The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Anastasia Katz Archive
The Derek Chauvin Trial Defense - Coverage to Fifteenth Day
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Day Sixteen

Del Shea Perry, mother of deceased Hardel Sherrell, during a press conference after the news that former police officer Derek Chauvin was found guilty on all three charges in the murder of George Floyd on April 20, 2021 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. (Credit Image: © Joel Marklund / Bildbyran via ZUMA Press)
Del Shea Perry, mother of deceased Hardel Sherrell, during a press conference after the news that former police officer Derek Chauvin was found guilty on all three charges in the murder of George Floyd on April 20, 2021 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. (Credit Image: © Joel Marklund / Bildbyran via ZUMA Press)

Outside the Hennepin County Courthouse on Tuesday morning, a crowd chanted, “If George don’t get it, SHUT IT DOWN! If George don’t get it, SHUT IT DOWN!” while the jurors deliberated inside. Although 14 jurors heard the case, Judge Peter Cahill excused the two alternates after closing arguments on Monday, and Jurors #96 and #118 went home.

The remaining 12 jurors began deliberating on Monday evening and continued into Tuesday, returning with a verdict after ten and a half hours. Judge Cahill read the verdict: Derek Chauvin was found guilty on all three counts: second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter.

As the crowd outside the courthouse began to celebrate, Mr. Chauvin watched as Judge Cahill asked the jurors, one-by-one, if these were their “true and correct” verdicts. Each juror said, “Yes.” The judge thanked and excused the jury.

Credit Image: © Pool Video Via HLN/ZUMA Wire
Credit Image: © Pool Video Via HLN/ZUMA Wire

Judge Cahill then informed Mr. Chauvin and his lawyer, Eric Nelson, that sentencing will be in eight weeks. Mr. Chauvin’s bail was revoked, and he was remanded into custody of the sheriff. Mr. Chauvin was the model of compliance as he was handcuffed and led out of the courtroom, unlike the man who now has both a city square and pending legislation named after him.

Here are charges the jury found Mr. Chauvin guilty of “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Count One: Murder in the Second Degree in connection with the death of George Floyd.

Definition: Under Minnesota law, a person causing the death of another person, without intent to cause the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense is guilty of the crime of Murder in the Second Degree.

Each count is broken down into “Elements” that must be met. The elements for second-degree murder are:

  1. The death of George Floyd must be proven.
  2. The Defendant caused the death of George Floyd.
  3. The Defendant, at the time of causing the death of George Floyd, was committing or attempting to commit the felony offense of Assault in the Third Degree. It is not necessary for the State to prove the Defendant had an intent to kill George Floyd, but it must prove that the defendant committed or attempted to commit the underlying felony of Assault in the Third Degree.
  4. The Defendant’s act took place on or about May 25, 2020 in Hennepin County.

Elements One and Four were obviously met, and proven with George Floyd’s death certificate.

The jury was given definitions to help them understand Elements Two and Three. The definition of “caused the death” was:

The Defendant’s act or acts were a substantial causal factor in causing the death of George Floyd. . . The fact that other causes contribute to the death does not relieve the Defendant of criminal liability. However, the Defendant is not criminally liable if a “superseding cause” caused the death. A “superseding cause” is a cause that comes after the Defendant’s acts, alters the natural sequence of events, and is the sole cause of a result that would not otherwise have occurred.

If the jury believed Mr. Chauvin’s weight on Floyd’s body was the foremost reason why Floyd died, Floyd’s poor heart and drug intake would not relieve Mr. Chauvin of criminal liability, even if the jury felt those things played a role and contributed to Floyd’s death.

Element Three is complicated, as it entails a crime within a crime. The jury had to believe that Mr. Chauvin was committing Assault in the Third Degree, which has two elements:

  1. Defendant assaulted George Floyd. “Assault” is the intentional infliction of bodily harm upon another or the attempt to inflict bodily harm upon another. The intentional infliction of bodily harm required proof that the Defendant intentionally applied unlawful force to another person without that person’s consent and that this act resulted in bodily harm.
  2. Defendant inflicted substantial bodily harm on George Floyd. It is not necessary for the State to prove that the Defendant intended to inflict substantial bodily harm, or knew that his actions would inflict substantial bodily harm, only that the Defendant intended to commit the assault and that George Floyd sustained substantial bodily harm as a result of the assault.

In short, Element One requires that Mr. Chauvin purposely inflicted pain or injury on Floyd. One can argue that as a police officer restraining a suspect, there was no intent. However, if the jury found Mr. Chauvin’s use of force unlawful, Element One would fit. Any police officer using the “pain compliance” techniques that were described during the trial would meet Element One. Officers are taught to apply pain to someone resisting arrest, and the idea is that the pain will stop when the subject complies with the police officer.

Element Two requires that Floyd suffered a substantial injury, and there need not be proof that Mr. Chauvin intended to cause it. Unintentionally causing Floyd’s death would satisfy the requirement for Element Two.

Before the verdict came in, Court TV hostess Julie Grant conducted a phone interview with legal scholar Alan Dershowitz, famous for defending O.J. Simpson. Mr. Dershowitz was concerned about the implications of Mr. Chauvin being convicted of second-degree murder.

