Image 01 Image 03

Maxine Waters: Protesters Need to “Get More Confrontational” If No “Murder” Conviction Of Derek Chauvin

Maxine Waters: Protesters Need to “Get More Confrontational” If No “Murder” Conviction Of Derek Chauvin

“We got to stay on the streets, we’ve got to get more confrontational. We got to make sure they know we mean business.”

California Rep. Maxine Waters traveled to Brooklyn Center, Minnesota to attend a protest over the reportedly accidental police shooting of Daunte Wright.  While there, Waters said that rioters need to “get more confrontational” if they don’t get the guilty verdict they’re demanding in the trial of Derek Chauvin.

The New York Post reports:

Fiery California Rep. Maxine Waters joined hundreds of angry protesters who thronged Brooklyn Center, Minnesota early Sunday, all breaking the 11 p.m. curfew together during the seventh night of protests against the police killing of Daunte Wright.

“We’ve got to stay in the streets, and we’ve got to demand justice,” she urged the crowd, according to one tweeted clip.

“We’re looking for a guilty verdict” in Derek Chauvin’s trial for the police killing of George Floyd, where deliberations will begin next week, she said.

“And if we don’t, we cannot go away,” she added. “We’ve got to get more confrontational.”


Apparently, Waters is under the mistaken impression that our justice system works on the basis of angry mobs demanding the verdict they want.

Her comments are sadly not at all surprising given her penchant for issuing orders to leftist mobs she appears to see as her own personal “justice” brigade. Remember her statement about making sure no member of the Trump cabinet was welcome anywhere? She said: “If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.”

Republicans have responded to Waters’ latest outrageous comments as one might expect to such irresponsible language and behavior from a sitting member of Congress.

Fox News reports:

“Telling rioters who have burned buildings, looted stores, and assaulted journalists to get ‘more confrontational’ is incredibly irresponsible. Every House Democrat should condemn Maxine Waters’ call for violence,” National Republican Congressional Committee spokesman Mike Berg told Fox News.

“Why is Maxine Waters traveling to a different state trying to incite a riot? What good can come from this?” Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., wrote on Twitter.

“The Radical Left don’t care if your towns are burning, if there’s violence in your streets, or if the police are too defunded to defend their communities. As long as the Left appeases their anti-America base, their job is done,” Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., wrote on Twitter.

“Why is a sitting member of Congress encouraging protesters to get ‘confrontational?'” Rep. Ken Buck, R-Colo., wrote on Twitter.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



Someone did a drive by shooting on National Guard troops shortly after Maxine Water’s incitement.

Her remarks are obviously directed toward the jurors in the Chauvin case, who are not yet sequestered. Isn’t that legally jury tampering? At the very least, it should be grounds for a mistrial and change of venue.

    Milhouse in reply to OldProf2. | April 18, 2021 at 3:35 pm

    The jury are not supposed to be watching the news, so in principle they shouldn’t hear about her words. Thus it’s far from obvious that her words were directed at them.

      henrybowman in reply to Milhouse. | April 18, 2021 at 4:07 pm

      And yet they’ve all heard about the civil settlement, so we know that works so well.

        Milhouse in reply to henrybowman. | April 18, 2021 at 5:40 pm

        1. They didn’t all hear about it.
        2. That was before the trial.
        3. That was reported all over the damn place; this wasn’t. You have to be paying attention to the news, or reading the right blogs, to have seen this.

          dalewalt in reply to Milhouse. | April 20, 2021 at 9:06 am

          “3. That was reported all over the damn place; this wasn’t.”

          It’s on the front page of most news sites and playing on most news stations. One wouldn’t have to look long to find mention of her remarks.

      Fat_Freddys_Cat in reply to Milhouse. | April 19, 2021 at 8:45 am

      Mmm theoretically. But I can easily see a juror’s mother or spouse hearing about it and frantically telling said juror “Don’t you dare say “not guilty! Think about your family!”

        Milhouse in reply to Fat_Freddys_Cat. | April 20, 2021 at 1:17 am

        Of course it could happen. And that juror could tell the others about it. But there is no way Waters could possibly count on it. Therefore it’s far from obvious that her words were directed at them. In fact not only is it far from obvious, it’s damned unlikely.

Not grounds for a mistrial? How can Ghavin get a fair trial now?

