Pelosi Refuses To Criticize Waters Despite Court Denouncing Her Remarks For Undermining The Chauvin Trial

The fallout over the comments of Rep. Maxine Waters (D., Cal.)  continued as Democrats were asked to condemn her call for protesters to stay in the streets and get more confrontational. I recently wrote a column on how Waters had become the best possible witness for Donald Trump in her own lawsuit against him. Waters was denounced by Judge Peter Cahill for undermining not just any conviction in the trial of Derek Chauvin but the court itself in seeking to carry out its constitutional function. It would seem a simple matter for responsible people to condemn Waters’ inflammatory remarks but Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Cal.) defended her and refused to criticize the comments.  Earlier this year, Pelosi condemned Trump for criminal incitement and pushed through his impeachment for using similar words on Jan. 6th.  Waters was also defended on CNN where media figures supported her call for protesters to stay in the streets and get “more confrontational.”

Waters told protesters to stay and “fight” for justice and told protesters they “gotta stay on the street” and “get more confrontational.”  She also said that they should not accept anything other than a conviction.

In both the impeachment and in her lawsuit, Waters insisted 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 will be cited by Trump in his own defense against her own lawsuit.

Judge Cahill made a rare statement in court that lambasted Waters for her comments and how they undermined the fairness of the trial. He declared from the bench that

I’m aware of the media reports, I’m aware that Congresswoman Waters was talking specifically about this trial and about the unacceptability of anything less than a murder conviction and talk about being confrontational, but you can submit the press articles about that. This goes back to what I’ve been saying from the beginning. I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case, especially in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch and our function. I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful [way] and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution to respect a coequal branch of government. Their failure to do so, I think, is abhorrent.

He added that Waters just gave the defense a possible basis to overturn any conviction in the case.

While Cahill called Waters comments “abhorrent,” Pelosi refused to criticize Waters for undermining the trial in the midst of ongoing rioting. When asked if she would ask Waters to apologize, Pelosi said “no” and added “Maxine talks about confrontation in the manner of the civil rights movement.”

Pelosi however did think someone should apologize. Rep. Lisa McClain (R-Mich.) on Monday said on the floor

“Once again, this weekend, we saw a member of the majority openly call for more confrontation in a Minneapolis suburb. That very night, there was a drive-by shooting in that community where police and the National Guardsmen were targeted. If this were reversed, if this was said by a Republican, you know that the majority in this chamber would move to strip that representative of their committees and possibly to expel them from Congress.”

While saying Waters should not apologize, Pelosi said “That woman on the floor should be apologizing for what she said.”

Over at CNN, Waters was also defended.  After hosts attacked Sen. Cruz for raising the issue as hypocritical, former ABC analyst Matthew Dowd, insisted Waters was right:

It’s incredibly thick and so is the hypocrisy on this, not the least to mention January 6th and what happened on January 6th and the number of Republicans that their words incited that. I actually just listened to Maxine Waters. We all have to be cognizant of what we say. I don’t think what she said in anyway should, we should criticize her for. Of course, we should be more confrontational. That doesn’t mean we should be more violent. But I was thinking about this as I was listening, is Emmett Till was killed in 1955, an all-white jury found the people that did it innocent. Then Medgar Evers, Jimmie Lee Jackson, so many of these folks that were guilty of killings and civil rights were then let off. And the only thing that led to the civil rights legislation to finally pass in 1965 was you know non-violent protests and so I think that’s where we’re going to end up today. The Republicans seem to me on the complete wrong side of history on this.

Well, not just Republicans, but the judge in the actual trial (who is a former aide to Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar).

I have previously written that I believe Waters is protected in such comments under the first amendment, just as Trump was engaging in protected speech. However, I condemned Trump for his speech while he was still giving it on Jan. 6th. I also condemned Waters.  It is not difficult. These are reckless comments made in periods of great unrest and anger.

