicate Trump shortly before the next election. While it is possible that members could find a trial judge to rule in their favor, these lawsuits should fail on appeal, if they get that far. Moreover, they would fail under a lower standard of proof than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard in criminal law. Such a result would eviscerate the claim that Trump was guilty of criminal incitement in his speech.

After the riot, various legal experts appeared on news channels to proclaim that this was a strong if not conclusive case for criminal incitement. Trump was clearly guilty of criminal incitement. CNN legal analyst Elie Honig declared “As a prosecutor I’d gladly show a jury Trump’s own inflammatory statements and argue they cross the line to criminality.” Richard Ashby Wilson, associate law school dean at the University of Connecticut, said “Trump crossed the Rubicon and incited a mob to attack the U.S. Capitol as Congress was in the process of tallying the Electoral College vote results. He should be criminally indicted for inciting insurrection against our democracy.” District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine then thrilled many by declaring that he was investigating Trump for a possible incitement charge.

As I have previously written, these statements ignored both the elements of that crime and controlling case law. Notably, while these and other experts insisted that the crime of incitement was obvious and public on Jan. 6th, there has been no charge brought against Trump despite over four months. Why?

The reason is that an actual criminal case would lead to a rejection of not just the charge but the basis for the second Trump impeachment. Trump’s Jan. 6 speech would not satisfy the test in Brandenburg v. Ohio, where the Supreme Court stressed that even “advocacy of the use of force or of law violation” is protected unless it is imminent. Trump did not call for the use of force but actually told people to protest “peacefully” and to “cheer on” their allies in Congress. After violence erupted, Trump later told his supporters to respect and obey the Capitol Police.

Now Waters, Swalwell, and others are rushing in where wiser Democrats fear to tread. These civil lawsuits actually raise claims like the infliction of emotional distress that were directly and unequivocally rejected by the Supreme Court. In 2011, the court ruled 8-1 in favor of Westboro Baptist Church, an infamous group of zealots who engaged in homophobic protests at the funerals of slain American troops. In rejecting a suit against the church on constitutional grounds, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: “Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker.”

Yet, Waters is not more deterred by the actual case law in this area than the legal experts on CNN and MSNBC. Indeed, Waters has gone further and insisted that Trump should not only be charged with criminal incitement but actual “premeditated murder.” She stated, “For the President of the United States to sit and watch the invasion and the insurrection and not say a word because he knew he had absolutely initiated it – and as some of them said, ‘he invited us to come.”

That bring us back to Brooklyn Center this weekend. Violence and looting have been unfolding around the country, including the near the area where Waters was speaking. Yet, she called on people to stay in the streets and get more “confrontational.”  She added that there would be no acceptance of court decisions to the contrary in the Chauvin case: “We’re looking for a guilty verdict. If we don’t, we cannot go away.”  Protesters have not only been camped around the courthouse but the home of a witness in the Chauvin case was targeted. (It turned out to be his former home). Critics could charge that Waters’ statement and these protests are meant to intimidate witnesses or influence the trial — just as critics charged that Trump was attempting to intimidate or influence Congress.

After Waters remarks, protesters confronted reporters in a tense scene. Also protesters descended upon the home of the prosecutor responsible for the second degree manslaughter charge against the officer who killed Daunte Wright. Also the Minnesota National Guard was fired upon, injuring at least two Guardsman.  That is not to say that Water incited such actions but that the same claimed nexus could be raised in making such an allegation as was done in the Trump impeachment.

In my view, those words are political speech and should not be subject to criminal sanctions. However, I felt the same way about Trump’s speech (which I condemned as he was giving it on Jan. 6th as reckless). I also rejected prior claims against Waters like when she encouraged protesters to confront Trump officials in restaurants and “push back on them and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.” It is all protected speech.

Yet, that standard cannot be selectively applied to some but not all riots or protests. Waters was encouraging protesters to continue to fight for what they believe in. Her over-heated rhetoric could easily be seen by some as an invitation or endorsement for rioting.  However, criminalizing such speech would shred the guarantees of free speech in our country.