CaliforniaJimbo | April 18, 2021 at 2:30 pm

Since she isn’t performing actual congressional duties out there, I can’t see how her incitement to riot is protected by the speech and debate clause.
She should be held to account legally.

    Milhouse in reply to CaliforniaJimbo. | April 18, 2021 at 3:33 pm

    Nobody has claimed it was protected by the speech and debate clause. It’s protected by the good old first amendment.

    It is not incitement. Incitement is speech that is both (1) subjectively intended and (2) objectively likely to cause the audience to (3) imminently commit a crime.

    Basically it means speech that whips its audience into such an emotional frenzy that they temporarily lose their minds and act as the speaker’s robots,

    In this case not only is it impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she intended her audience to commit a crime, even in the future, she definitely didn’t intend them to commit one right then and there, since it was conditioned on an even that won’t happen until at least midweek. So at least two of the three elements are missing.

      The Friendly Grizzly in reply to Milhouse. | April 18, 2021 at 3:43 pm

      She knows exactly what she is doing. She is just a millimeter this side of the law. She is TRYING to incite an overreaction from the cops, which will give her the rioting she in fact is seeking.

      People like that used to have accidents.

        JusticeDelivered in reply to The Friendly Grizzly. | April 18, 2021 at 5:35 pm

        What we need is appropriate reaction to Maxine Waters and every other dumb entitled shit cast in her mold. that reaction needs to occur across all of America.

          The Friendly Grizzly in reply to JusticeDelivered. | April 18, 2021 at 6:39 pm

          Yes it does. Good thing she’s not behind bars. Someone would be hired to ghost-write an essay, called, “Letter from Minneapolis Jail’.

        Lucifer Morningstar in reply to The Friendly Grizzly. | April 18, 2021 at 8:41 pm

        She is TRYING to incite an overreaction from the cops, which will give her the rioting she in fact is seeking.

        Nope. Waters is trying to incite one or more of her less than stable supporters into committing a crime that the police will have to respond to with more than ordinary force and that will give Waters the rioting she in fact is seeking.

        Yes, she knows exactly what she is doing, which is why she used the exact words she did in order to avoid any legal charges of incitement, So although she’s going to get stores looted and people killed, she can waddle to the microphones in complete legal safety, and her district will mindlessly send her back to DC every two years.

        She’s done this before, and she’ll do it again.

      Fat_Freddys_Cat in reply to Milhouse. | April 18, 2021 at 6:33 pm

      If I understand the Brandenburg v Ohio standard correctly I must agree with your analysis; as hideous and inflammatory as Waters’ words are, there is no legal statute that can touch her. And even if the law was different, Waters is a member of the elite political class and thus will never face accountability. So much for The Rule of Law.

      Given the nature of her district, I very much doubt she will face political repercussions that matter either; her voters will continue to support her even if she performs the looting, arson and murder herself.

      artichoke in reply to Milhouse. | April 18, 2021 at 8:16 pm

      It is obvious she wanted people to be willing to commit some level of crimes, although not immediately because they’re supposed to wait for the verdict first.

      If the incited crime has to be immediate, it wasn’t that. Does that get her off? At least it should get her censured by Congress, but of course not. Hell Ilhan Omar bought her reelection and nothing happens to her either from that House.

      bigskydoc in reply to Milhouse. | April 18, 2021 at 8:50 pm

      Curious, and this is genuinely a question, are you saying I could fulfill all the elements except for imminence, and I would not be found d guilty.

      Say, I whipped a crowd into a frenzy, chanting “Kill Joe Schmoe, with bats, on May 1! KILL Joe Schmoe, with bats, on May 1st!” And they all screamed it with me, and, on May 1st, they beat Joe Schmoe to death with bats, I wouldn’t be guilty because there were 2 weeks between the incitement and the murder?

      I know you get a lot of s&!^ around here, but I always enjoy reading your opinion of the actual law as written and practiced.

        Milhouse in reply to bigskydoc. | April 20, 2021 at 1:23 am

        As I understand it, yes, that would not be incitement. Because if they go through with it it will not be because of you or the frenzy you whipped them into, but because having cooled off they calmly decided that murder was a good idea. It will be their decision, not yours, and therefore their responsibility, not yours.

      DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | April 18, 2021 at 10:52 pm

      “In this case not only is it impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she intended her audience to commit a crime…”

      That’s funny, because she’s telling a bunch of people who have already committed crimes that they need to commit more crimes. How can she say such a thing without intending her audience to commit (more) crimes? She is not inciting a group of peaceful, law-abiding citizens to do something they otherwise wouldn’t do. (In which case I think your explanation would be correct.) She should have a reasonable expectation that the people her message is for will do exactly what she’s requesting. (We know from what she said that her message is for people who have already rioted.) If she didn’t have such an expectation, are we to suppose she traveled hundreds of miles for no purpose?

      Is there an exception for “stupid”?

        Milhouse in reply to DaveGinOly. | April 20, 2021 at 1:29 am

        She did not know for a fact, and you don’t know for a fact, that anyone in her audience has ever committed a crime. It may not be true, and you certainly couldn’t prove it to a jury beyond reasonable doubt. She didn’t say to commit any crimes, she said to intensify the protests. To protest harder and louder and more confrontationally. Call the cops even worse names, curse them more imaginatively, get in their faces and let them know they don’t control the streets. None of that is an actual crime.

        There is no way to prove, or even to know for sure, that she intended her words for those who had committed crimes, or that she meant for them to commit more or worse crimes. It seems likely, but that’s not good enough.

      Lucifer Morningstar in reply to Milhouse. | April 19, 2021 at 10:58 am

      So Mad Maxine’s speech inciting people to violence (must be more confrontational) is protected by the 1st Amendment.

      But Pres. Trump’s speech urging people to gather in the capitol to peacefully protest leads to his impeachment for incitement to insurrection.

      Double standards . . . what can I say.

          Milhouse in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | April 20, 2021 at 11:40 am

          Indeed. But his point is not that Waters is guilty of incitement, but that her bullshit lawsuit against Trump, which ought to be dismissed the first time a judge gets a look at it, just got even more bullshit.

          If it ever gets as far as testimony, which it shouldn’t, Trump can and surely will call Waters as his prime witness; there is no way she can maintain, while under oath and in front of a judge, that what Trump did was incitement but what she did was not.

        Impeachment is a political process, not a criminal one, so it’s not affected by the first amendment. An official can be impeached even for a completely legal speech that Congress sufficiently dislikes.

        Expulsion of a member is also a political process, so if 2/3 of the House were so inclined they could expel Waters for this speech. But of course they don’t want to, and no law compels them to.

    henrybowman in reply to CaliforniaJimbo. | April 18, 2021 at 4:09 pm

    “Incitement to riot?”
    1. She never specifically used the word “fight.”
    2. She’s a Democrat.
    We rate this claim: Mostly Peaceful.

This is what an actual insurrection looks like.

texansamurai | April 18, 2021 at 2:49 pm

bring your bs and your rioters to our neck of the woods, auntie max–you might not survive “getting more confrontational” with us

In normal times, intruding into another member of congress’s district to incite violence and jury tamper would be a removal worthy offense. Unfortunately, we are in the Kamala Harris administration and she will probably be given a presidential commendation for this reckless and incendiary act.

    artichoke in reply to paralegal. | April 18, 2021 at 3:03 pm

    Things are different in Minnesota — Minneapolis area at least, and Brooklyn Center is a suburb of Mpls. We saw Ilhan Omar literally buying her reelection in Mpls. at $200 per vote, well documented, and nothing happens to her.

      Milhouse in reply to artichoke. | April 18, 2021 at 3:39 pm

      Not that well documented. It’s just an allegation. It may very well be true, but there’s not a lot of evidence, mainly because the authorities who should have investigated it and found evidence (if there is any to be found) have refused to do so.

        artichoke in reply to Milhouse. | April 18, 2021 at 8:18 pm

        Oddly that happens with many many very convincing cases, including Texas v Pennsylvania at SCOTUS. Courts deciding that in some particular case they’d prefer not to do their jobs. I think there are massive payoffs, maybe up to $1 billion per SCOTUS justice.

        Idonttweet in reply to Milhouse. | April 19, 2021 at 8:33 am

        That’s only to be expected when you have a like-minded fellow traveler like Keith Ellison in the state AG’s office. Same thing with Mad Max inciting violence.

    Milhouse in reply to paralegal. | April 18, 2021 at 3:37 pm

    What difference does it make whose district it is?

