Is Waters above the law?

In most corners of America, there was either joy or relief after a mixed-race jury convicted white-cop Derek Chauvin on all counts, except Maxine Waters. Most Americans, after seeing Chauvin’s knee on the late George Floyd, didn’t need Waters to tell them what to think. Most Americans, after seeing George Floyd’s last minutes, won’t need Waters-incited confrontation to support policies that push law enforcement toward better ways to subdue suspects. Some Americans worry her words might spring a guilty man.

Why was Maxine Waters in the trial city in the first place? When she spoke to protestors Saturday, was there a soul left in Minneapolis who had not heard George Floyd died because of systemic racism in their police department? After a year of non-stop protests, riots, and Black Lives Matter infomercials, did anybody in America believe Derek Chauvin’s white privilege guaranteed acquittal? Has any lawyer come forward to applaud Waters for suggesting the defendant was “guilty, guilty, guilty” before the jury was sequestered?

House GOP leader McCarthy confirmed Waters had violated a Minnesota curfew order on Saturday night. She responded with sarcasm: “I don’t know what a curfew means.” That may be true, because she’s not clear on due process either. After a jury acquitted four LA police officers of illegally beating Rodney King, Waters told reporters, “if there can be no verdict with the Rodney King video, there can be no justice in America.”

A member of Congress is oath-bound to uphold the constitution, including every citizen’s right to presumed innocence, trial by jury, and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But not Waters? In contrast, President Bush explained that “viewed from outside the trial, it was hard to understand how the verdict could possibly square with the video.” After 82 years (and the OJ verdict) Waters should know what juries decide is justice in America.

The presiding judge (Cahill) called her behavior “abhorrent [and] disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch and our function…if [politicians] want to give their opinion, they should do so in a respectful [manner] that is consistent with their oath to the constitution.” Waters has now called the judge “angry” and “frustrated” and “way off track” as if the judiciary is not independent and co-equal. I think she’s covering her political ass.

There’s no denying defense attorneys called for a mistrial two days after Waters said, “I hope we get guilty, guilty, guilty, and if we don’t, we’ve got to stay on the street, [and] get more confrontational so they know we mean business.” Judge Cahill even told them, “Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.” In contrast, President Biden noted the jury was sequestered before he publicly “prayed” for a guilty verdict.

In many American households, fairness was already an issue in Cahill’s court, and Waters made an appeal likely. But, rather than own her reckless behavior, Mad Maxine pulled rank. Let’s work backward. Facing GOP censure, she theorized they “target me as that black woman, who is so uppity [but] don’t understand they’re not going to get me out of office…I’m here until I decide to retire.” A judge is way off track because she’s “non-violent and talks about confronting the police.”

She implied the jury had better rule “guilty” to prevent protestors getting ”more confrontational.” She demanded Minneapolis police protection for her anti-police demonstration in their city. I spot a trend. In 2017, she exhorted constituents to confront “anybody from that cabinet…create a crowd…push back on them…they’re not welcome anywhere” – after rushing onto TV to hiss, “impeach, impeach, impeach,” in response to Pelosi’s plea to stop the “impeach” rants.

Maxine Waters has R-E-S-P-E-C-T for one person (herself) and a reckless little voice inside her head. It told her to skip the Trump inauguration so she could rant on MSNBC, “I don’t honor him. I don’t respect him, and I won’t work with him.” It told her to flirt with court intimidation in the trial city. Now, if her words deny justice to the Floyd family, what will it tell her? The guess here is that little voice tells Maxine to blame anyone but herself. After all, it’s good to be queen!

By Spencer Morten

The writer is a retired CEO of a US corporation, whose views were informed by studies and work in the US and abroad. An economist by education, and pragmatist by experience, he believes the greatest threat to peace and prosperity are the loudest voices with the least experience and expertise.