If the prosecution’s theory prevails in this case, then every killing automatically becomes second degree murder, because every time you shoot somebody and kill somebody, you also assault them. . . And if assault becomes the underlying felony, which it is not in almost every other state, and not under the American Law Institute, and not under any form of scholarship — If you allow the underlying felony to be an assault, then you eliminate the degrees of murder. . . Every time somebody shoots someone, and that results in death, it will be the highest degree of murder, felony murder, because every shooting entails an assault.

Count Two: Murder in the Third Degree in connection with the death of George Floyd.

Definition: Under Minnesota law, a person causing the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others, and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, but without intent to cause the death of any person.

Elements:

  1. The death of George Floyd must be proven.
  2. The Defendant caused the death of George Floyd.
  3. The Defendant caused the death of George Floyd by an intentional act that was eminently dangerous to other persons. . . The act is highly likely to cause death.
  4. Defendant acted with a mental state consisting of reckless disregard for human life. The defendant’s act may not have been specifically intended to cause death, and may not have been specifically directed at the person who died, but must have been committed with a conscious indifference to the loss of life that the dangerous act could cause.
  5. The defendant’s act took place on or about May 25, 2020 in Hennepin County.

Mr. Dershowitz explained on Court TV that Murder in the Third Degree is typically used when someone shoots into a crowded area.

Count Three: Manslaughter in the Second Degree in connection with the death of George Floyd.

Definition: Under Minnesota law, whoever, by culpable negligence, whereby he creates an unreasonable risk and consciously takes the chance of causing death or great bodily harm to another person, causes the death of another, is guilty of Manslaughter in the Second Degree.

Elements:

  1. Death of George Floyd must be proven.
  2. Defendant caused the death of George Floyd by culpable negligence whereby the defendant created an unreasonable risk and consciously took a chance of causing death. . . The defendant may not have intended to be harmful, but an ordinary and reasonably prudent person would recognize that as involving a strong probability of injury to others.
  3. Must have happened in Hennepin County.

Mr. Dershowitz told Miss Grant that he did not think either Second Degree or Third Degree Murder made sense in this case. He quoted Thomas Jefferson: “A criminal statute must be so clear that a person of reason has to be able to understand it, if he reads it while running.” Mr. Dershowitz said:

Now I read this while sitting, having taught criminal law for 50 years and done 250 appeals in criminal cases — I do not understand either the second degree or third degree murder statutes to apply to the allegations in this case. Manslaughter fits it to a “T,” but second and third degree murder do not seem to cover the conduct at issue here.

Mr. Dershowitz was very critical of Judge Cahill for not sequestering the jury from the beginning, and of the fact that Minnesota vs. Derek Chauvin became so politicized. “There has never been a case like this,” he said. “This is much, much bigger than O.J. Simpson, or any of the other cases that I have been involved in. And the idea that . . . the jury should be allowed to participate in the claim that this should be a referendum — juries don’t vote on referendum. They vote on proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the elements of the specific offense against a specific individual. . . Their role is very conflicted now.”<

Day Twelve

Today the defense began its case in chief. The morning started out well, but the afternoon ended badly.

Retired MPD officer Scott Creighton was the first witness. Derek Chauvin’s defense lawyer, Eric Nelson, asked Mr. Creighton questions about an arrest he made on May 6, 2019, when he stopped a car with George Floyd inside.

Mr. Creighton approached the car from the passenger side. The window was down and he gave some commands, but Floyd would not do what he was told.

The defense played Mr. Creighton’s body camera footage from that 2019 arrest. Floyd begged not to be shot, just as he did when he was arrested in May 2020. The officer said he would not shoot, but Floyd did not keep his hands visible, so the officer threatened to use the taser on him. One of the police officers is heard asking Floyd to spit out what’s in his mouth.

On cross-examination, prosecutor Erin Eldridge asked if Floyd had been awake, conscious, and not in medical distress. He replied that Floyd had been “incoherent.” “Mr. Floyd didn’t drop dead while you were interacting with him?” Eldridge asked. Mr. Creighton said, “No,” and was excused.

Erin Eldridge (Credit Image: © Pool Video Via Court Tv via ZUMA Wire)
Erin Eldridge (Credit Image: © Pool Video Via Court Tv via ZUMA Wire)

The next witness was Michelle Monseng, a retired Hennepin County paramedic, who had dealt with George Floyd after the 2019 arrest. When she arrived, he was upset and confused. She said it was hard to evaluate him.

Floyd told her he had been taking Percocet pills, seven to 10 at a time, every 20 minutes. She thought his agitated state was inconsistent with taking opioids. Floyd also told her he had taken a pill when the officers arrested him. Miss Monseng asked Floyd why he was taking all of these pills and he said he was addicted.

Miss Monseng found that Floyd’s blood pressure was 216 over 160, a very high reading, which could easily lead to a stroke. Floyd told her he had a history of high blood pressure but he had not been taking his medicine. She told him he should go to the hospital, but he did not want to go. “It was hard to tell exactly what he was upset about,” Miss Monseng said.

On cross-examination, Miss Eldridge asked if Miss Monseng had given Floyd Narcam, which is used to treat narcotic overdoses. She replied that Floyd’s respiration, blood oxygen, and heart rate were normal, so she did not. Miss Eldridge asked, “He obeyed commands?” “Eventually,” Miss Monseng said, with a laugh.

