Why Maxine Waters Wanted a Mistrial

When Maxine Waters called for people in the streets of Minnesota to be more active and confrontational if Derek Chauvin were to be acquitted, like many, I thought she had handed a gift to the defense on appeal.   In some ways, she did.  We all heard Judge Cahill describe her behavior as abhorrent, and, while he didn’t think her remarks mattered in terms of the evidence and jury deliberations, he was unequivocal that her actions likely provided the defense with the basis for a mistrial at the appellate level and could well result in the case being thrown out.  Why, if that’s what he thought, didn’t the judge declare a mistrial himself? 

Some might say it’s because he didn’t want to try the case again, but I think he didn’t want to be “that guy” responsible for letting Chauvin off the hook and reaping the wrath of a good part of the country that had long promised to burn it all down.  Why bear that burden himself and potentially subject his family to violence when it’s so much easier to pass the buck to the appellate court?

We also have to question why someone as politically experienced as Maxine Waters would so brazenly deliver a message of incitement, knowing the optics and, more importantly, that her words and conduct would only serve the interests of the defense in claiming that this was textbook intimidation of both judge and jury.  Why would a ruthless, calculating, lifelong professional left-wing s—kicker like Waters knowingly cross state lines to, if not incite, certainly agitate for continued unrest on America’s streets?

Because without an acquittal or a mistrial — either of which would have unquestionably given rise to increased violence — Rep. Waters and most Democrats actually want the bedlam to continue.  After all,  racializing everything by pointing fingers at the straw men of white supremacy; white privilege; and the conveniently invisible and unmeasurable systemic, structural, and internalized variants of racism is the bread and butter of the Democrats.  Without it, they have no raison d’être

Had Maxine kept her mouth shut, a simple conviction without a strong basis for a mistrial on appeal would cut short the mayhem in the streets.  A pause in the bedlam is not good for the left, whose entire existence and justification is predicated on being the party of racializing everything — especially relationships between black communities and white cops.  On the other hand, a conviction accompanied by overt threats of violence reeking of jury intimidation, from a political figure, keeps alive the likelihood of a mistrial on appeal and could extend the rioting all the way to the 2022 elections.  This is a tempting insurance policy that would allow the Democrats to continue to foment racial division and milk dry other white cop–black victim scenarios until their goals are reached of defunding the police, reimagining the criminal justice system, getting rid of police and replacing them with civilian security, eliminating bail, unleashing untold numbers of violent criminals back onto the streets, and disarming the public so they cannot protect their families. 

We like to think our justice system is fair, and usually it is — indeed, some believe that a guilty verdict on all three counts by a jury that was 50% white, presided over by a white judge, with several white prosecutors and a white defense attorney, is all the proof needed that “our system of justice works.”  That’s a legitimate assessment of our criminal justice system and one I’d like to embrace.  But you can equally argue that, if Chauvin was indeed guilty of one or more counts, there are aspects of how this trial was conducted that cast considerable doubt on whether it was fair and impartial.  The right verdict by a tainted process is as bad as a wrong verdict justly rendered.

Now that Chauvin has been found guilty, he will undoubtedly appeal, and a mistrial could be his fate, but not only because of Maxine’s incitement.  Even President Biden inappropriately weighed in while the jury was deliberating, hoping for a guilty verdict.  Since they weren’t sequestered, it is possible that the jurors heard these comments and were influenced by them — something that should have been asked of them to preserve the record for appeal.

During the jury selection process, the city of Minneapolis settled with the Floyd family for $27 million, sending a powerful message to the newly impaneled jury that guilt was a foregone conclusion.  The defense’s motion to sequester the jury, precisely to prevent this kind of influence on the jury and exposure to the press, was denied by Judge Cahill — a critical mistake in my opinion.  He also (astoundingly) denied the defense’s motion to change the venue and move the trial to a different jurisdiction to ensure an impartial jury and fair trial.  With unrelenting riots and protests in Minneapolis, and every major political figure from Governor Walz and A.G. Ellison on down to local mayors convicting  Chauvin in the court of public opinion, how could there possibly be a fair and impartial trial in Minnesota? 

Other forms of intimidation and influence on jurors include ongoing riots by BLM and Antifa activists and clearly biased media reports throughout the trial; the drive-by shooting of two National Guardsmen directly after Waters’s statement; the delivery of a severed pig’s head and smeared blood on the former abode of a defense witness in the style of The Godfather, in which the severed head of a treasured horse was placed in Jack Woltz’s bed, sending the clear message that the Corleones meant business and he’d better watch his step; even the tracking down and harassment of a paramedic who donated $10 to Kyle Rittenhouse’s defense, by ABC reporter Jason Nguyen to allegedly “get his side of the story” — all of this could have intimidated any juror who saw it.  Nguyen also doxxed the paramedic on social media.  Like the pig’s head, the messaging is clear: if you stand with Floyd or Rittenhouse, you are being watched, and the next head might be yours.

This is the ugly underbelly of jury tampering and intimidation.  And it’s effective.  The judge and those twelve jurors knew that any verdict short of guilty could result in untold deaths and property damage from riots, as well as threats to their families.  No matter how devoted to their constitutional duty, it is tough to remain strong in the face of such jackboot tactics.

But the verdict wasn’t enough for many black activists, politicians, journalists, and pundits.  It isn’t enough that Derek Chauvin will spend the rest of his life in jail, if the inmates let him live.  Since racism is an invisible force that exists despite any evidence of its existence, these activists and their leaders in the Democrat Party aren’t going to rest until they, to quote New York BLM leader Hank Newsom, “burn it all down.”  And according to Auntie Maxine, they “mean business.”  They want the riots.  They want the hate and division.  They want to destroy white America and will deconstruct all of America in the process, in order to recreate a new America in their image — cleansed of white history, white culture, and white people.  Im devastated to have to say that, but at this point, can there be any doubt?