    And when exactly was this regarded as a “removal worthy offense”? When was the last time a member was removed for something like this?

      paralegal in reply to Milhouse. | April 18, 2021 at 5:40 pm

      Ask your question again out loud and see if then it registers how stupid your question is?

        Milhouse in reply to paralegal. | April 18, 2021 at 7:01 pm

        If you think it’s stupid, why don’t you answer it? Why don’t you tell us when a member was ever removed for “intruding” in another member’s district? I’ll tell you why; it’s because you can’t, because it has never happened.

      DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | April 18, 2021 at 11:01 pm

      When was the last time a member of Congress went to a district not her own and encouraged rioters to not just continue to riot, but to escalate their activities (which is a call to increase the violence, because rioting is violence) while simultaneously (arguably) interfering with a criminal trial?

      If it’s never happened before, the answer to your question is “never,” but that does not adequately deny that removal from her seat is not an appropriate response to her actions.

        Idonttweet in reply to DaveGinOly. | April 19, 2021 at 8:56 am

        It might well be worthy of removal dismissal from the House, but that’s entirely up to the members. Face it, they impeached Trump for less, and Mad Max was calling for his impeachment before he was even sworn in.
        I’m certainly not going to defend her, but we all know it just isn’t going to happen. In the first place, her party controls the House and the neo-Communists in charge aren’t going to even consider giving her the boot.

        Secondly, any attempt to even censure her will be labeled racist, regardless of any actual facts.

        Milhouse in reply to DaveGinOly. | April 20, 2021 at 11:44 am

        It’s enough to disprove paralegal’s assertion that “in normal times” it “would be a removal worthy offense”.

        And I’d bet it has actually happened, many times over the past 230 years, because there has never been a norm that members should stay out of each other’s districts. Paralegal just made it up.


Why are people on the right afraid to call out racists ? Maxine is a racist. Worse, a race-baiter who uses race to fund raise and win election.

Conservatives seem to have ceded the entire subject of race to radical leftists. Why ? Call the neo-racist what they are. RACISTS. Republicans should embrace the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Remember, it was Democrats who were the primary opponents of MLK. Democrats like Byrd who was good buddies with Biden (Biden called Byrd his mentor in the Senate).

Do not give the radical left a monopoly on race. Straight-out call bullshit on the RACE-BAITERS like Sharpton, NLM and others.

You don’t win hearts and minds by allowing the other side to monoplize the debate – especially when truth, logic and reason are all on your side. Write editorials, columns, articles that call them out. CALL THEM OUT AS RACISTS. Give reasons why their racists. That may shake things up and even wake up a few folks.

For example. The USA border policy that has favored Hispanics-race – those from 3 or 4 central-American countries – is RACIST. Where are the SJWs ? Tis is INSTITUTIONALIZED RACISM. Oh, but the media doesn’t care – because this kind of racism fits the Democratic agenda. It’s been de facto policy for over 30 years and the Dems would like to continue it for another 30 years.

What if someone proposed that we allow 30+ million to cheat the established quotas and come to the USA from 3 European countries and then we can give them Amnesty because it’s logistically impossible to return them ? The left would go nuts and call it RACIST. Well, it’s just as racist to favor any other group of immigrants by race. How do we fix it ? Tell Mexico and the other Central American countries that they exceeded their quota and now we cut back immigration from their countries until all other countries catch up.

THE POINT – Racism by Regressive Democrats has to be called out. Has to be loud and sharp enough that it gets attention of moderate Democrats who don’t know what far their party has strayed and don’t know the extent of the hypocrisy.

Republicans have the moral high-ground. We MUST make the moral case for truth and righteousness and not be cowered by the radicals who pretend to speak against racism as they actually promote it.


    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to Ben Kent. | April 18, 2021 at 3:48 pm

    “Why are people on the right afraid to call out racists?”

    Because they fear bring cold racist and other repercussions.

      Proud Deplorable in reply to The Friendly Grizzly. | April 18, 2021 at 7:42 pm

      I agree with your reasoning, Mr. Grizzly, and it’s sad. We need to grow spines (and other body parts) and point out the fallacy. Whenever I have done so, the offender has gone silent because they have no good counter argument.

I would wager serious money that Mad Max was invited in by none other than Ilhan Omar.

    That’s a good question: Was she invited by one of her congressional colleagues from Minnesota, or did she invite herself? And if it’s the latter, did she let any one of them know she was coming?

    She knows she won’t face any serious repercussions for this. Maybe a “please don’t do this again.” She’s in a safe seat and will stay in Congress as long as she likes.

    That being said, if she just invited herself that’s a problem, because it’s one thing to show up in someone else’s state or district to campaign for their opponent, which often happens and everyone knows it will, but it’s entirely another to do something like this.


If MLK were alive today – he’d be a conservative.
..>> Opposed to racism
..>> Opposed to cancel culture
..>> Opposed to those who want to end free speech
..>> Opposed to those who riot and burn
..>> Opposed to race-baiters who seek to gain from division

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to Ben Kent. | April 18, 2021 at 3:50 pm

    But, he’s dead and gone. MLK is forgotten, in favor of Omar, Jack$on, $Hampton, Waters, Jackdon-Lee, et al.

civisamericanus | April 18, 2021 at 3:18 pm

Isn’t what Maxine Waters is saying today a lot like what the Ku Klux Klan said in the bad old days in which the KKK said that, if the jury did not reach the “right” verdict about a Black suspect, they would take matters into their own hands???

As for the mask, I think she should keep it on even after everybody has the vaccine. A gag to shut her up might be more to the point.

KKK, 1950s: “We’re looking for a guilty verdict.”

Mad Maxine is inciting the morons BLM/Antifa thugs. Those thugs are going to run into somebody that is willing to protect themselves and not be intimidated.

    henrybowman in reply to Tsquared. | April 18, 2021 at 4:13 pm

    Somebody like Kyle Rittenhouse, or the McCloskeys — outstanding examples of what your life will turn into if you ever dare resist the #Resistance in a “blue ghetto.”

Comanche Voter | April 18, 2021 at 4:17 pm

As Millhouse so diligently and faithfully defends Maxine “Gatemouth” Waters, I have to think he got his training as the fellow fwho ollows the circus parade and sweeps up the elephont poop. That kind of background will prepare one for the job of claning up after Mad Maxine.

    Milhouse in reply to Comanche Voter. | April 18, 2021 at 5:44 pm

    Shut up. Evidently you don’t give a **** about the truth.

      JusticeDelivered in reply to Milhouse. | April 18, 2021 at 5:51 pm

      Nonproductive. And, law is not always right, some precedent is wrong, In some cases it takes bullets to fix bad law & precedent. Islam is an example of this.

        This isn’t about whether the law is right. “Comanche Voter” has demonstrated that he doesn’t give a **** about the truth. And while I never take it personal, when I am personally attacked I have the right to respond in kind. If you don’t want to hear this sort of thing from me, don’t attack me. Address my ideas, if you can, not my person.

          JusticeDelivered in reply to Milhouse. | April 18, 2021 at 11:09 pm

          I did not attack you. I did suggest that a different approach might work better,

          Most professionals tend to view issues as if their professional perspective is what is most important. I have worn a very large numbers of hats in my career, I think it gives me a broader perspective. For example, my dealings with attorneys has taught me that they often have trouble thinking outside the box. Our discussions went along the lines of what if I approach the problem this way, and they would reply that I should not for xyz reason. My goal was generally to make their lives interesting. So I would keep approaching the issue from many angles until I found a way to make them sorry, rally not just one way, usually many, all at the same time.

          Law is always flawed, very often one has to look at other approaches.

          JusticeDelivered in reply to Milhouse. | April 19, 2021 at 10:29 am

          ” their lives interesting” = adversary, not the attorney.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | April 20, 2021 at 1:37 am

          I didn’t say you attacked me, I said Comanche Voter did. And in doing so he demonstrated his fundamental dishonesty, which makes him objectively a bad person.

      DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | April 18, 2021 at 11:04 pm

      Now calm down, Skeeter, he ain’t hurtin’ no one.

      That’s below you Milhouse. Give a new voice a break and let others let him know that uncivil discourse is not wanted here.

ugottabekiddinme | April 18, 2021 at 5:41 pm

I old enough to remember when someone traveling interstate to instigate a riot could actually face prosecution. Ah, good times, good times.

    Unless you’re older than the first amendment, you can’t possibly remember when someone doing this could be prosecuted.