The next witness was a black woman, Shawanda Hill. She kept fidgeting and adjusting her burgundy wig as Judge Peter Cahill spoke to her before the jury was called back in. He asked her if she would be willing to say whether she was under the influence on the day Floyd died. He told her he did not think that would open her to criminal liability, and said she could talk to a lawyer. She said that was not necessary and agreed to testify.

When the jury returned, Miss Hill said she ran into Floyd — on police cam video she called him her “ex” — at Cup Foods that day. She said Floyd’s behavior was normal and he offered to give her a ride, so she got in the car with him. She got a phone call from her daughter, and Floyd fell asleep. When Cup Foods personnel came to the car to talk about the counterfeit $20 bill, he was asleep. Miss Hill said, “They tried to wake him up over and over . . . he woke up, made a little gesture, and nodded back off.” She gave up on the idea of getting a ride home and called her daughter to come get her.

Asked if this was a sudden change from his condition in the store, Miss Hill said that Floyd had told her he was tired when they were in the store. Miss Hill kept trying to wake Floyd up. Mr. Nelson asked her if the store employees came back a second time, and she said no. Earlier in the trial, there was video and testimony that showed store employees went to Floyd’s car twice.

When Mr. Nelson said, “No further questions,” Miss Hill’s mouth dropped open in surprise. Then she looked angry. She seemed like she was high. As prosecutor Matthew Frank cross-examined her, she interrupted him, and when he said they shouldn’t talk over each other, she rolled her eyes.

Miss Hill said that Floyd was not always coherent when she tried to talk to him that day. When the police came over, she tried to wake him up:

I said, ‘Floyd the police is here, it’s about the twenty-dollar bill wasn’t real.’ I kept saying, ‘Baby, get up.’ And so we looked, we looked to the right, and the police tapped on the window with a flashlight. And I said ‘Floyd!’ He was like, ‘What? What?’ And I was like, ‘Baby, that’s the police. Open the door. Roll down the window. Whatever he tell you to do.’ So he looked back, and he seen the man, the man with the gun at the window. And he instantly grabbed the wheel, and he’s like, ‘Please, please, don’t kill me. Please, please, don’t shoot me.” . . . And I’m like, ‘Floyd, Baby . . . .

“Did he seem startled when the officer pulled a gun on him?” Mr. Frank asked. “Very.”

Next on the stand was Peter Chang, an officer with the Minneapolis Park Police. Although the park police and city police are separate branches, they get the same training and attend the same academy. Mr. Chang was at a nearby park when he heard dispatch asking for assistance for squad-car 320. It is common for the park police to help city police.

When he got to Cup Foods, one of the officers told him they were “Code 4,” meaning the scene was safe. Floyd was in handcuffs, sitting on the sidewalk and leaning against the wall. Officer Alexander Kueng asked Mr. Chang to identify the suspect. After Mr. Chang identified Floyd on the computer in his car, he saw Officer Kueng and Officer Thomas Lane trying to pin Floyd against the squad car. He wanted to help, but Officer Lane asked him to go watch Floyd’s car.

When Mr. Chang approached the car, the two passengers were on the sidewalk, trying to reach inside the car, but he told them not to. Squad-car 330 arrived and parked in front of Floyd’s SUV, and Mr. Chang directed the officers to where Officers Kueng and Lane were struggling with Floyd. Mr. Chang’s main focus was the car and the two people who had been detained beside it. He noticed a crowd becoming loud and aggressive, and he “became concerned for the officers’ safety.” The voices got louder and he said bystanders were “very aggressive.” He did not help the officers because he had been told to watch the car, and he did not know if the car had been searched.

The defense played Mr. Chang’s body camera footage, which corroborated what he said on the stand. When Miss Hill notices Floyd struggling with the police, she is surprised. “Man, he still won’t get in the car. Just sit down, dude! What’s he doing? Now he’s going to jail.” At one point in the video, Mr. Chang asks Morries Hill what his name is, and Hill gives the name “William Ricardo.” Hill also says that Floyd had been falling asleep.

Traffic noise is very loud on Mr. Chang’s body camera, but two of the prosecution’s witnesses, bouncer Donald Williams and firefighter Genevieve Hansen, can be heard shouting in the background. Their voices alarm Miss Hill and Mr. Hall, who move over to get a better view of what is going on.

Officer Chang tells them to stay put. “You don’t want to get involved in that.” He also tells them that an ambulance was called, explaining that Floyd “might have hurt himself.”

Miss Hill goes to the street corner and shouts, “He on the ground and everything!” When the ambulance arrives, she asks why Floyd is going to the hospital, and says Floyd might need his phone, which is in the car. Mr. Chang keeps them away from the car, and tells Miss Hill that Floyd won’t need his phone because he is “gone.” When he tells her a second time, he says that Floyd is “gone, off to the hospital.”

Charles McMillian, a 61-year-old bystander who urged Floyd to cooperate with police, is seen going over to Miss Hill and telling her, “They f***ed him up.” He then tells Miss Hill that someone had a knee “on his back.”

The next witness was Nicole MacKenzie, a police officer who testified for the prosecution but was now called for the defense. Miss MacKenzie is the medical coordinator for the MPD, and she trains officers on medical topics, including “excited delirium.” Officer Thomas Lane attended this training, and during the Floyd arrest is heard on body cam video wondering whether Floyd had excited delirium.

