Maxine attacks judge in Chauvin case—says he is ‘way off’ and ‘not credible’

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) attacked Judge Peter Cahill, who presided over the Derek Chauvin case, after he condemned remarks Waters made before the trial verdict was reached.

Waters said Cahill was “way off” to criticize her and that it is “not credible” to say that she may give the defense reason to appeal the verdict—which may result in the entire case being dismissed.

Waters made the remarks during a CNN interview with Jim Acosta on Saturday, where she bizarrely suggested without evidence that she was being attacked by Republicans over her comments because they want to distract from QAnon.

CNN played Cahill’s remarks from the trial, where he criticized Waters’s inflammatory comments.

I’ll give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trail 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 and our function. … A congresswoman’s opinion really doesn’t matter a whole lot. Anyway, so motion for mistrial is denied.

When asked to respond to those comments, Waters claimed the judge “walk[ed] it back” and he was “angry” and “frustrated” with the amount of publicity that the case was receiving.

“And of course, he was way off track,” Waters claimed. “And he knows that, in fact, the jurors were not in the room, the jurors had an oath not to look at television, not to read the newspapers, not to engage with people on this. And so he knows that there was no interference with the jurors. But he was basically frustrated and angry, I believe, but I’m very pleased that there are those who are beginning to write about Judge Cahill’s basic comments.”

“And one thing that I read that came from someone from CNN was that the judge was all off track. And he knows that this is not the cause of an appeal,” she concluded. “Most of the time [when] you have a case like this, they’re going to appeal it anyway. But to say that I’m going to cause an appeal really is not credible, and whether or not they have an appeal, and even if they mention my name, like the judge says, my comments, whatever, it don’t matter anyway.”

The full transcript can be read here:

JIM ACOSTA, CNN HOST: But looking back, why was it important for you to use that word “confrontational” at the time?

REP. MAXINE WATERS (D-CA): Well, let me just say that you’re absolutely correct in, you know, reading what I wrote about what had happened in Minneapolis, and what is happening in this atmosphere that we’re in. I have been involved with dealing with police abuse for many, many years. It started many years ago in Los Angeles with the killing of a woman named Eula Love, and Daryl Gates was the police chief that use charcoals to kill black men, and also a battering ram to tear down the doors of people in the black community. And so, I have also lived with the fact that so many young, unarmed men in particular, and women are being killed by the police, and the black community is afraid of the police. And these young boys who are getting stopped, they think they may have a better chance of running than sticking with the police, because the police may, as was so called happened with Daunte, in Minneapolis, get killed by mistake, or just get killed by the police, shot in the back. It is a very, very uneasy time in the black community. The mothers and the fathers and the family are afraid for their children and particularly young black man to be on the street, thinking that they’re going to get stopped, and they will not get back home. They are counseling constantly their children, if you get stopped, please don’t say anything. Please show your hands. Please say yes, sir. Do everything that you can do to keep from being killed because we can’t guarantee you that the people that we pay to protect and serve you will do that rather than kill you.

And so, Martin Luther King was familiar with racism, and discrimination, and he was familiar with how tough it is to break up the established order of the day. And that was by, you know, white supremacists, who basically created harm to all in the black community for the most part, and so he created something called the C Project. The C Project was the confrontation project. The confrontation project is a non-violent project that dealt with sit-ins, marches, praying, organizing, and so confrontational does not mean violence. I’m a non-violent person, Martin Luther King taught non-violence, and we must be about resisting, however, and we must be about educating, and we must be about trying to protect our children. And so confrontation is being misused. And as I said, there’s an attempt by the Republicans to divert attention from the fact that they are aligned with violent people, QAnon.

ACOSTA: Congresswoman.

WATERS: Yes.

ACOSTA: Congresswoman, let me just ask you though, because the judge, as you know, the judge in the Derek Chauvin case, also came out strongly against your remarks. Let’s listen to that.

[START VIDEO]

JUDGE CAHILL, PRESIDING OVER DEREK CHAUVIN TRIAL: I’ll give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trail 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 in our function. … A congresswoman’s opinion, really doesn’t matter a whole lot. Anyway, so motion for mistrial is denied.

[END VIDEO]

ACOSTA: What did you think of that? What was your response to the judge when you saw that?

WATERS: Well, he did walk it back. And as you said, he closed with congresswoman’s opinion doesn’t matter. And I think he was angry, I think he may be frustrated with this case and how much world publicity is on it and all of that. I’ve talked with a lot of legal scholars and lawyers. And of course, he was way off track. And he knows that, in fact, the jurors were not in the room, the jurors had an oath not to look at television, not to read the newspapers, not to engage with people on this. And so, he knows that there was no interference with the jurors. But he was basically frustrated and angry, I believe, but I’m very pleased that there are those who are beginning to write about Judge Cahill’s basic comments.

And one thing that I read that came from someone from CNN was that the judge was all off track. And he knows that this is not the cause of an appeal. Most of the time when you have a case like this, they’re going to appeal it anyway. But to say that I’m going to cause an appeal really is not credible, and whether or not they have an appeal, and even if they mention my name, like the judge says, my comments, whatever, it don’t matter anyway.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *