Here We Go Again (Minneapolis, MN)

[UNI88]

I can't stand Waters, Pelosi, Boobs or Trump. What Waters is saying now (and what's she's said in the past) isn't that different from what Boobs and Trump said in the lead-up to January 6. She isn't being held accountable because people perceive her cause to be righteous.

It is more righteous IMO, but she is also less of a threat with a much smaller following.

She's righteous if you believe her words are consistent with her intentions (I don't) just like Trump and Boobs are righteous if you believe their words are consistent with their intentions (I don't). People tend to think someone or something is righteous based on their own beliefs and biases. Righteousness is subjective. The crusaders thought they were righteous. The colonists thought they were righteous. Jerry Falwell Jr. thought he was righteous. Waters thinks she's righteous. History might tell a different story.

If instigating a riot is cause for impeachment/calls to resign for Trump and Boobs than it should for Waters as well. Consistency is important and giving her a pass is a sign of liberal privilege.

[kalm]

It is more righteous IMO, but she is also less of a threat with a much smaller following.

She's righteous if you believe her words are consistent with her intentions (I don't) just like Trump and Boobs are righteous if you believe their words are consistent with their intentions (I don't). People tend to think someone or something is righteous based on their own beliefs and biases. Righteousness is subjective. The crusaders thought they were righteous. The colonists thought they were righteous. Jerry Falwell Jr. thought he was righteous. Waters thinks she's righteous. History might tell a different story.

If instigating a riot is cause for impeachment/calls to resign for Trump and Boobs than it should for Waters as well. Consistency is important and giving her a pass is a sign of liberal privilege.

I don’t think she’s righteous. The cause of racial injustice versus whatever it is that Cruz and Trump are peddling might not exaclty be the same. But thanks for the homily on righteousness.

[UNI88]

She's righteous if you believe her words are consistent with her intentions (I don't) just like Trump and Boobs are righteous if you believe their words are consistent with their intentions (I don't). People tend to think someone or something is righteous based on their own beliefs and biases. Righteousness is subjective. The crusaders thought they were righteous. The colonists thought they were righteous. Jerry Falwell Jr. thought he was righteous. Waters thinks she's righteous. History might tell a different story.

If instigating a riot is cause for impeachment/calls to resign for Trump and Boobs than it should for Waters as well. Consistency is important and giving her a pass is a sign of liberal privilege.

I don’t think she’s righteous. The cause of racial injustice versus whatever it is that Cruz and Trump are peddling might not exaclty be the same. But thanks for the homily on righteousness.

I don't think that Waters gives a sh!t about racial justice. She cares about getting her name in the news, building a power base and feathering her nest (kind of like Trump). No big deal if she gets people agitated and they start rioting and looting, the Man deserves it.

Trying to influence a jury based on on the color of skin of the perpetrator or victim is wrong. Threatening "insurrection" if the jury doesn't rule the way you want them to is wrong. Liberals want to think it's "right" because they're trying to turn the tables based on past inequities but leveling the tables is righteous, turning the tables isn't.

[Winterborn]

Capital punishment is a relic that needs to be retired.

Agreed. The state shouldn’t be involved in murdering anyone. Let the worst of the worst rot in cells.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Disagree. When I was younger I wasn't the biggest fan of it but the older I get the more I realize that some people don't deserve to be using oxygen anymore. For certain crimes rotting in a cell is too good for them.

[BDKJMU]

Defense witness’s former home vandalized. Problem is, the defense witness doesn’t live there anymore. The poor sap who bought the house years ago is now left to deal with the mess.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/chauvin-defe ... ood-smears

[BDKJMU]

Oops, turns out the ‘victim’ (an armed carjacker shot & killed by the police) is white. When BLM hears this, they show their true colors, abrubtly ending their rally Apparently for BLM, white lives don’t matter.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/blm-proteste ... -was-white

[CID1990]

So it's Posobiec's tweet, are you saying he doctored the video and she didn't call for people to get more confrontational if they don't get their way? Or are you just trying to deflect from the words that came out of her mouth by deflecting from the source? That's straight from the MAGAt playbook.

Waters is no better than Boobs* or Trump.

* If Ted Cruz is going to continue to be in the news can we bring that back?

Must have missed the part where I called her coont and all the times I’ve stated how much I can’t stand Pelosi.

Covering your whataboutism by calling her a name is just a twofer -

whataboutism and bothsiderism


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

Must have missed the part where I called her coont and all the times I’ve stated how much I can’t stand Pelosi.

Covering your whataboutism by calling her a name is just a twofer -

whataboutism and bothsiderism


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I brought up neither Trump or Watters here.

[HI54UNI]

Whoops.