Nicole MacKenzie (Credit Image: © Pool Video Via Court Tv via ZUMA Wire)
Nicole MacKenzie (Credit Image: © Pool Video Via Court Tv via ZUMA Wire)

Miss MacKenzie explained that it is a combination of things. It can be caused by drugs, a mental health problem, or cardiovascular disease. Officers are taught an acronym, NOT A CRIME, to help identify it:

  • Naked Hyperthermia: Heavy sweating; people tend to take off their clothes to cool down.
  • Objects: Violence directed at objects; people smash things.
  • Tough: They seem unstoppable and have “superhuman strength”
  • Acute: Rapid onset; people will say they “just snapped.”
  • Confused: Rapid speech.
  • Resistance: Against the police.
  • Incoherent: They talk nonsense.
  • Mental: It’s a mental-health emergency.
  • EMS: Paramedic should be called right away.

Miss MacKenzie said that if an officer suspects excited delirium, he needs to use restraint and to call for help from other officers. People with excited delirium can go into cardiac arrest; she teaches officers to put a person on his side for recovery. The defense has argued that it may have been reasonable to think Floyd had excited delirium and that this justified Mr. Chauvin’s use of force.

After lunch, Mr. Nelson called Barry Brodd, a use-of-force consultant. Mr. Brodd originally offered his services to the City of Minneapolis, but they did not retain him, so the defense did, for a fee of $350 per hour. He had already been paid $11,400 before taking the stand.

He said that after examining the evidence, “I felt that Derek Chauvin was justified, was acting with objective reasonableness, following Minneapolis police department policy, and current standards of law enforcement.”

Mr. Brodd said that he focuses on whether the officer had a legal authority for the detention, what level of resistance the police officer is dealing with, and whether the officer’s use of force is proportional to the resistance. He said officers don’t have to fight fair; they can go up a level in force to get control. If someone hits a police officer, he does not have to fight back with his fists; he is allowed to use his taser or gun.

Mr. Brodd did not think Mr. Chauvin had used deadly force. To explain why, he said that if an officer responds to a call and the suspect fights with the officers, the officer is justified in using a taser to overcome non-compliance. If that causes the suspect to fall, hit his head, and die, then the death is accidental and not a result of using deadly force.

Mr. Brodd testified that he teaches officers to use extra caution when dealing with people on drugs, because “they may go from compliance to noncompliance in a heartbeat.” He said he trains officers to keep drugged-up suspects handcuffed. “There have been instances where handcuffs are removed, and medical assistance is given, and the person is right back to fighting you and you’re in a fight for your life.”

Mr. Brodd said that he does not consider it use-of-force to put someone face down in what is called “prone control.” He said officers are trained that it is safer to put a suspect on the ground. It limits what he can do with his hands and feet, and gives the officer more time to react. He said that since Floyd kicked at Mr. Lane when they put him on the ground, the officers would have been justified in using a hobble to tie up his legs, but they chose not to use it.

Mr. Brodd also said that prone control is helpful in dealing with a suspect on drugs, because it will keep him from getting hurt trying to escape, and will stop him from choking if he vomits. “It doesn’t hurt and you’re using minimal effort to keep them on the ground.” He also said that from the videos he could see that the menacing crowd was distracting Mr. Chauvin.

Mr. Frank began his cross-examination by asking if we are to believe that being made to lie handcuffed and face down on a hard street was not use of force. Incredibly, Mr. Brodd said it was not. The prosecution reminded Mr. Brodd he had said that “prone control” does not hurt and then asked, “If the prone position would inflict pain, would that change your opinion on whether this was use of force?”

Mr. Brodd answered, “Only if the positioning of the body, or if the officers were manipulating Mr. Floyd’s hands in a way that would create pain, then yes, I would say that would be use of force.” More than one witness had already used video screen shots to show that Mr. Chauvin was pressing down on Floyd’s hands in a way that deliberately causes pain.

“If Floyd experienced pain,” Mr. Frank asked, “Is that use-of-force?” Mr. Brodd answered, “If the pain was inflicted through the prone control, that would be use of force.”

Mr. Frank showed a screenshot from a bystander video that shows Mr. Chauvin in the worst possible light. Floyd is unconscious and Mr. Chauvin seems to have a hand in his pocket with his knee on Floyd’s neck. Mr. Frank asked if Mr. Chauvin was “on top of” Floyd, and after some disagreement about what “on top” meant, Mr. Brodd gave up and agreed that they could say he was “on top.”

Mr. Frank said that both of Mr. Chauvin’s knees were on Floyd, and he asked if Mr. Chauvin’s 140-pound body weight plus the weight of his uniform and equipment could cause pain. Brodd answered, “It depends on the intent of the officer,” but ultimately gave in again and said that Mr. Chauvin’s position on Floyd could produce pain and could therefore be use-of-force.

When Mr. Frank asked about positional asphyxia, Mr. Brodd said that positional asphyxia is a risk if you are obese, but he acknowledged that someone pressing down on you could contribute to positional asphyxia.

