A chorus of Republicans blasted Rep. Maxine Waters Sunday for telling angry protesters to “stay in the streets” and “get more confrontational” during the seven-straight night of unrest in Minnesota — saying the California Democrat’s fiery comments could incite violence in a state already on edge. https://nypost.com/2021/04/...er-protest-comments/
Yep, that's just the kind of leadership our communities need. I doubt she's inviting the "Protestors" into her neighborhood. Not marked political because violence in the streets is not political, it's unlawful. dangerous and harmful to businesses and communities in general.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 04-19-2021).]
A chorus of Republicans blasted Rep. Maxine Waters Sunday for telling angry protesters to “stay in the streets” and “get more confrontational” during the seven-straight night of unrest in Minnesota — saying the California Democrat’s fiery comments could incite violence in a state already on edge. https://nypost.com/2021/04/...er-protest-comments/
Yep, that's just the kind of leadership our communities need. I doubt she's inviting the "Protestors" into her neighborhood. Not marked political because violence in the streets is not political, it's unlawful. dangerous and harmful to businesses and communities in general.
Rams
Honestly, what does she have to loose? In today's American social and political climate, black racists have an advantage. Why would a racist politician NOT take advantage of it? And yes it is political, she is a politician doing politics in the new biden america.
[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 04-19-2021).]
There were no such explicit words or suggestions uttered by President Trump on January 6, yet there was this big push to charge him with inciting violence. Just hide and watch and you'll see that this will never happen with Maxine Waters.
In a joint [sic] investigation by NBC News and Bellingcat, "On Assignment" with Richard Engel takes a closer look at the Capitol Building insurrection on January 6.
"Our House--Trump's Last Stand"
This is part one of the hour-long "Our House" production. It's 7+ minutes of video. At the 2:13 mark, the focus is on the recklessness and incitement that came directly from (former) President Trump, speaking into a microphone, at the rally in front of the White House.
Dangerous words from Maxine Waters. "Check." Dangerous words from President Trump. "Check."
The Democrats went after (former) President Trump with a second attempt at impeachment--even after the serving President's last name had became "Biden." With virtually no support from Republicans.
Republicans are going after Maxine Waters, calling her out for her comments. But not any Democrats.
The Democrats and the Republicans were (are) not on the "same page" about the reckless words in either case. Either (former) President Trump's words, or these new words from Maxine Waters.
What do I see here?
SYMMETRY.
"The goose and the gander."
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-19-2021).]
I just learned that the jury had not been sequestered until tonight. What are the chances that they have heard the comments from Mad Maxine and others? What is the likelihood that the trial is now tainted?
I'm sure someone will be along shortly to tell me that tainted is not the correct word and that the jurors have been instructed not to read or watch any news, but everyone else will know what I am getting at. Has Wacky Waters just screwed up everything?
I just learned that the jury had not been sequestered until tonight. What are the chances that they have heard the comments from Mad Maxine and others? What is the likelihood that the trial is now tainted?
I'm sure someone will be along shortly to tell me that tainted is not the correct word and that the jurors have been instructed not to read or watch any news, but everyone else will know what I am getting at. Has Wacky Waters just screwed up everything?
I can't answer that question but, I sure hope she gets removed from office. Doubtful that will happen though, the Dems stick together regardless of how it may appear.
I just learned that the jury had not been sequestered until tonight. What are the chances that they have heard the comments from Mad Maxine and others? What is the likelihood that the trial is now tainted?
I'm sure someone will be along shortly to tell me that tainted is not the correct word and that the jurors have been instructed not to read or watch any news, but everyone else will know what I am getting at. Has Wacky Waters just screwed up everything?
A guilty verdict on any of the counts is going to go to appeal no matter what. On what grounds the appeal is based and how it is worded is the only question.
A hung jury would result in a re-trial, but I very much suspect the defense would push hard to postpone any new trial for as long as possible.
Personally, I do believe a guilty verdict will be handed down by the jury. Which counts? I have not kept close tabs on what evidence was presented at trial but based on what I did peek at, I think at most, 2nd degree unintended murder or 3rd degree manslaughter.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 04-20-2021).]
