As The Chauvin Jury Finds The Defendant Guilty As They Were Ordered To Do, The President And Rep. Waters Deny That They Said What They Said

But when Yogi Berra denied that he said what he said, it was funny..

In Minneapolis, the jury found Derek Chauvin guilty of unintentional second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter in his role in the death of George Floyd on May 25, 2020.

It would be a defensible verdict if he had received a fair trial, and the jury didn’t fear that they would spark national riots, property destruction and death if they found reasonable doubt. It would have been more defensible if the otherwise competent judge hadn’t botched his obligation to sequester the jury when another Minnesota police officer shot a black man, and riots did occur, with more on the horizon.

It is not a fair trial when a nationally known Congresswoman and the President of the United States publicly declare that, in the words of the Congresswoman, a defendant is “guilty, guilty guilty!”

So now, after polluting the trial and the verdict, both the President and the Congresswoman are engaging in a wretched display of “I didn’t really say what I obviously said and meant to say.”

Yogi Berra this ain’t.

First, here’s Maxine’s hilarious “translation” of what she meant when she told some potential rioters, ““We’ve got to stay in the streets, and we’ve got to demand justice,” Waters said. “I am hopeful that we will get a verdict that says, ‘guilty, guilty, guilty,’ and if we don’t, we cannot go away. We’ve got to get more confrontational. We’ve got to make sure that they know that we mean business.”

“I wanted to be there kind of as Auntie Maxine, to show them that not only do I love them and I support them, but they can count on me to be there with them at this terrible time in all of our lives,” Waters said in her own defense. But she is not their aunt. She is an elected official of the United States of America, and is sworn to uphold the Constitution, which means, among other things, not using her position to urge members of the public to break the law, and not using her influence to deny an American citizen a fair trial.

In another interview, she tried rationalizations instead of masquerade:

“They see their peers being killed. Minneapolis is a great example of what’s wrong with the criminal justice system, what’s wrong with policing, and so those of us who hold significant positions must stand up, we must support them, we must speak, we must call for justice. We cannot leave them alone to try and fight this very difficult system.”

Correction: you must NOT do any of those things when a criminal trial is underway, nor can you “support” them when that means giving them leave to riot.

Naturally, the usual suspects in the biased news media tried to defend the indefensible. Let’s let the ever-unprofessional Don Lemon be the media’s representative. He excused Waters because she “came out of the Civil Rights movement” and had to fight “tooth and nail” as a Black woman for everything she has gotten.” Oh! I never read that exception that allows black women who were civil rights activists to be able to do what is forbidden and considered unethical for any other legislator! Where is that exception published, Don?

“Do you really think Maxine Waters is calling for violence?” Lemon asked. “Maxine Waters is not calling for violence. Everyone knows that. She makes a lot of people uncomfortable, especially a lot of men and quite frankly, especially a lot of White men because she puts them in her place.” Waters went to a community that has already had violence and is primed for more, and told the people likely to continue that violence that they needed to be more confrontational.

Yes, she was calling for violence. I know that, and the mob she was addressing knew that.

Then President Biden, astoundingly (yes, I thought he was smarter than this, because it doesn’t require a lot of marbles, just a minimum amount) , decided to announce that an American citizen being tried for serious charges was guilty, a conclusion he not only is unqualified to make, but as President of the United States, he may not make until the trial verdict in in and all appeals have been exhausted. American Presidents must not express their opinions or desires regarding any trials or the guilt of any individual until the justice process has run its course. Biden must know this, and he did it anyway to pander to the progressive base, a substantial proportion of which would like to dispense with trials entirely in cases like Chauvin’s.

Today, while the jury was deliberating, Biden illustrated how completely a fair trial was denied to Derek Chauvin by throwing the power and prestige of his office behind a guilty verdict, almost certainly based entirely on the video. Do you think Biden read the witness transcripts? Do you think he watched the trial?

He told reporters, “I’m praying the verdict is the right verdict. The evidence is overwhelming in my view.” Then he had his paid liar, Jen Psaki, explain that he didn’t mean to suggest that the jury should find Chauvin guilty. Why would anyone think that?

In a press briefing not long after, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said, “I don’t think he would see it as weighing in on the verdict.” Really? So he really is senile than?

15 thoughts on “As The Chauvin Jury Finds The Defendant Guilty As They Were Ordered To Do, The President And Rep. Waters Deny That They Said What They Said

  1. How many Chauvin’s will it take before all police say to hell with this job? How many more threats of riots and violence will it take before the majority say to hell with this and meet force with force. I don’t know but I certainly hope that justice is swift for the likes of Biden and Waters.