Mr. Frank asked about the side-recovery position. Mr. Brodd had tried to say there wasn’t enough space for Mr. Chauvin to put Floyd in that position, but Mr. Frank played body cam footage that showed Floyd briefly on his side with his legs tucked up, even while he was resisting on the ground.

When Mr. Frank asked Mr. Brodd about the autopsy report, Mr. Brodd said he hadn’t read it.

Mr. Brodd said that Mr. Chauvin did not have his weight entirely on Floyd, because Mr. Chauvin had shifted his weight more onto his calves. Mr. Frank asked if Mr. Brodd had a specific moment in the video he could point to where that happens. Mr. Brodd said that he would have to look at the screenshots from the videos. Mr. Frank shuffled through his papers and pulled up the photo where Mr. Chauvin’s toe is off the ground. The toe not touching the ground was circled in red.

Mr. Brodd tried to argue that Floyd’s movement could have shifted Mr. Chauvin’s toe off the ground, but he had no photo to back this up. This was an example of what the prosecution did often: take a single moment from the arrest and get Mr. Brodd to agree that it could have been typical of the entire time Floyd was restrained.

Mr. Nelson played the video of Mr. Lane suggesting that Floyd be put in the side recovery position and Mr. Chauvin saying, “Not yet.” Mr. Brodd admitted that Floyd had become compliant by then. Mr. Frank asked Mr. Brood what a compliant person would look like. He replied that a compliant person would be “resting comfortably with his hands behind his back.”

“Did you say resting comfortably?!” Mr. Frank asked, “Resting comfortably on the pavement?!”

Mr. Frank badly damaged the credibility of a man who should have been an unshakable witness for the defense. Mr. Nelson did his best on redirect, but never regained his footing.

Day Thirteen

Rodney Floyd, brother of George Floyd, handed his identification to security to enter the perimeter of the Hennepin County Government Center at the start of the trial day. The third week of testimony in the Derek Chauvin murder trial at the Hennepin County Government Center in Minneapolis on Wednesday, April 14, 2021. (Credit Image: © TNS via ZUMA Wire)
Rodney Floyd, brother of George Floyd, handed his identification to security to enter the perimeter of the Hennepin County Government Center at the start of the trial day. The third week of testimony in the Derek Chauvin murder trial at the Hennepin County Government Center in Minneapolis on Wednesday, April 14, 2021. (Credit Image: © TNS via ZUMA Wire)

The only witness on the stand yesterday was Dr. David Fowler, a retired forensic pathologist who worked for the Maryland medical examiner and spent his career determining causes of death. He has testified in court many times, and was hired by the defense at $350 an hour.

The purpose of his testimony was to plant reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury on the question of whether Derek Chauvin’s actions really were a substantial contributor to George Floyd’s death. To do this, he had to show that Floyd’s medical condition was serious enough to have contributed substantially to his death, and he put it in these words: “In my opinion, Mr. Floyd had a sudden cardiac arrhythmia due to his atherosclerotic and hypertensive heart disease. . . during his restraint by police. . . .”

The doctor said significant contributing conditions were narrow arteries, heart disease, Fentanyl and methamphetamine, exposure to vehicle exhaust that increased carbon monoxide in the bloodstream, and Floyd’s paraganglioma: “All of those combined to cause Mr. Floyd’s death.”

When Derek Chauvin’s defense attorney, Eric Nelson, asked the doctor his opinion on the manner of Floyd’s death, the doctor listed the five official possibilities: Homicide, suicide, natural, accidental, or undetermined. Dr. Fowler, who spent much of his life in South Africa and speaks with a British accent, said, “These categories are unique to the United States.” The Center for Disease Control requires that one of them be put on death certificates for statistical purposes.

This is important because Floyd’s death was officially “homicide,” which sounds like “murder” to most people, but need not imply guilt. The National Association of Medical Examiners (NAME) defines each category, and death due to positional restraint may be classified as homicide. Dr. Fowler cited the guideline:

Deaths due to positional restraint induced by law enforcement personnel or to choke holds or other measures to subdue may be classified as Homicide. In such cases, there may or may not be intent to kill, but the death results from one or more intentional, volitional, potentially harmful acts directed at the decedent (without consent, of course). Further, there is some value to the homicide classification toward reducing the public perception that a “cover up” is being perpetrated by the death investigation agency.

Dr. Fowler also cited NAME guidelines for Homicide:

Homicide occurs when death results from a volitional act committed by another person to cause fear, harm, or death. Intent to cause death is a common element but is not required for classification as homicide. It is to be emphasized that the classification of Homicide for the purposes of death certification is a “neutral” term and neither indicates nor implies criminal intent, which remains a determination within the province of legal processes.

In other words, medical examiners don’t determine guilt.

Dr. Fowler discussed Floyd’s autopsy findings, which showed an enlarged heart. He said that a bigger heart needs more nutrients. If your heart is not getting what it needs, you will have chest pains, palpitations, and shortness of breath. Your body is telling you to slow down and rest, so your heart can replenish itself. If you don’t — or can’t — your heart will fail. The most common cause of an enlarged heart is high blood pressure. Floyd’s records indicated very high blood pressure, and his paraganglioma could also have raised it further.