Got some video highlights. Just a few minutes worth. It's here if anyone wants it. The links are set up to queue the YouTube video "on the mark."
At the 5:47 mark, Chris Hayes reviews the moment when the defense counsel brought up what Maxine Waters had said, and then the judge responded. The jurors were not present for this exchange. https://youtu.be/15AO2Q6e09w?t=347
At the 7:34 mark, MSNBC contributor and legal analyst Katie Phang goes to "Jury Sequestration"--something the defense had wanted all along, but was never granted by the judge. https://youtu.be/15AO2Q6e09w?t=454
"You number one client, me number one lawyer."
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-20-2021).]
A guilty verdict on any of the counts is going to go to appeal no matter what. On what grounds the appeal is based and how it is worded is the only question.
A hung jury would result in a re-trial, but I very much suspect the defense would push hard to postpone any new trial for as long as possible.
Persoanlly, I do believe a guilty verdict will be handed down by the jury. Which counts? I have not kept close tabs on what evidence was presented at trial but based on what I did peek at, I think at most, 2nd degree unintended murder or 3rd degree manslaughter.
I suspect you may be correct but having not seen all of the evidence and not knowing anything about the jury, my crystal ball is pretty fuzzy. What I do know is, there is a definite bias from some of our politicians and the normal bias from our news sources.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 04-20-2021).]
Originally posted by williegoat: I just learned that the jury had not been sequestered until tonight. What are the chances that they have heard the comments from Mad Maxine and others? What is the likelihood that the trial is now tainted?
Now ?
During jury selection, it was national news that Minneapolis agreed to settle the George Floyd family's wrongful death suit for 27 million dollars.
It is hard to me to see how a change of venue, jurors from a different locale, could guarantee a fair trial, given the national coverage that Police Officer Derek Chauvin was guilty. It would have helped.
quote
Originally posted by maryjane: Persoanlly, I do believe a guilty verdict will be handed down by the jury. Which counts? I have not kept close tabs on what evidence was presented at trial but based on what I did peek at, I think at most, 2nd degree unintended murder or 3rd degree manslaughter.
I did not see everything either though I did more than peek. I was glued to closing arguments. I am also not an attorney. Were I on the Jury, based on the charges presented, I would vote not guilty. I might go with negligent homicide, or involuntary manslaughter. (Which might be 3rd degree manslaughter, dunn know.)
Then we go to Shillary Clinton's E-Mails. James Comey did not even refer charges because she did not "intend" to.
At the 5:47 mark, Chris Hayes reviews the moment when the defense counsel brought up what Maxine Waters had said, and then the judge responded. The jurors were not present for this exchange. https://youtu.be/15AO2Q6e09w?t=347
At the end of the day, Maxine Waters still made comments Nationally and Locally about a state that she doesn't even represent. Regardless of how you feel about it, the comments were inappropriate, and they can be used against the prosecution.
I know with 99.99% certainty how you already feel about this case, but you SHOULD be upset with Maxine Waters, and not the defense. The defense has every right to use whatever opportunities that are given to them. Representation and trial by jury is a cornerstone of our Constitutional law. Chris Hayes is just some dude who gives his opinion on TV. The man's top qualification is his undergraduate degree in philosophy. As with most people like him, it's all uneducated opinion. It would be another story if he at least spent some time in the judicial system, had a Masters degree (at all) in anything, or even had a bachelors degree in something that wasn't complete nonsense.
Not what Chris Hayes said. What Katie Phang said. If I understand her correctly, she said that even though the jurors as a group are not sequestered, they have been told by the judge to sequester themselves from any news reports on TV, online or on social media. They are not supposed to be aware of anything that Maxine Waters has said about the case. On top of that, the judge's instructions to the jurors are to decide the case only on the basis of what they have seen and heard inside the courtroom during the trial.
How will that play out when the defense appeals the verdict(s)..?
"Don't ask me." That's for sure.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-20-2021).]
