Maxine Waters’ Comments: What Both Sides Are Saying

The Flag Staff Contributor
Maxine Waters’ Comments: What Both Sides Are Saying
Read Time: approx. 1:03

Maxine Waters’ Comments: Maxine Waters urges Minnesota protesters to ‘stay on the street’ if Derek Chauvin is acquitted. Here’s what both sides are saying. To have stories like this and more delivered directly to your inbox, be sure to sign up for our newsletter. Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore, CC 2.0

Story: Maxine Waters’ Comments


Brie Stimson, writing for Fox News, reports: “US Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., showed up at an anti-police brutality protest in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, on Saturday evening, saying demonstrators needed to ‘stay on the street,’ demanding justice until police reform becomes a reality.

‘I’m going to fight with all of the people who stand for justice,’ Waters told reporters shortly before an 11 p.m. curfew. ‘We’ve got to get justice in this country and we cannot allow these killings to continue.’

Asked about the Derek Chauvin murder trial in Minneapolis, Waters told reporters if the former police officer isn’t found guilty of murdering George Floyd, ‘We’ve 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.’

Here’s what both sides are saying about the congresswoman’s calls for continued, if not more vigorous, protests:

On The Right


The right sees a clear effort to disregard evidence in the Floyd case in favor of a narrative. Thereby, they believe Waters’ statements reflect an effort to intimidate jurors as they seek to bring in a verdict.

Tucker Carlson writes in Fox News that “facts no longer matter” when “BLM’s founding myth is at stake.” He sarcastically observes “Evidence only counts in countries that have due process, something that they are now telling us is an ugly relic of institutional racism.” He takes aim at Waters, specifically, who he claims “has never believed in Western justice” since she supported “the totalitarian government of Cuba, which replaced jury trials with summary mass executions of entire groups of people.” In that spirit, he states Waters recently traveled to Minneapolis “to make certain the mob outside the Chauvin trial understood its marching orders,” ultimately amounting to “jury intimidation.” Carlson doesn’t see these as empty threats, as “Hours after Maxine Waters called for violence, someone tried to murder two National Guardsmen in Minneapolis in a drive-by shooting.” He ultimately labels Waters’ tactics “totalitarian.”

On The Left


The left sees Waters’ statements as nothing more than impassioned advocacy for non-violent protest.

Errol Louis writes in CNN that “Waters’ long career has for some time included non-violent civil disobedience and calls for people to join in.” Louis takes issue with the trial judge, who accused Waters of talking about the case in “a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch and our function.” While Waters is not “everybody’s cup of tea,” as Louis puts it, her speech is “constitutionally protected…and it’s certainly not an attack on the integrity or functioning of the courts.” Louis concludes that “polite, respectful demonstrators don’t get notice, don’t get heard, and often don’t get results.” Instead, he celebrates “non-violent civil disobedience,” which he says “has a venerable history of changing minds and transforming society.”

Flag This: Maxine Waters’ Comments


Judge Peter Cahill, the judge of the Derek Chauvin trial, weighed in on the matter, telling the defense that “Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.” He also sent out a plea: “Elected officials…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.”

Subscribe
Notify of
1 Comment
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Peter Benario
20 days ago

I think the blog very concisely captures both sides of the argument on Afghanistan. The truth is 20 years later we are no better off after billions of dollars spent and many lives shed.
Time to go home and let them sort the details out.