Floyd already had narrowing in his coronary arteries, which meant that his heart got less oxygen than normal. Floyd was able to go about his daily life, but taking methamphetamine was dangerous, because it especially narrows arteries — even to the point that it can stop blood flow entirely. The doctor said adrenaline is also a vasoconstrictor (narrows blood vessels). Fighting the police led to an adrenaline rush, which caused stress on Floyd’s heart, and his paraganglioma tumor could have been secreting extra adrenaline.

Dr. Fowler said carbon monoxide could have contributed to Floyd’s death. None of the medical experts from the prosecution discussed this, nor was it mentioned on Floyd’s death certificate, but Dr. Fowler said Floyd’s head was at the rear of the vehicle, about a foot from the tailpipe. He did not suggest this was “full” carbon monoxide poisoning, but he did think it contributed to heart failure.

Car exhaust contains carbon monoxide, which decreases the blood’s ability to carry oxygen, and someone with heart disease will die at lower levels of carbon monoxide than a healthy person. The CDC says carbon monoxide can be dangerous, even if you’re outdoors. Carbon monoxide poisoning is diagnosed with a blood test, but Floyd’s blood was not tested for carbon monoxide.

The doctor cited a recent study from Poland, in which a taxi driver committed suicide by lying on the ground, outdoors, next to the exhaust pipe of his taxi. His level of carbon monoxide was high enough to be the exclusive cause of his death, even though his face was about a foot from the tailpipe. Dr. Fowler calculated that in seven minutes, the level of carbon monoxide in Floyd’s blood could have reached 10-18 percent.

The doctor explained that carbon monoxide changes the color of blood, and at high levels this is easy to see. Levels below 20 percent can still cause arrhythmia, but the color change would not have been easy to notice: “There are studies out there where as little as 6 percent saturation of carbon monoxide, in an individual who is exercising, with heart disease, will start causing arrhythmias.” The only way to eliminate carbon monoxide as a contributing factor in Floyd’s death would have been to test his blood, but no test was done. Dr. Fowler said the police were not affected by the exhaust because they were farther from the tailpipe, younger, and probably don’t have heart disease.

Dr. Fowler studied the autopsy photos and found it significant that all of Floyd’s injuries “were in areas where the [defendant’s] knee was not.” There were injuries to his face and wrists, but none to his back or neck. The doctor said Mr. Chauvin’s knee did not impair any of the vital structures of Floyd’s neck. He said that “speaks to the amount of force that was applied to Mr. Floyd . . . . It was not enough to bruise him.” He went on: “If you put 30-50 pounds of force with your knee, directly onto somebody, in my opinion, the chances of a subcutaneous hemorrhage [bruising] is very high.”

The prosecution’s theory is that George Floyd died of low oxygen, or hypoxia, because the officers restrained him in a way that prevented him from expanding his chest and getting enough air. The prosecution argued that holding Floyd face down led to “positional asphyxia.” In reply, Dr. Fowler cited a 2017 study that states, “Positional asphyxia, as the term is used in court today, is an interesting hypothesis unsupported by any experimental data.” He also mentioned studies that found that a healthy, face-down person can take up to 225 pounds on his back without showing signs of hypoxia.

Dr. Fowler said that low-oxygen symptoms are confusion, disorientation, appearance changes, difficulty speaking, and shortness of breath. Floyd did say he couldn’t breathe, but the doctor did not see the other symptoms when he examined videos. He said Floyd was “coherent and understandable until shortly before there was a sudden cessation of his movement.”

Prosecution witnesses said that they saw Floyd dying a “gradual” death, rather than the “sudden” death associated with a heart attack, but Dr. Fowler saw the opposite. He said that Floyd spoke coherently, then moved without speaking, then fell suddenly unconscious: “This was a sudden cardiac event.”

Mr. Nelson showed photos of Floyd in his car, right after being approached by police. A white pill is visible in his mouth. He noted that dissolved pills were found in the back of the squad car, which contained Fentanyl and methamphetamine, and they had Floyd’s saliva on them. The doctor said that Fentanyl is 80 times more powerful than morphine. It slows breathing, which reduces the ability to get oxygen into the blood. Floyd’s autopsy found Norfentanyl in his blood. The liver breaks Fentanyl down into Norfentanyl, so this means the Fentanyl had already been acting on Floyd.

The doctor summarized Floyd’s conditions: a vulnerable heart, narrow vessels, drugs that narrow arteries and slow breathing, and carbon monoxide exposure. “At some point, the heart exhausted its reserves of metabolic supply, and went into an arrhythmia and stopped pumping blood.” The cause of death was therefore, “Cardiac arrhythmia due to hypertensive and atherosclerotic heart disease during restraint.” Contributing causes were Fentanyl, methamphetamine, carbon monoxide, and paraganglioma.

Determining Floyd’s manner of death — the CDC category — was difficult. The carbon monoxide could be accidental, but someone was holding him there, so it could be homicide. Drug overdoses are usually considered accidental, but Floyd had serious diseases. However, this was a stressful situation in which Floyd was being restrained, and that suggests homicide. “All put together,” Dr. Fowler said, “I would fall back to undetermined.”

NAME’s guideline for an undetermined manner of death is: “A classification used when the information pointing to one manner of death is no more compelling that one or more other competing manners of death in thorough consideration of all available information.”