Carl Jung once said that “Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves”. That certainly seems to be the case with Waters and Trump. It is also why Waters could prove the only witness that Trump needs to call to defeat her own lawsuit.

213 thoughts on “Trump’s Surprise Witness: Rep. Waters Becomes A Possible Witness Against Her Own Lawsuit”

  1. S.Meyer: “Jeff, Turley also writes for the Hill…. I think you have talked about diversity and balanced news at one time or another. You sound like a hypocrite. We haven’t seen the MSM deal with the claims of a lawless election have we?”

    The reason the MSM does not deal with claims of a lawless election is because it was not lawless, fraudulent or stolen. This proposition will be scrutinized hopefully in the defamation lawsuits brought by Smartmatic and Dominion against Turley’s employer, Fox News. There, Fox will have the opportunity to put into evidence the truthfulness of Trump’s election claims as a defense to the allegations that it intentionally or indifferently propagated falsehoods about the integrity of these respective voting systems. These lawsuits are monumental not only because they are demanding billions of dollars in compensation and punitive damages, but they also may set a new precedent on what constitutes a non-actionable opinion versus an assertion of fact as well as drawing a line between merely reporting the news as opposed to deliberatively driving a false narrative.

    I seem to be the only person on this blog who is outspokenly critical of Turley’s decision to ignore analyzing the First Amendment implications of these potentially ground breaking lawsuits. I have suggested that Turley is not at liberty to do so on account of his employment contract with Fox. That fact, however, would not preclude his commenting on these cases provided he reveals his lack of impartiality due to his allegiance to his Fox colleagues and bosses. But he has not seen fit to offer any explanation to his loyal readers for his untenable silence.

    Am I the only one curious why?

    1. “The reason the MSM does not deal with claims of a lawless election is because it was not lawless, fraudulent or stolen.”

      Jeff, how would they know without an investigation? When they published the Steele Dossier did they know it was phony? Did they investigate it beforehand? (They had it early but didn’t think it worthwhile to print.) After it was printed they used that as a reason to publish.

      Biden’s laptop, how much investigation did they do into that?

      I won’t mention all the dead ends the MSM went down trying to rid themselves of Trump. My underlying problem with the MSM is equity and truth. They do not treat both sides equally. They mix their news with opinion.

      I believe this was a lawless election on many fronts. Hopefully you will want to discuss the various claims that come up over the next year or so. The important thing is to secure future elections so that the vast majority of voters feel their vote counts and is not diluted or discarded.

      1. S. Meyer, there HAVE been investigations. Multiple recounts, comparisons of votes and machine records. Hand counts, lack of evidence claimed, courts pointing out Trump lawyers unable to provide evidence. Etc, etc.

        Claims of “lawless” election or stolen elections, all have no real basis in fact. Belief doesn’t constitute proof.

        Deflecting by using conspiracy theories isn’t a valid argument.

        Like many others, they claim they “know “ fraud on a massive scale occurred, That “the law was not followed” when in fact it was and is shown exactly why in court documents which many refuse to acknowledge because it is not what they believe it is true, only because most don’t understand or can’t comprehend what context and definition has in interpretation of law.

        The only reason you “believe” the election was stolen is because you’re being told by those who are incapable of providing the evidence that gives them that “belief”. That’s what a lie is.

        1. The election was obscured by lawlessness. We have more elections coming so it is best to see what was lawless and what was not.


          1. Jeff, what did he say that you are so proud of?

            There are claims of election irregularities. Too many people believe they occurred. Should not that idea be put to rest and if there were any irregularities should those irregularities not be corrected?

            Those are two simple questions both of which require answers from people interested in good government.

            You asked me to point out when I felt you were acting in certain ways. I posted three responses to your statement and you waited until Svelaz provided an answer that doesn’t make sense. You probably felt you couldn’t do any better so instead you complimented him on one of the three responses which was quite poor and forgot the rest.

