Tell me...who is more likely to cause an appealable issue Maxine Waters politiking as a politician or the actual Judge presiding over the Chauvin trial namechecking Maxine Waters during the trial itself stating that said politician may have caused an appealable issue? In other words, said judge improperly predicting that Defendants may have a basis for appeal before the trial has even ended.
Congresswoman Maxine Waters full comment:
"We're looking for a guilty verdict and we're looking to see if all of the talk that took place and has been taking place after they saw what happened to George Floyd. If nothing does not happen, then we know that we got to not only stay in the street, but we have got to fight for justice," she added.
That I am very hopeful, and I hope that we're going to get a verdict that is a guilty, guilty, guilty. And if we don't, we cannot go away," Waters said,
"We got to stay on the street. And we've got to get more active, we've got to get more confrontational. We've got to make sure that they know that we mean business," she said.
Asked about the curfew put in place, Waters said, "I don't think anything about curfew. Curfew means I want you all to stop talking. I want you to stop meeting. I want you to stop gathering. I don't agree with that."
Judge Cahill’s full comment:
“Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned,”
“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,” the judge later said.
"I'm aware the Congresswoman Waters was talking specifically about this trial and about the unacceptability of anything less than a murder conviction and talk about being confrontational," Cahill said. "I think if (representatives) want to give their opinions, they should do so in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution to respect the co-equal branch of government."
"Their failure to do so, I think, is abhorrent, but I don't think it has prejudiced us with additional material that would prejudice this jury," he continued. "A congresswoman's opinion really doesn't matter a whole lot."
Which caused more publicity and brought more public attention to Congresswoman Waters’ comments? Congresswoman Waters is a California public official and a citizen with a First Amendment right who is not subject to a gag order by this judge. Rep. Waters is also not the President of the United States. Like every news person on every channel and other public figures who have commented on the Chauvin trial concluding that Chauvin is guilty as hell Congresswoman Waters has a right to do so also. Every activist is confrontational, its called activism. The Congresswoman’s comments are consistent with her oath as she exercised her constitutional right to speak on a national issue specifically affecting her community, even in California.
This trial affects black people everywhere and Rep. Waters should speak on it. She in no way “disrespected” the judiciary branch. The prior occupant of the White House and Mitch McConnell has done a great job of that already. I would think that as a neutral judge, commenting on politics and namechecking Congresswoman’s Waters’ doing her job while said judge is in the middle of presiding over the very trial in which that judge complains does more damage to the pertinent legal process than anything Congresswoman Waters said.
Further, what is abhorrent is a judge bringing more attention to Rep. Waters’ harmless comments when hundreds of public figures have made far worst comments and doing so while presiding over the very proceedings at issue. How will the jury react when they hear that the actual judge has told the defense that they may have an appealable issue based on a irrelevant statement made by a politician? Further, how much more weight will a jury give such comments now that the judge has flagged them as an appealable issue? The only prejudicial comments were made by Judge Cahill not Rep. Waters when the good judge predicted an appealable issue while presiding over a national trial broadcast all over the world.
All Cahill needed for the ruling:
I don't think it has prejudiced us with additional material that would prejudice this jury,"
The social commentary and opinion is improper and unnecessary while presiding over this national trial of immense public interest as the judge made a one day story into a protracted one.
UPDATE: Chauvin verdict in to be announced in one hour. Not a hung jury.
Update 5:09 pm
Count 1 — Guilty
Count 2 — Guilty
Count 3 — Guilty
Thank GOD!!! Defendant remanded to Jail!!! Chauvin handcuffed and led out of court showing zero emotion just like a psychopath.