I think, by the time the charges were filed and jury selection began, sequestering the jury would have been a case of shutting the gate after the cows are out in the road.
Waters I think, is hoping for (or at least expecting) acquittal. Her comments IMO, were incendiary in nature and intentionally so.
Well they have their pound of flesh. Will it be enough or will it impower the mob? While I believe he was guilty of manslaughter its a stretch for murder. I am sure the appeal has already been filed. I have a bad feeling about this.
My question was in jest. Nothing will change. They will just go on the the next excuse cause. Whether the verdict was right or wrong (and I have to trust the jury), they now believe that the tactic was successful, knowing that they have the blessing of both the executive and legislative branches of the U.S. government. They know that the judicial branch is just a bunch of right wing racists, a belief that is also supported by the other two branches. Party on, Garth.
I have a close friend who worked on Capital Hill. (Now retired) She is a woman of color. When ask about the honorable Maxine Waters she says that miss Waters is the most racist person she has ever met.
We know it's going to happen. Who here would like to be on that jury? Maxine Waters was still wrong in my opinion and should be held accountable.
Rams
The appeals court is 3 judges, no jury. If the 3 judge panel throws this verdict out, the state can choose to proceed with a new trial and both sides get a crack at a different jury. Appeals courts give lots of weight to the 'fact finder' ... the juror. Appeals usually are successful if there were judicial or constitutional mistakes made in the trial itself. They don't try to decide if the jury got it wrong. The national average for a successful criminal appeal is only 4%.
The appeals court is 3 judges, no jury. If the 3 judge panel throws this verdict out, the state can choose to proceed with a new trial and both sides get a crack at a different jury. Appeals courts give lots of weight to the 'fact finder' ... the juror. Appeals usually are successful if there were judicial or constitutional mistakes made in the trial itself. They don't try to decide if the jury got it wrong. The national average for a successful criminal appeal is only 4%.
Sorry, I obviously wasn't clear or concise in what I meant. I meant, after an appeals court turns it over, anyone want to be on that jury. Several politicians have attempted to intimidate the jurors. They should also spend some time behind bars. This is not an opinion on the Chavin trial, only on the politicians attempt to intimidate.
It's a high bar of legalities to get past, in order to send someone like a "Maxine Waters" to the "cross-bar hotel" to spend time behind bars for the crime of intimidating a jury.
It's a high bar of legalities to get past, in order to send someone like a "Maxine Waters" to the "cross-bar hotel" to spend time behind bars for the crime of intimidating a jury.
Why does her twitter account still work? What about facebook? Hell why is she still in office as this is not the first time I have seen this kind of posturing from her.
Why does her twitter account still work? What about facebook? Hell why is she still in office as this is not the first time I have seen this kind of posturing from her.
Privilege. She sold her soul to the devil to be one of the cool kids.
It would seem that since he was found guilty, Maxine's comments don't matter at the Congressional lever to Speaker Pelosi and the vast majority of Dems.
That seems a bit ironic to me based on the 2nd impeachment of President Trump. President Trump called for a peaceful and patriotic protest not confrontation. I guess it's all in one's perspective, huh...................
It would seem that since he was found guilty, Maxine's comments don't matter at the Congressional lever to Speaker Pelosi and the vast majority of Dems.
That seems a bit ironic to me based on the 2nd impeachment of President Trump. President Trump called for a peaceful and patriotic protest not confrontation. I guess it's all in one's perspective, huh...................
Rams
Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday publicly thanked George Floyd “for sacrificing your life for justice.”
According to the press and most of the democratic leadership its sounds like Mr. Floyd should at the least be up for the Nobel Prize or perhaps Sainthood .
According to the press and most of the democratic leadership its sounds like Mr. Floyd should at the least be up for the Nobel Prize or perhaps Sainthood .
Yeah, I've heard. While not suggesting Floyd should have died, making a counterfeit money passing drug taking addict/dealer into a martyr is pretty stupid, next thing we know they'll make Jeffery Epstein a saint. The DNC should change their name to the HPA, Hypocritic Party of America.
I doubt she's inviting the "Protestors" into her neighborhood.