            In this case it wasn’t naïveté or hypocrisy. The only answer I can think of is you had no response and therefore complimented Svelaz so that you could continue to pretend you engage in dialogue. I hope that conclusion is wrong and I hope you prove it, but from experience what I have seen is a desire to retreat rather than engage.

    2. Jeff, you talk about Trump’s employer Fox News. You seem to know more about his employment status than I. Is he paid by the year or by the show? Do you know how much? Is it possible he is not paid? How do you know your information is true?

      Turley deals with certain aspects of the law where he is an expert. What has he said about the law that you find has been twisted to suit ‘Fox’s needs’? The topics chosen might be Fox’s choice. None-the-less Turley has opportunities to go in the direction of his choice. If you feel Turley is lying, can you provide an example? I don’t listen that much to TV but am certainly aware of Fox. What I have heard from the news section seems reasonably accurate. The opinion portions provide opinion, but their facts seem to be true most of the time.

      The lawsuits by Dominion and Smartmatic will be interesting if they ever get to court. Did, Fox go over the line? I don’t know, but not having heard the exact item I don’t think they did. They stepped away from some things because they likely didn’t have the newsworthy back-up to pursue that line. That doesn’t mean what they said was true or untrue.

      Sidney Powell enters that picture with her claims. I think she has some points that need investigating but I don’t know the facts well enough to draw a positive or negative conclusion. Sidney Powell has witnesses and things in writing that caused her to believe her opinion to be correct. She rendered her opinion which is perfectly legitimate if she has the evidence she claims. As long as she has reasonable evidence then what she was rendering was an opinion not fact. The facts are the evidence she has which may be true or untrue. If Fox relayed her opinion with a reasonable reason to believe its validity, that is not actionable.

      I think you place more importance on the suits than is warranted. I place more emphasis on whether or not illegalities took place in the election which in my mind is far more important.

      “I seem to be the only person on this blog who is outspokenly critical of Turley’s decision to ignore analyzing the First Amendment implications of these potentially ground breaking lawsuits.”

      I don’t think those cases are ripe. When the suits fly (if they ever do. I have considerable doubt they will) then the question of slander will be ripe enough that I am sure Turley will cover it. He has to have the facts and legal claims which haven’t yet been written by the litigants.

      1. Noted: Allan has finally spelled Sidney Powell’s name correctly.

        Also noted: Allan has openly speculated whether Turley is being paid by Fox news.

        So, clearly, we’re talking baby steps here.

        1. Anonymous the Stupid, you focus on meaningless typos and your conclusions. You never focus on facts and your mind is closed shut. You have no ability to discuss things for if you did you would be responding to Karen. You know that is beyond your abilities.

          She suggested you take an Anonymous name so there could be continuity. I have suggested the same thing but you pretend to be multiple people when you aren’t. You hide yourself and take pot shots all over the place. That is why I named you Anonymous the Stupid and use that name. It provides continuity of discussions that are stupid or redundant. Everyone can see you for who you are.

          I frequently use anonymous when talking to you because you are worthless so any reply to a worthless person with a worthless idea is likely to be worthless itself. I want others to know that both sides of the discussion are not worth reading. If I want something read (or I forget) I use my alias S. Meyer with a distinct icon.

          You can do as you pleas. You are not worth the time anyone spends with you.

          1. Then stop answering me. Your staggering intelliengence and insight are so bright I can see nothing else when in your presence anyway. Thank you for explaining trump’s sheer brilliance around the bleach issue, now I know to disregard the panic of his advisors during trump’s bleach meditation at a press conference. Clearly, all their misplaced anxiety about damage control in that moment was their inability to recognize true genius. I know now that you can see the true trumpy bear, and he’s…, he’s…, well, he’s trump. The same con man who couldn’t win a seat in city government in his hometown. The same guy who had to pay $25 million to avoid going into discovery for the trump university law suit upon enterring office. The same guy so obviously awful at the job of president. But no worries…, Allan knows his true genius so it’s all good! Keep up the good work.

            1. “Then stop answering me.”

