Defiant Maxine Waters rips Chauvin judge, those getting ‘mad’ at her when ‘police keep killing us’

Get the latest BPR news delivered free to your inbox daily. SIGN UP HERE

CHECK OUT for best SWAG!

California Rep. Maxine Waters continues to refuse to take any responsibility for the incendiary remarks she’d made days before now-convicted former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin’s trial concluded early last week.

If anything, the congresswoman is now trying to portray herself as the victim.

In a rebellious tweet posted Saturday evening, she tried to justify her incendiary remarks by falsely claiming that “police keep killing us,” i.e., black people. To be clear, the empirical evidence shows otherwise.

“If we take a knee, they’re mad. If we speak up like I do, they’re mad. If we protest like Martin Luther King Jr. taught us to do, they’re mad. What is it that they expect us to do when police keep killing us?” she nevertheless wrote.


Days before Chauvin’s trial concluded, Waters traveled to Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, to attend a “protest” for Daunte Wright, a criminal suspect who’d been fatally shot earlier this month while resisting arrest.

While at the “protest,” she urged the “protesters” to ignore the city’s 11:00 pm curfew. She also encouraged them to “get more active” and “make sure that they know that we mean business” unless they got what they wanted.

One of the things they, including her, wanted was for Chauvin to be convicted on all charges.

“We’re looking for a guilty verdict. … I hope that we’re going to get a verdict that says guilty, guilty, guilty. And if we don’t, we cannot go away,” she said at the “protest.”

Hours after she made the remarks, two Minnesota National Guard members were fired at in an attempted drive-by shooting in nearby Minneapolis.

In response to Waters’ incendiary rhetoric, the judge in the Chauvin case condemned the congresswoman’s “abhorrent” remarks.

“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,” he said Monday.

“I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution, to respect a coequal branch of government.”

The following day, House Republicans sought to censure the congresswoman, yet every single Democrat voted against the censure because, like Waters, they too apparently see nothing wrong with her rhetoric.

If anything, Democrats seem to think the judge was the one in the wrong.

Speaking with CNN’s Jim Acosta this Saturday, Waters accused the judge of having been “way off track” with his criticisms.

“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 have been — 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,” she said.

Acosta, who styles himself as a “journalist,” did not push back on her rhetoric by asking her to name these “legal scholars and lawyers.”

“But he was basically frustrated and angry, I believe. But I am very pleased there are those beginning to write about Judge Cahill’s basic comments. And one thing 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,” the congresswoman continued.

“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, don’t matter anyway.”

It’s true that CNN published an op-ed last Tuesday in defense of her. But the piece was written by Errol Louis, another man who styles himself as a “journalist.”

Prior to becoming a so-called “journalist,” Louis taught “urban studies” at various colleges, according to the Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism at CUNY. He has no known legal experience. Acosta failed to mention this to Waters.

(Source: Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism)

In fact, instead of pushing back on any of the congresswoman’s dubious claims, Acosta pivoted the discussion to the two’s shared enemy, Republicans.

“You say you’re non-violent while also referencing that there are right-wing members of Congress who subscribe to the views of QAnon and the Proud Boys. Do you believe that those congressional Republicans are non-violent?” he asked.

Waters replied by claiming she faces constant death threats, though she failed to provide any evidence to back this claim.

Watch the discussion below:


Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!

Success! Thank you for donating. Please share BPR content to help combat the lies.
Vivek Saxena


We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.


Scroll down for non-member comments or join our insider conversations by becoming a member. We'd love to have you!

Latest Articles