Prosecutor Jerry Blackwell, who is black, did cross-examination. He was disrespectful and so dripping with contempt that the judge called him over and appeared to tell him to tone it down. Mr. Blackwell suggested that Dr. Fowler was trying to “confuse the jury,” and he repeated this charge throughout his examination. He brought up the white substance that appeared in Floyd’s mouth in the photos. He displayed a photo of Floyd in Cup Foods, open-mouthed, with a wad of white gum in his mouth. Dr. Fowler conceded that he did not know for sure what was in Floyd’s mouth. On redirect, Mr. Nelson brought up the tests on the dissolved pills found in the squad car.

Jerry Blackwell (Credit Image: © TNS via ZUMA Wire)
Jerry Blackwell (Credit Image: © TNS via ZUMA Wire)

Mr. Blackwell went through a list of different kinds of medical specialists, asking Doctor Fowler if he was each of these. Dr. Fowler said no to all of them.

Mr. Blackwell said that the paraganglioma would be a problem if the tumor were secreting, but he pointed out that the medical examiner who identified it during the autopsy did not test to see if it was secreting. Dr. Fowler agreed, and said that the only way to find out is to do a blood test, but that would show only if there is constant secretion. A surge in secretion can be detected only with repeated urine tests, which can’t be done after death. Mr. Blackwell asked the doctor if Floyd had complained of a headache, a common symptom of a paraganglioma that is secreting. The doctor said he thought Floyd had, but was not sure. On redirect, Mr. Nelson showed video and asked if Floyd had said, “Everything hurts.” The doctor said he had.

Mr. Blackwell asked Dr. Fowler if any pills were found in Floyd’s stomach, adding that any pill in the car could not be in Floyd’s body. Dr. Fowler conceded that there were no pills in Floyd’s stomach. On redirect, Mr. Nelson had the doctor mention Floyd’s saliva on the partially dissolved pills. Testimony for the defense will continue.

There are two grounds on which the jury can acquit Mr. Chauvin: that his use of force was legal and reasonable, and/or that Floyd was so medically fragile that this was a substantial cause of his own death. Yesterday’s expert testimony for the defense was supposed to show that Mr. Chauvin’s use of force was legal and reasonable, but witness Barry Brodd took some damage on cross examination. This was a much better day for the defense.

Day Fourteen

Judge Peter Cahill on the bench during the trial of Derek Chauvin. (Credit Image: © Pool Video Via Court Tv via ZUMA Wire)
Judge Peter Cahill on the bench during the trial of Derek Chauvin. (Credit Image: © Pool Video Via Court Tv via ZUMA Wire)

Court started without the jury present. Derek Chauvin told Judge Peter Cahill that after consulting with his lawyer, he decided to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege and not testify. The judge read a statement for Mr. Chauvin about what he will say to the jury when he informs them of this decision, and Mr. Chauvin approved the statement:

Defendant’s right not to testify: The state must convince you by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged. The defendant has no obligation to prove innocence. The defendant has the right not to testify. This right is guaranteed by the federal and state constitutions. You should not draw any inference from the fact that the defendant had not testified in this case.

Prosecutor Jerry Blackwell told the judge that his team had “newly discovered evidence” about George Floyd’s blood gas levels and the state wanted to present a rebuttal to the carbon monoxide poisoning theory that was presented in court yesterday by the defense’s witness, Dr. David Fowler. Mr. Blackwell said the evidence was discovered last night by Dr. Andrew Baker, Hennepin County’s chief medical examiner, who conducted the autopsy on George Floyd. It had to do with the range of carboxyhemoglobin (carbon monoxide attached to a hemoglobin) in Floyd’s blood, a topic none of the prosecution’s expert witnesses had brought up.

No one requested carbon dioxide readings at the hospital on the day George Floyd died, because they did not think it was important. However, Dr. Baker told the prosecution that there was something in the computer records at the hospital that would show a test result that was now relevant. Mr. Chauvin’s lawyer, Eric Nelson, told the judge that he got this information at 7:53 a.m. and he could not reach his witness, Dr. Fowler, who was on a plane. Mr. Nelson said the state has had these blood samples all along, and it had plenty of time to present this information. He said it was “incredibly prejudicial” to present this information now.

Dr. Andrew Baker, the Hennepin County, Minnesota, medical examiner, shown in 2012. (Credit Image: © TNS via ZUMA Wire)
Dr. Andrew Baker, the Hennepin County, Minnesota, medical examiner, shown in 2012. (Credit Image: © TNS via ZUMA Wire)

Dr. Fowler had not testified that carbon monoxide poisoning was George Floyd’s primary cause of death, but he listed it as a contributing factor and said that the city should have tested Mr. Floyd’s carbon monoxide levels.

The judge was not happy. He said that if data on Floyd’s carboxyhemoglobin levels had been presented earlier, Dr. Fowler would not have testified as he did. The judge also criticized the hospital: “I’m not claiming any bad faith on the state’s part, but it seems odd that Hennepin County Medical Center, when they’re asked to turn over all their records, that they don’t include records that maybe are just buried a little deeper. Their response to the subpoena was probably insufficient . . . in the event this happens again, they will supply all of the information they have.”