              You seem to be the one with diarrhea of the mouth complaining that others respond to you and complaining about the lengths of the responses. Everyone reads on this blog so everyone already knows. I like our little discussions. I don’t get to talk to Stupid people very much but with you I can do so all the time.

              “Your staggering intelliengence and insight are so bright “

              Thank you for your flattery but next to you even a moron looks intelligent.

              Anonymous the Stupid, you have a lot of error in you post that I won’t bother with , but the explanation I provided regarding what phagocytes do in the blood stream is well documented but not well suited for Stupid people of your nature.

          2. S. Meyer/Allan/Anon the Stupid @ 9:40 says: “You are not worth the time anyone spends with you.”

            And, yet, here you are. Again. Day after day. Following Anonymous around like a little scrappy dog.

            1. Another Anonymous the Stupid pretend friend. You and your pretend friends get some continuity carrying the name Anonymous the Stupid.

                1. ATS, you depend on cartoons too much. Repeating the same one doesn’t make you any smarter.

                  1. It might be a good idea to stop hitting yourself in the head, S. Meyer aka Anon @ 4:26.

                    We realize that you’ve been feeling a lot of anxiety the past couple of days, especially. Get some help. You need it.

                    1. All anyone has to do is compare what anonymous says to what S. Meyer says as S. Meyer.

                    2. “All anyone has to do is compare what anonymous says to what S. Meyer says as S. Meyer.”


                      So declares Seth Meyer.

                    3. But, ATS, S. Meyer has a record and you have none. You are totally unable to debate any conservative on the blog. You were denied that intelligence so you adopted an ideology you do not understand .

                      Take note Anonymous the Stupid that Karen writes politely to everyone and even wrote to you. Did you bother to respond nicely to her? She writes well and is clear, but one has to wonder why you cannot provide any responses to her claims.

                      You are vacuous and a failure.

      2. S.Meyer,

        Turley is clearly on the payroll of Fox News. That is why he is identified as a “contributor.”

        The pleadings in the Smartmatic and Dominion lawsuits have been filed. Turley is legally unable or prudentially unwilling to comment on the equities of these cases. His forbearance is telling and unacceptable for an academic who holds himself out as an impartial legal analyst.

        1. Jeff, I must apologize since you actually responded to another of the emails. I hope I will see a response from the other two as well.

          “Turley is clearly on the payroll of Fox News. That is why he is identified as a “contributor.”

          You might know better than I but where does it say that a “contributor” is paid? Where does it say he can only engage in a certain type of speech if you believe that is the case? If you know for sure he is paid then likely you know if it is piece work or annual salary. I think if he is salaried that would not define what he could say because that would ruin his reputation.

          Why should Turley write more about these companies then he already has? What is the law you wish he would discuss that he hasn’t already discussed? Why shouldn’t he wait until the cases are ripe so that the claims are better defined?

          I don’t see any merit in your claim especially since there are so many points of law he wishes to engage in.

    3. What are the election lawsuits all about? Their nature range from not following state laws, ballot stuffing, illegal voting, simultaneous counting stops, hi tech theft involving machinery and its software, etc. The MSM refused to report on this even though a lot of irregularities are known to have occurred.

      I’ll deal with one, not because it is the best or worst, only because a non MSM news article was written on it yesterday.

      Arizona Senate on the verge of beginning major audit of Maricopa County ballots where two million ballots will be audited. A judge has ordered the recount even though county officials are against it. You may have heard about it over a month ago when the judge made his order but there is a lot of friction created by those who don’t want the count done. This is not an easy process and no one can be sure the material being held hasn’t already been altered. Those holding the material were also trying to stop the recount.

      The audit in this one county is to clear the air. Faun writes: “We have never accused anyone of fraud or misconduct, whether it be the hardware, software or actions of personnel,” she added. “We hope there is no intentional illegal tampering but, if found, we will turn the information over to the state and federal attorney generals for their further legal action and we will proceed to make the appropriate corrections.”