Judge in Derek Chauvin trial says Rep. Maxine Waters' comments may be grounds for appeal

The judge overseeing former Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin's trial in the death of George Floyd said Monday that Rep. Maxine Waters' comments could be grounds for appealing a verdict in the trial.
"I'll give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned," Judge Peter Cahill told defense attorney Eric Nelson on Monday.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/19/politics ... index.html

[clenz]

I'm curious as to what her words would have to do with getting an appeal overturned.

She isn't involved in the case.
She isn't in the courtroom.
She isn't in the jury room.
She didn't threaten any jurors
They jurors didn't hear her words

I'm curious when the standard for appeal is "T'his person, completely unrelated to the case from the far west coast of the county, said something about the case" became a reasonable basis for appeal.

Keep in mind the judge also said ""A congresswoman's opinion really doesn't matter a whole lot,"

So words that don't mean a whole lot somehow give grounds for an entire trial to be overturned?

[kalm]

I'm curious as to what her words would have to do with getting an appeal overturned.

She isn't involved in the case.
She isn't in the courtroom.
She isn't in the jury room.
She didn't threaten any jurors
They jurors didn't hear her words

I'm curious when the standard for appeal is "T'his person, completely unrelated to the case from the far west coast of the county, said something about the case" became a reasonable basis for appeal.

Keep in mind the judge also said ""A congresswoman's opinion really doesn't matter a whole lot,"

So words that don't mean a whole lot somehow give grounds for an entire trial to be overturned?

Good question. The verdict itself could cause rioting. I think the concern is mob rule.

[89Hen]

I can't stand Waters, Pelosi, Boobs or Trump. What Waters is saying now (and what's she's said in the past) isn't that different from what Boobs and Trump said in the lead-up to January 6. She isn't being held accountable because people perceive her cause to be righteous.

It is more righteous IMO, but she is also less of a threat with a much smaller following.

Shocker you'd be on Pelosi's side.

[andy7171]

Must have missed the part where I called her coont and all the times I’ve stated how much I can’t stand Pelosi.

Covering your whataboutism by calling her a name is just a twofer -

whataboutism and bothsiderism


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

It is more righteous IMO, but she is also less of a threat with a much smaller following.

Shocker you'd be on Pelosi's side.

Huh?

[89Hen]

Shocker you'd be on Pelosi's side.

Huh?

Why defend her stupid comment? Just say it was stupid.

[BDKJMU]

Any verdict and riot predictions?

[kalm]

Huh?

Why defend her stupid comment? Just say it was stupid.

Huh?

Who’s comment did I defend?

[BDKJMU]

MN Gov already declared state of emergency last night.

[Ibanez]

I'm curious as to what her words would have to do with getting an appeal overturned.

She isn't involved in the case.
She isn't in the courtroom.
She isn't in the jury room.
She didn't threaten any jurors
They jurors didn't hear her words

I'm curious when the standard for appeal is "T'his person, completely unrelated to the case from the far west coast of the county, said something about the case" became a reasonable basis for appeal.

Keep in mind the judge also said ""A congresswoman's opinion really doesn't matter a whole lot,"

So words that don't mean a whole lot somehow give grounds for an entire trial to be overturned?

She's inciting a crowd to violence. Let's be clear about that. A confrontation is conflict.

Just spitballing here - She's telling a group that if they don't get the verdict they want, then to be confrontational. Some are going to take that to mean violence. And because you already have the Woke crowd vandalizing peoples homes and in the past they've stalked people, these jurors now might convict out of fear of reprisal and not based off evidence.

And now she's on record doing exactly what she said Trump was guilty of.

[Gil Dobie]

It's taking the jury some time to come up with a verdict, usually means they don't have a consensus.

[clenz]

I'm curious as to what her words would have to do with getting an appeal overturned.

She isn't involved in the case.
She isn't in the courtroom.
She isn't in the jury room.
She didn't threaten any jurors
They jurors didn't hear her words

I'm curious when the standard for appeal is "T'his person, completely unrelated to the case from the far west coast of the county, said something about the case" became a reasonable basis for appeal.

Keep in mind the judge also said ""A congresswoman's opinion really doesn't matter a whole lot,"

So words that don't mean a whole lot somehow give grounds for an entire trial to be overturned?

She's inciting a crowd to violence. Let's be clear about that. A confrontation is conflict.

Just spitballing here - She's telling a group that if they don't get the verdict they want, then to be confrontational. Some are going to take that to mean violence. And because you already have the Woke crowd vandalizing peoples homes and in the past they've stalked people, these jurors now might convict out of fear of reprisal and based off evidence.

And now she's on record doing exactly what she said Trump was guilty of.