The defense of Waters further undermines the position of these figures in the second Trump impeachment. Indeed, Waters will likely now feature greatly in the lawsuits against Trump. Just as she has undermined the Chauvin case, she will increase the likelihood that Trump will prevail in these pending cases. If the court finds that Trump was engaged in protected speech, it will be cited as vindication for him and others in supporting their claims from the impeachment.

 

79 thoughts on “Pelosi Refuses To Criticize Waters Despite Court Denouncing Her Remarks For Undermining The Chauvin Trial”

  1. No surprise here is you know when Pelosi starts to talk. If you look behind the rostrum see hand pull a switch .
    At that instant Pelosi stops reading so the rest of the conversation sounds just like Waters!
    Keep watching and you too can see/hear the differences between the two women!

  2. Every Republican lawmaker had better get on Offense and stay there. Never apologize. Never capitulate. Never back down. Never resign. Stand your ground and never waiver.. Do not give in the the Mob. Do not give an inch to these totalitarian Democrats or their corrupt lying propaganda press. Do not negotiate. Do not give an inch. They do not negotiate. They do not come in good faith. Be relentlessly on Offensive against these petty anti-American tyrants.

  3. judge says something is not proof that judge is right about anything.

  4. Turley: “Waters insisted 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.”

    I agree with Turley that Trump and Waters’ speech were equally deplorable though not criminal. That said, it is worth noting here that Turley contrasted the context of Trump’s reckless rhetoric with Waters’ by his use of “conversely.” Turley would have you believe that Waters’ rhetoric was made worse by virtue of the fact that it was made “after multiple nights of rioting and looting.” Like so many times in the past, Turley pretends disingenuously that Trump’s 1/6 speech was made in a vacuum. He utterly ignores the many weeks of Trump’s Big Lie that his network Fox News propagated for which it is being sued for billions- a lawsuit he refuses, for reasons of his own, to discuss. I have said it before, but it bears repeating, that Trump’s followers would have stormed the Capitol had Trump not appeared on 1/6. They came prepared to assault Congress in order to “Stop the Steal.” Trump’s speech merely poured more fuel on a raging inferno.

    But Turley HAS NOT, WILL NOT and (because of his Fox employment) CAN NOT acknowledge the Big Lie lest he undercuts Fox’s defense to Dominion’s and Smartmatic’s allegations that Fox was complicit in fomenting and broadcasting this defamation to millions.

    1. Trump used the words, “peacefully demonstrate.” I didn’t hear Mad Max use any form of the word “peaceful.”

  5. President Biden: “It was a murder in the full light of day, and it ripped the blinders off for the whole world to see the systemic racism…”

    “Systemic racism” is such a perfect Marxist formulation. It delegitimizes an entire society without blaming anyone in particular, so it generates little opposition. It signifies everything and nothing simultaneously. It can’t be proven or disproven. It’s genius propaganda.

    @noahpollak

    1. ‘Biden uses the Derek Chauvin/George Floyd verdict to push Vanita Gupta and Kristen Clarke, two incendiary DOJ nominees

      Biden appears to *endorse* the public pressure on the jury: “For so many, it feels like it took all of that for the judicial system to deliver a just — just basic accountability.” Maybe he’s just conveying the sentiments of some Americans, but it’s irresponsible for a president.’ ~Joel Pollak

    1. It seems that I watched a different trial than Ms. Pirro. The prosecution’s case was strong if you didn’t consider their witnesses’ possible conflicting interests or political considerations and just took everything they said as settled fact. Even then, you’d have to turn off the TV for the cross, because Nelson did a good job of finding holes in many of their claims. She must not have watched the defense’s medical witness who remained calm under cross and conceded points willingly. After his testimony, the prosecution tried to bring back one of their own witnesses for what amounted to a complete re-direct because the defense witness destroyed their own. Judge Cahill didn’t allow it, and there were some very tense moments in the courtroom. Needless to say, I was left with reasonable doubt on at least the two murder counts.

  6. More disgraceful conduct by the Democrats in Congress. They infuriate me.

    “BREAKING → Every single House Democrat just voted to stand with Maxine Waters.

    They made it clear: Democrats are fine with Democrat politicians inciting violence and chaos.”

