POLITICS President Trump: 100+ Mornings After (Term 1 Complete)

A threat is a threat, though I don't know legally what is considered a threat and what the repercussions are. Regardless, she should be stripped of her duties, not supported by the speaker of the House. Its asinine

 

Saying she didn't incite anybody because riots will occur anyway, but not immediately after she says it, is rationalizing. What should be said is this was pitiful and she should be fired. Nothing else needs to be said

 

It's not a threat. It's an encouragement. That is what incitement is: encouragement.

 

The judge overseeing the trial of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin on Monday harshly criticized U.S. Representative Maxine Waters' remarks on the case, saying she might have given the defense grounds for appeal in the event of a conviction.

Hennepin County District Judge Peter Cahill said during the closing moments of Chauvin's trial that it was abhorrent of Waters, a Democrat from California, to tell protesters it would be unacceptable for the former officer to be acquitted of murdering George Floyd.

"I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case, especially in a manner that's disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch and our function," Cahill said after dismissing jurors from the courtroom.

Elected officials commenting on the case should show respect for the judicial branch, Cahill said. "Their failure to do so is abhorrent."

https://www.reuters.com/business/le...rent-comments-about-chauvin-trial-2021-04-19/

But nothing to see here.

 

Why is there nothing to see here?

 

After years of spouting her mouth off she knows she is impervious to rebuke by Dems.

 

Float is correct - I was referring to the legal definition. Those things actually do mean it’s not incitement (well - the immediate aspect, at least) as I understand the legal definition. It doesn’t make it right.

 

There is no impact on the trial. I imagine every juror knows what a given verdict here means. And they'll still come to a decision. Or hang. Which is effectively the same thing as a not guilty verdict.

 

Stop me if this sounds familiar. Immediately following an election with results she did not like she started shouting impeach, illegitimate President, stolen election, etc. and continued for 4 years.

Now; if the results of a trial are not what she wants then take to the streets and "fight".

 

I haven't seen anyone here defend her.

 

Let's hope she doesn't run for President. 70,000,000 people might vote for her twice.

 

Have about denouncing her? Any comments not doing that?

 

The speaker of the house has, after attacking trump for saying less. Where are the dem leaders? They should be embarrassed as should anybody with any sense, but in this backwards ass PC and political world, Maxine gets support from leaders of her party.

 

Both sides are cults anymore.

 

Rationalizing means excusing or justifying, which no one here has done, including me. The question posed originally was an equivalency with Trump's actions, which her's was not and I outlined specifically why not.

 

.

 

Maxine Waters is loony. She's about like Matt Gaetz, when he threatened a witness.

They're both small time people and neither should have done what they did, but they did.

It is clear that the weight of the job is too much for them, but they do it anyway.

 

I'm not sure I'd classify the chair of the house financial services committee small time, but she is much like gaetz in that they're both insane.

 

Ehhhh. What does the House finance services committee control?