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.
(TLB) published this article from Jonathan Turley with our appreciation for this perspective.
Header featured image/credit:
Professor Jonathan Turley is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory to tort law. He has written over three dozen academic articles that have appeared in a variety of leading law journals at Cornell, Duke, Georgetown, Harvard, Northwestern, University of Chicago, and other schools.
After a stint at Tulane Law School, Professor Turley joined the George Washington faculty in 1990 and, in 1998, was given the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law, the youngest chaired professor in the school’s history. In addition to his extensive publications, Professor Turley has served as counsel in some of the most notable cases in the last two decades including the representation of whistleblowers, military personnel, judges, members of Congress, and a wide range of other clients.
Stay tuned to …
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.