    @stevescalise

  7. Joe Biden is a racist with a history of racist remarks. Kamala told us she thought he was a racist. Now he is pandering to the black vote as if he f’ing cares and it is disgusting.

    1. Joe Biden’s Crime Bill is the REASON so many blacks are IN JAIL. Wake up you stupid fools.

    2. The president’s remarks tonight were beyond divisive and wrong.

      ‘Joe Biden pushing a narrative of America as a racist dystopia and daily horror show for black Americans, saying that they can’t live their lives or walk down the street for fear of killing by law enforcement.’

      @mzhemingway

    3. A reminder that it was President Trump who passed criminal justice reform — and he did it without disparaging the country the way Biden is doing.

  8. NO DEATHS

    NO DEATHS OCCURRED AS SHOULDER RESTRAINT PROCEDURE USED 237 TIMES BY POLICE
    ______________________________________________________________________________

    “Minneapolis Police Used Neck Restraints 237 Times, Left 44 People Unconscious Since 2015, Records Show”

    Minneapolis Police Department officers have used neck restraints to subdue at least 237 people since 2015, according to an NBC News report published on Monday.

    The report, which analyzed Minneapolis police records dating back roughly five years, also found that officers’ use of the disarming restraint tactic caused subjects to lose consciousness in 44 of those instances. Data showed that 60 percent of individuals restrained by police using this method were black, 30 percent were white, and the remainder were Native Americans.

    – Newsweek
    _________

    Research revealed that, of 237 incidences, 44 people were left unconscious by the shoulder restraint and the subject in the Chauvin case merely appeared unconscious.

    Obviously, the criminal suspect was the critical variable, as the procedure was prescribed and utilized consistently without alteration in results.

  9. Just to keep his willfully ignorant Trump cult happy Turley is pathetic. Turley is and has been more than willing to crawl into the swamp of the morally and intellectually bankrupt complicity of hate of his “base” supporters.

    1. “Just to keep his willfully ignorant Trump cult happy Turley is pathetic. Turley is and has been more than willing to crawl into the swamp of the morally and intellectually bankrupt complicity of hate of his “base” supporters.”
      ********************************
      Guess you love it in the swamp with him given your constantly commenting and blabbering about nothing here. You’re judged by the company you keep and by my reckoning we’re keeping you civilized yet dumb.

  10. Amazing hypocrisy from those who disdain the verdict: 5 cops committing murder in cold blood IFO eye witnesses and cameras is good and blessed by God, while convicting those same felons in a court of law is wrong and to be condemned.

    Please pick a side and stick to it. Are you mentally ill or do you just yearn to see your paid civil servants kill any and every “big scary black man” (the defense tact)?

    1. Constance:

      “Amazing hypocrisy from those who disdain the verdict: 5 cops committing murder in cold blood IFO eye witnesses and cameras is good and blessed by God, while convicting those same felons in a court of law is wrong and to be condemned.”
      **************************
      Okay I’m guessing you think OJ was innocent, too. He won his case, right?

  11. Chauvin– Guilty on all counts. Disgraceful performance by the legal system and politicians.

    Good luck getting a cop to leave his car. I wouldn’t.

    1. Eleven short hours and convictions on all counts. If there ever was evidence of jury intimidation, this was it. Bring on the appellate review.

      1. Mespo- Probably the jury was justifiably fearful but several came with open bias and the judge let them stay if they promised to decide fairly.

        The trial should have been held away from the mobs with sequestered jurors who were not so obviously biased against the defendant. The judge should have stopped the tactic of dropping hundreds of pages of ‘new’ evidence on the defense each night before trial. He should have declared a mistrial at several points in the proceedings.

        Dershowitz has condemned the trial and rightly so.

        The state never actually proved that Chauvin caused Floyd’s death.

    1. Mob rule has overtaken Rule of Law.

      All blame to the Democrat Party. And the fake news propaganda brainwashing media. An utter disgrace. Every last one of them. Just despicable people.

Leave a Reply