      That sounds relatively fair to me. I won’t go into the specific claims as you can read them yourself. Maybe John, who you find interesting will pop in and add a better accounting of the questions raised in Maricopa County and the rest of the nation. His abilities in this area seem to exceed that of anyone else’s on the blog at this time.

      The story can be found at:

      This is by no means the most important or impressive story about election fraud. It represents the randomness of daily reporting.

      I am glad to see that you have some interest in discussion. Do not assume my discussions with Anonymous the Stupid represent the type of desires I have. He is a unique individual with undesirable traits. Any true discussion where truth takes precedence is something I like whether or not I like the results. The only thing I ask for is that people differentiate fact from opinion and that facts be validated with proof.

        1. ATS, (Anonymous the Stupid) you are the one with TDS. HE is gone and you still can’t get over it.

      1. S. Meyer, the problem is people not being able to differentiate between opinion and facts. Facts that don’t conform to their opinions are dismissed. They won’t accept anything else until constant investigations and audits and recounts are done until just one inconsequential small piece of evidence barely emerges ends up validating their entire “belief”.

        Are you going to end up admitting to everyone if this Arizona audit proves that no fraud big enough to affect the outcome you would accept Trump lied? The question will be how many audits and investigations will it take to convince you? If this one doesn’t convince you will another one do?

        1. “the problem is people not being able to differentiate between opinion and facts.”

          That is exactly your problem.


      2. “Do not assume my discussions with Anonymous the Stupid represent the type of desires I have. He is a unique individual with undesirable traits.”

        Too funny, S. Meyer. You’re obsessed with this person.

        Life’s too short, buddy.

    4. MSM doesn’t need to deal with a “lawless” election. They do have an obligation to conduct a comprehensive examination of the 2020 election as do our legislators who are jumping to pass or block proposals before this perfect test tube of election procedures sits, unexamined by authoritative parties. Advocates want to guess, theorize, advance their sound and fury signifying nothing instead of looking at what worked and what didn’t. This isn’t about fraud … unless fraud is found. This is about knowledge. Knowledge can be inconvenient….

    5. Jeff, I too have wondered about Turley’s silence on this. But given the level of riff raff here it is not likely it will get much attention. Turley is being deliberately disingenuous with his criticisms and I think you may be right that because of his continuing affiliation with Fox News he cannot opine on the matter. His opinions can be used against his employer.

      1. Initially i wondered about Turley’s silence but then his agenda became so obvious i stopped putting the energy in.

        1. Svelaz:

          “Jeff, I too have wondered about Turley’s silence on this. But given the level of riff raff here it is not likely it will get much attention. Turley is being deliberately disingenuous with his criticisms and I think you may be right that because of his continuing affiliation with Fox News he cannot opine on the matter. His opinions can be used against his employer.”

          Like many others, I am agitated by Turley’s recent commentaries because I once had faith in his objectivity. It seems that Turley has been hired by Fox to defend the network by critiquing CNN and MSNBC. I don’t recall the last time that Turley has taken issue with any commentary of anyone on Fox News. It could be that Turley has burned his bridges with any chance of future employment by CNN and MSNBC and has resigned himself to working for Fox. I wish I knew the inside baseball of Turley’s reputation in the media so that I could properly place in context his commentary. What I do know is that he is ignoring the false narratives being promulgated by Fox News since his becoming an employee.

          1. Jeff, Turley discusses points of law that might be involved in political disputes but they are points of law not politics. I don’t see him being disingenuous at all. He favors free speech, but we have seen the left trying to abridge free speech. I think that is what bothers some on this blog, hopefully not you. They want Truly to be partisan and are angry at him for not being partisan. They are angry at Dershowitz as well because he stood for the law rather than the party. Both are center left and I disagree on policy with both but respect both for their attempts to keep politics away from their interpretation of the law.

            Additionally, we have seen that CNN had an objective. Take a look at the two video’s I posted that were from PV recording CNN. There are more.

            “What I do know is that he is ignoring the false narratives being promulgated by Fox News”

            That is politics, not the law.

Leave a Reply