    Remember, (1) intended, (2) likely, (3) imminent. And all three elements must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

      ugottabekiddinme in reply to Milhouse. | April 18, 2021 at 7:46 pm

      Au contraire, mon ami. The Chicago Seven defendants were prosecuted in federal court precisely (among other charges) for traveling interstate to Chicago with intent to instigate a riot at the Democratic National Convention in 1968. Convictions were overturned on appeal so like Bill Ayers, guilty as hell, free as a bird. But they were prosecuted.

        ugottabekiddinme in reply to ugottabekiddinme. | April 18, 2021 at 7:56 pm

        Replying to my own post to provide the relevant federal criminal statute: 18 U.S. Code § 2101 provides:

        (a) Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses any facility of interstate or foreign commerce, including, but not limited to, the mail, telegraph, telephone, radio, or television, with intent—
        (1) to incite a riot; or
        (2) to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot; or
        (3) to commit any act of violence in furtherance of a riot; or
        (4) to aid or abet any person in inciting or participating in or carrying on a riot or committing any act of violence in furtherance of a riot;
        and who either during the course of any such travel or use or thereafter performs or attempts to perform any other overt act for any purpose specified in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D) of this paragraph— [1]
        Shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

        The difference is that they intended to actually instigate an actual riot. I.e. to induce people to immediately commit unambiguous crimes. That is not what Waters did. Her words do not fit the legal definition of incitement, and therefore her travel to say those words cannot be prosecuted; the first amendment forbids it.

      DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | April 18, 2021 at 11:07 pm

      It just occurred to me that you’re using the legal standard for “incitement” even when arguing against Mad Max’s expulsion from Congress. Congress isn’t bound by such rules when determining appropriate discipline for a member, so expulsion should be on the table. (Not that it’s going to happen now, but maybe in two years.)

        JusticeDelivered in reply to DaveGinOly. | April 19, 2021 at 12:39 pm

        I would love to Waters tossed out, followed by a comprehensive investigation into her finances. How did she accumulate $12 million?

        Milhouse in reply to DaveGinOly. | April 20, 2021 at 1:44 am

        I’m using the legal definition of incitement because in US law that’s what the word means. Expulsion ought certainly to be on the table, if it were possible to get the numbers for it, but it isn’t.

        And in two years it will be too late: Congress has a very long-standing tradition that it can only expel members for offenses committed since the last election. So long-standing and entrenched is this position that the Supreme Court has taken official notice of it, though pointedly without endorsing it.

        In the Adam Clayton Powell case the court carefully didn’t say the House couldn’t expel him, it said that the House has for a very long time thought it can’t expel him, and it probably still thinks that, so it’s likely that an attempt to do so would not get the 2/3 vote needed.

Maxine speaks, the locals obey:

Minnesota National Guard neighborhood security team fired upon in Minnapolis

April 18, 2021 (MINNAPOLIS, Minnesota) — A Minnesota National Guard and Minneapolis Police Department neighborhood security team was fired upon early Sunday morning in a drive by shooting near Penn Avenue and Broadway.

The shooting occurred on or about 4:19 a.m., as a light colored SUV fired several shots at an Operation Safety Net security team providing neighborhood security. No team members were seriously injured. Two National Guard members did sustain minor injuries from the incident. One Guardsman sustain an injury from shattered glass requiring additional care and was taken to a local hospital to receive treatment for injuries sustained. The other Guardsman received only superficial injuries. No further information is available at this time.

“I am relieved to know none of our Guardsmen were seriously injured,” said Maj. Gen. Shawn Manke, Minnesota National Guard Adjutant General. “This event highlights the volatility and tension in our communities right now. I ask for peace as we work through this difficult time.”

The Minnesota National Guard is activated as part of Operation Safety Net, a joint effort among the Minneapolis Police Department, Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office, the State of Minnesota and local jurisdictions. The Minnesota National Guard was activated as part of the effort to protect people, freedom of speech and property during the Derek Chauvin trial as well as the aftermath of the police involved shooting of Daunte Wright in Brooklyn Center.

— Press release from the Minn. National Guard.

The first thing that has to happen in court is a motion for a mistrial. The next thing that has to happen is warrant out for M. Waters for jury intimidation. The House should move to remove her based on this incitement to riot and crime of jury intimidation. It is time for her to win bed and board for a number of years for this and other crimes.