  2. I wonder if the jury deliberations included discussions on the implications of the verdict and their own safety and future safety rather than just focusing on the evidence laid out during the trial. I wasn’t in the courtroom and didn’t hear all the evidence; but, I’m surprised at the verdict of guilty on all three counts.

    • How long will it take before just one juror admits that the safety of jury members and their families was considered when voting?

      It’s a ready-made appeal right there even if the appeals court drinks the Kool-Aid that Aunt Maxine’s rhetoric had no bearing at all on the verdict and wasn’t an incitement.

  3. The Harris / Biden follow-up news conference was also a predictably divisive farce staged for the benefit of the far left, with repeated references to systemic racism and ignoring the fact set which never demonstrated that George Floyd was killed because he was black. Of course after accusing Americans racists, Biden again called for unity.

    • Of course it was. At this point Biden hopes to parlay this into a wholesale restructuring of the system in America. This stopped being about justice for George Floyd within 48 hours. The scary thing is that this has probably permanently damaged due process, especially for police officers. How can a jury make a fair decision when they know that outside the mob is just waiting to beat and kill them?

      I still don’t understand how you get from the death of one man at the hands of one crazy police officer, with no racism involved, to police stations being burned, whole areas of cities seceding, and a de facto Marxist revolution that still seems impossible to even slow down, let alone stop.

      20 years ago the emergency services were heroes after nearly 400 of them were murdered responding to an attack on this country. Now they are vilified, especially the police, because of one case that neither activists nor the media nor anyone on the left would let go of.

      • ” still don’t understand how you get from the death of one man at the hands of one crazy police officer, with no racism involved, to police stations being burned, whole areas of cities seceding, and a de facto Marxist revolution that still seems impossible to even slow down, let alone stop.”

        The position of BLM and its allies is that it’s not just one man, it’s a pattern of racist cops killing unarmed black men and women for walking down the street, shopping, sleeping in their own beds and playing in parks. That’s the narrative. It’s not just George Floyd. This began with the racist cop-wannabee White Hispanic George Zimmerman stalking a teenager wearing a hoodie and carrying a bottle of iced tea and continues to this day with, according to my news this morning, a black teenager waving a knife in Ohio being killed by police. Expect her name to be added to the list of harmless black people killed unnecessarily by police for, I dunno, talking to her friends or something.

        It’s that narrative that makes them believe they have just cause to expand protesting to rioting and destruction. When that narrative is being validated by the Democrats and their allies in the news media and the entertainment industry, it’s a hard thing to fight.

        • The position of BLM and its allies is that it’s not just one man, it’s a pattern of racist cops killing unarmed black men and women for walking down the street, shopping, sleeping in their own beds and playing in parks. That’s the narrative.

          And yet, so many of the allies at least support “common sense”, “sensible” gun legislation.

          Daunte Wright was killed by someone enforcing “common sense”, “sensible” gun legislation,.

      • Then again, maybe he doesn’t want crowds coming to his house and threatening him or his family. Like it or not, we have moved beyond the point where any action is divorced from politics, and we have moved to the point where people will no longer allow the system to play out if it isn’t playing out the way they think it should. The thing is, the First amendment allows people to assemble peaceably and petition the government for redress of grievances, it does not say that the people can gather in a mob and take the law into their own hands. A justice system in which judges and juries are afraid of mob violence is no less a broken system than the one we were living under.

        Like I said yesterday, I think that the appellate section of the Minnesota court system was watching this very closely, because they know an appeal is coming. They may even have law clerks working full-time just on researching what happened here, and how it will be possible to uphold these convictions. It also wouldn’t surprise me if the Minnesota Supreme Court and ultimately the US Supreme Court are also looking into the possibility of upholding these verdicts now before the appeals are filed. The easiest thing to do would be to simply say that a jury’s findings of credibility are not reviewable on appeal. However, a story from my own experience might be applicable here. 2 years ago I tried a case that should never have been tried, because the powers that be continually under-authorized settlement on a less than wonderful fact pattern. Of course the jury got pissed off at the fact that my client’s representative was a lying piece of crap and decided to hit my client for a very large sum. I appealed, but I didn’t hold out much hope for success. However, one thing that I thought was relatively minor, that the plaintiff’s attorney said something in his closing argument that was simply not true, sank him on appeal. Because at the last minute counsel had to overreach, a $400,000 verdict collapsed and suddenly he was looking at settling for a lot less. Courts don’t like it when someone improperly influences a jury. So, I wouldn’t count this appeal out just yet.

Leave a Reply to Edward Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.