This is “revenge racism” — payback for hundreds of years of oppression.  Payback against whites who had nothing to do with our tainted history, who never did anything racist, and even whose ancestors had nothing to do with our history.  To quote again from The Godfather, it’s best served cold.  Nothing we are experiencing is an accident.  And while it all feels intensely hot, it is a cold and calculated series of events and policies designed to rend our country from the inside out.

I have no doubt that Maxine and the Democrats wanted a mistrial to justify continued violence.  Since they didn’t get it, the lure of a mistrial on appeal will provide them with months, possibly even years of racializing, dividing, and destroying.  They will continue to unleash criminals on helpless innocents of all colors, with no aid or comfort on the way, and no ability to defend themselves, and they will not rest until they blow up this shining city on a hill…and turn it into a hellhole.

Sally Zelikovski, American Thinker

Mob Rule is not Justice

Don’t kid yourself. The conviction of Derek Chauvin isn’t a victory for justice. When members of Congress, the media and domestic terrorism groups threaten to burn down all of Minnesota unless they get the verdict they desire, that’s not a judicial system; it’s mob rule. This isn’t a comment on Chauvin’s guilt or innocence. It’s a comment on the fact that objective guilt or innocence are no longer relevant.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Will Evidence Really Matter in the Chauvin Trial ?

Evidence is coming out in the courtroom, although not in the US media, that Officer Chauvin’s arrest was based entirely on “camera perspective bias,” as I previously reported. As the police videos demonstrate, Chauvin’s knee was on Floyd’s shoulder blade and not on his neck.


My opinion is that evidence will play no role in the trial. If evidence mattered, Chauvin would not be on trial. I hope I am wrong. But if Chauvin is acquitted, “All Hell Will Break Loose,” and this fear will produce a guilty verdict. The utterly corrupt Minnesota Democrats will sacrifice an innocent person in order to appease the ignorant mob. Consider, if you were a juror, would you acquit Chauvin when you know that your name will be leaked and Antifa and Black Lives Matter will burn down your home in your police-defunded city? Americans so easily scared silly by the Covid propaganda haven’t the stamina to stand up to an angry mob.


Paul Craig Roberts, UNZ Review

No, the Derek Chauvin Trial isn’t a Referendum on American Racism

Since the death of George Floyd, our esteemed media, as well as their Democratic allies, have suggested that Floyd’s alleged murder is representative of broader American white supremacy, that Floyd’s experience with law enforcement is indicative of how American police pose an existential threat to black Americans. They have offered no evidence for this proposition. Not a shred of evidence has been presented to suggest that former police officer Derek Chauvin’s actions the day of Floyd’s death were motivated by race. Not a shred of evidence has been presented to suggest that black Americans live at threat of extermination from whites or police officers: As of 2013, according to Reuters, a black person’s chances of being murdered by a white person were 5 in 1 million, and according to The Washington Post database of police shootings, as of 2019, a black person’s chances of being shot by the police while unarmed were approximately 3 in 10 million.

But facts don’t matter when you’re pressing forward a narrative.

Now that Chauvin is on trial for Floyd’s murder, the facts will once again become secondary to the narrative. Rep. Karen Bass, D-Calif., said that police reform is dependent on Chauvin’s conviction: “If there was ever a case that you can just not argue, it is this one. This trial has got to come out the right way, and we have to deliver.” Floyd family lawyer Benjamin Crump stated, “Today starts a landmark trial that will be a referendum on how far America has come in its quest for equality and justice for all.”

That’s simply not true.

Bass, Crump and the rest of the establishment media assume that Chauvin’s case is clear-cut — that nobody could possibly vote to acquit. The fact pattern, however, presents serious issues for the prosecution. Chauvin has been charged with second-degree murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter. All three charges are a challenge.

The prosecution first has to show beyond a reasonable doubt that Floyd’s death was caused by Chauvin’s actions. But the autopsy report shows that Floyd had fentanyl and methamphetamine in his system and had a serious heart problem, and that Chauvin’s neck hold did not in fact cause damage to Floyd’s trachea. That means that while Chauvin’s neck restraint may have contributed to Floyd’s death by ratcheting up his blood pressure, for example, it’s uncertain that it caused Floyd’s death more than, say, the excited delirium from which Floyd may have already been suffering.

Second-degree murder requires that the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Chauvin unintentionally killed Floyd while committing a felony — in this case, felony assault. But felony assault requires “intentional” infliction of bodily harm — that Chauvin wanted to hurt Floyd, not just use a suppression tactic already greenlit by the Minneapolis Police Department.

Third-degree murder — depraved-heart murder — doesn’t actually seem to fit the crime here, since it requires proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Chauvin acted in a way “eminently dangerous to others.” Others — plural. Usually, depraved-heart murder applies to someone who fires a gun into a crowd, not a person who targets an individual.

Second-degree manslaughter requires that the prosecution prove that Chauvin acted with “gross negligence.” But such gross negligence would have to show that Chauvin should have known that his behavior might cause Floyd’s death — an unlikely expectation, since the Minneapolis Police Department actively taught neck holds of the type Chauvin used, and which Chauvin applied only after Floyd resisted arrest and refused to be confined to the back seat of a police car.

The Chauvin case, then, is a legally complex one. But such complexities have been abandoned in favor of narrative. Should Chauvin be acquitted, we are likely to hear that America has proved its racism once again. The only thing that has already been proved, however, is that the “America as white supremacist” lie will remain the media’s dominant narrative, no matter the data.

Ben Shapiro