Expel her hideous Farrakkkquine black butt from Congress. Read her remarks into the Congressional Record, rebuke her from House floor and call her expulsion from and every committee.

Maxine Waters makes Alcee Hastings seem as a credible jurist and legislator.

The video clip needs to be sent to the judge. Enough! She is out of control and has violated her oath of office to uphold the constitution. She needs to be removed immediately. She has not listened to any of this trial. In the video clip a protestor asks her about a guilty manslaughter charge and she says….”no, not just manslaughter, this is guilty of murder. I don’t know if it’s in the first degree but as far as I’m concerned, it’s in the first degree.” She may be surprised to learn that it is hard to be convicted of first degree murder when you are not charged with first degree murder. She is also breaking curfew laws!

Minnesota jurors need to find cops innocent until the message to the perp’s is clear. Comply with instructions or face the consequences. The Chris Rock video should be repeated on TV as a public service announcement.

George_Kaplan | April 18, 2021 at 7:38 pm

What will it take to charge Mad Maxine with a criminal offence? She is literally inciting the crowd. Give us a guity verdict Else get even more confrontation. What is more confrontational than arson, looting, and assault? Is Maxine calling for murder, or merely grievous bodily harm?

    You know the answer is she changes registration to Republican which would mean she gets arrested within seconds after she attempts to incite crowds again.

    Milhouse in reply to George_Kaplan. | April 20, 2021 at 11:58 am

    What she said isn’t a criminal offense, and charging her with one would be a deliberate violation of her civil rights under color of law.

    You ask “What is more confrontational than arson, looting, and assault?” What evidence do you have, and I mean actual hard evidence that could be admitted at trial, that anyone in her audience had committed any of those things, and that she knew they had?

    To the best of your knowledge, let alone hers, none of the people she was addressing had done anything worse than yell at the cops and curse them. And she exhorted them to keep doing it, and to do it even more obnoxiously — but not to commit any crime.

    At least, that is what she would claim were she to be charged with incitement, and it would be impossible to prove otherwise, let alone beyond reasonable doubt.

JusticeDelivered | April 18, 2021 at 9:05 pm

How about Maxine is given what she is advocating.

Uhg, no one needs confrontational protests, that’s a dangerous path for everyone. It’s a remarkably tone deaf comment for her to make. Seems pretty irresponsible to me.

    Milhouse in reply to mark311. | April 20, 2021 at 12:03 pm

    “Tone deaf” implies that she didn’t mean it the way it sounds. It’s obvious that she did. I’ve been arguing here that it’s impossible to prove she intended to urge the escalation of violence, arson, and even murder; but it’s obvious to anyone outside a court of law that she did intend that, or at least that she intended to put the police, the local government, and the general public in fear of that. She can’t be prosecuted, but she ought to be condemned.

Mad Maxine thinks she’s untouchable. That no one would dare prosecute her. And that Princess Pelosi’s House won’t do a thing to her. And she’s probably right.

One more example of our two tier justice system. In which the the Democrat ruling class and their supporters enjoy exemptions from the laws the peasants and serfs are subject to.

Imagine if Jim Jordan went to the trial of the Jan 6 rioters and gave a speech that we need to get more confrontational.

We are heading, have perhaps already arrived, toward a very bizarre place in America, where the lowest rung of the socio-economic ladder, the 13% who are black, whose “culture” is self-destructive (75% of kids born to single mamas, the highest racial rate of abortions) are being promoted by themselves and others as an aristocracy (see Harvard and Ivy League admissions odds: black high school GPA = Asian GPA of 3.9) which bleats “racist” whenever challenged on any point they raise.

It is societal insanity.

Black high school GPA of 2,5

Sounds like a conspiracy to commit civil rights violations to me!
“Convict or we riot!” is a blatant due process violation.

How is that any different from sayin “Charge Maxine Waters or I will take the law into my own hands!”?

    Milhouse in reply to CaptTee. | April 20, 2021 at 12:06 pm

    If it were directed at the jurors you’d have a point. But the jurors are supposed to be avoiding the news, so there is no way she could count on them hearing about her words until after the verdict. Therefore she can’t have been addressing them.

Maxine is the congressional equivalent of Tyler Perry’s “Madea.” She’s a parody of herself. Remember The Cosby Kids cartoons with “Fat Albert?” It’s like she jumped right out of the TV fully formed and ready for ridicule.