I'm not saying she's not an idiot. I'm not saying she was right in what she said. I would be willing to put her words in line with Cruz and Trump as far as incitement goes.

I'm questioning the legal standing in terms of an appeal because some idiot said some stupid shit about the case, while not being involved in the case. I honestly don't know.

If John Random were to have said exactly what she said would that be grounds for an appeal and overturn?

What about a college athlete? Pro athletes? A random company executive? Where's the line on what profile of a person dictates when an appeal will be won based on what they said?

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

[clenz]

It's taking the jury some time to come up with a verdict, usually means they don't have a consensus.

They got the case at 430 yesterday afternoon. After 8 hours of closing arguments I doubt they did much, if any, deliberation last night. During the trial they wouldn't even be in the courtroom yet.

I would highly doubt more than 2 hours has been spent in any kind of actual deliberation.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

[UNI88]

She's inciting a crowd to violence. Let's be clear about that. A confrontation is conflict.

Just spitballing here - She's telling a group that if they don't get the verdict they want, then to be confrontational. Some are going to take that to mean violence. And because you already have the Woke crowd vandalizing peoples homes and in the past they've stalked people, these jurors now might convict out of fear of reprisal and based off evidence.

And now she's on record doing exactly what she said Trump was guilty of.

I'm not saying she's not an idiot. I'm not saying she was right in what she said. I would be willing to put her words in line with Cruz and Trump as far as incitement goes.

I'm questioning the legal standing in terms of an appeal because some idiot said some stupid shit about the case, while not being involved in the case. I honestly don't know.

If John Random were to have said exactly what she said would that be grounds for an appeal and overturn?

What about a college athlete? Pro athletes? A random company executive? Where's the line on what profile of a person dictates when an appeal will be won based on what they said?

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

Is the jury sequestered? If not, they could read or hear about her comments at home or even on their phone during a break. Hopefully, her comments won't influence their decision but that doesn't mean an attorney can't and won't argue that they did. If you lose, you look for reasons to appeal and while a stretch, the words of a Congressperson are something.

We can get out the Ouija board and as Ivy or maybe Joe is lurking and could respond with a true legal opinion.

[HI54UNI]

She's inciting a crowd to violence. Let's be clear about that. A confrontation is conflict.

Just spitballing here - She's telling a group that if they don't get the verdict they want, then to be confrontational. Some are going to take that to mean violence. And because you already have the Woke crowd vandalizing peoples homes and in the past they've stalked people, these jurors now might convict out of fear of reprisal and based off evidence.

And now she's on record doing exactly what she said Trump was guilty of.

I'm not saying she's not an idiot. I'm not saying she was right in what she said. I would be willing to put her words in line with Cruz and Trump as far as incitement goes.

I'm questioning the legal standing in terms of an appeal because some idiot said some stupid shit about the case, while not being involved in the case. I honestly don't know.

If John Random were to have said exactly what she said would that be grounds for an appeal and overturn?

What about a college athlete? Pro athletes? A random company executive? Where's the line on what profile of a person dictates when an appeal will be won based on what they said?

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

I have no idea on the impact but a few things I've seen speculated:

Judge made an error in not sequestering the jury and that might be grounds for appeal. Even though the jury is instructed to avoid media and other things related to the trial how do you do that? You're at home watching your favorite TV show and they give a preview for the 10:00 news and mention Maxine's comments. Or the news about the wrong house being vandalized for a witness in the trial. As a juror are you then moved to convict because you're afraid of being doxed and having your family or property damaged? Another was that change of venue was not approved.

If I would have been called for jury duty in this case I would have gone to jail for contempt before sitting on this jury. God bless those people for serving.

[Ibanez]

She's inciting a crowd to violence. Let's be clear about that. A confrontation is conflict.

Just spitballing here - She's telling a group that if they don't get the verdict they want, then to be confrontational. Some are going to take that to mean violence. And because you already have the Woke crowd vandalizing peoples homes and in the past they've stalked people, these jurors now might convict out of fear of reprisal and based off evidence.

And now she's on record doing exactly what she said Trump was guilty of.

I'm not saying she's not an idiot. I'm not saying she was right in what she said. I would be willing to put her words in line with Cruz and Trump as far as incitement goes.

I'm questioning the legal standing in terms of an appeal because some idiot said some stupid shit about the case, while not being involved in the case. I honestly don't know.

If John Random were to have said exactly what she said would that be grounds for an appeal and overturn?

What about a college athlete? Pro athletes? A random company executive? Where's the line on what profile of a person dictates when an appeal will be won based on what they said?

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

John Random has considerably less influence in front of a BLM crowd than a black Congresswoman who has been championing their plight for years.


Influential people KNOW they words and actions can sway people. There's real power to that.