He concluded:

Dr. Tobin will not be allowed to testify as to those lab results. . . . If he even hints that there are test results that the jury has not heard about, it’s going to be a mistrial. Pure and simple. This late disclosure is not the way we should be operating here . . . . Dr. Tobin may testify as to carbon monoxide, if he sticks to the environmental factors, and as a pulmonologist. Looking at the videos, for example, and seeing Mr. Floyd’s location and not knowing whether the vehicle is even on or not . . . .That is fine. But nothing about these lab test results that were just disclosed, eight a.m. this morning, after the defense expert is done.

After the break, the jury came in and Dr. Tobin was sworn in for a second time. Mr. Blackwell asked the doctor if he heard yesterday’s testimony, and the doctor said that he had. The jury was shown a slide from yesterday’s PowerPoint presentation by Dr. Fowler, and their attention was directed at the sentence, “In 7 minutes, Mr. Floyd’s Carboxyhemoglobin could have increased by 10-18%.” Mr. Blackwell asked the doctor if he agreed with the statement.

Dr. Tobin explained that carboxyhemoglobin is when carbon monoxide combines with hemoglobin in blood. “When the carbon monoxide binds to the hemoglobin, it displaces the oxygen off the hemoglobin. You need the oxygen on the hemoglobin.” He added that he did not believe Dr. Fowler’s statement had been reliable. Mr. Blackwell asked him why, and Dr. Tobin said, “I base it on the arterial blood gas that was obtained when Mr. Floyd was in Hennepin County.”

There was an immediate objection and sidebar. This could have been enough for a mistrial. Dr. Tobin said exactly what the judge said he shouldn’t. But the judge did not declare a mistrial. Dr. Tobin told the jury that Floyd had a needle stuck in his wrist and blood gas was measured. This measurement included how much of Floyd’s hemoglobin was saturated with oxygen. Floyd’s hemoglobin was 98 percent oxygen-saturated, which means there could have only been 2 percent carboxyhemoglobin, which would be in the normal range.

Dr. Tobin was excused and both sides rested. The judge released the jurors for the weekend, reminding them to avoid all media. He told them closing arguments would be on Monday and that since they would be sequestered for deliberations they should pack suitcases. The judge said that they should plan for a long time, but hope for a short time. They could take one day to deliberate, or a week. He told them that they would have laptops in the deliberation room, so they could review any of the exhibits. Then Judge Cahill adjourned for a three-day weekend.

Day Fifteen

Over the weekend, before closing arguments, California Congresswoman Maxine Waters flew to Minneapolis to talk to protesters at the courthouse.

“We’ve got to not only stay in the street, but we’ve got to fight for justice. But I am very hopeful and I hope that we’re going to get a verdict that will say, ‘Guilty. Guilty, guilty’. . . . I don’t know whether it’s in the first degree, but as far as I’m concerned, it’s first-degree murder . . . . We’ve got to get more confrontational. We’ve got to make sure that they know that we mean business.”

April 17, 2021, Minnesota: Rep. Maxine Waters (Credit Image: © Dominick Sokotoff/ZUMA Wire)
April 17, 2021, Minnesota: Rep. Maxine Waters (Credit Image: © Dominick Sokotoff/ZUMA Wire)

Derek Chauvin is not even charged with first-degree murder. All three counts are variations of unintentional homicide.

Yesterday, 329 days since George Floyd died, both sides made closing arguments and the jury began deliberations. Judge Peter Cahill started by explaining the law to the jury, saying that it must follow the rule of law even if it thinks the law should be different. He reminded the jury that the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; he does not have to prove himself innocent.

The judge defined legal terms and went into detail about what the prosecution needs to prove for Mr. Chauvin to be found guilty of each of the charges.

Prosecutor Steve Schleicher began his closing argument by reviewing witness statements about Floyd’s relationship with his family, and showed photos from his life. Mr. Schleicher also referred to “superhuman strength,” one of the symptoms of excited delirium, a condition Mr. Chauvin and other MPD officers were trained to recognize. One of the other officers mentioned excited delirium while they were restraining Floyd. “There was no superhuman strength that day.” Mr. Schliecher said, “There was no superhuman strength because there’s no such thing as a superhuman. Those exist in comic books.”

Minneapolis Prosecuting Attorney Steve Schleicher. (Credit Image: © Pool Video Via Court Tv via ZUMA Wire)
Minneapolis Prosecuting Attorney Steve Schleicher. (Credit Image: © Pool Video Via Court Tv via ZUMA Wire)

Mr. Schleicher noted that Floyd had called the defendant “Mr. Officer,” and said that Floyd “pleaded with ‘Mr. Officer.’”

Floyd died with no familiar face to say his final words to, and his final words — “Please, I can’t breathe” — were addressed to Mr. Chauvin. “He asked for help with his very last breath, but Mr. Officer did not help,” he said. “The defendant did not help; he stayed on top of him, continued to push him down, to grind his knees, to twist his fingers into the handcuffs that bound him, looking at him, staring him down at times, and horrified the bystanders who gathered and watched this unfold.”

Mr. Schleicher said he had conducted a “pro-police prosecution,” and was not attacking the noble profession of law enforcement. He called Mr. Chauvin’s actions a “shocking display of abuse of police power,” but added, “This case is called The State of Minnesota versus Derek Chauvin. This case is not called The State of Minnesota versus The Police.”

The prosecutor tried to get inside Derek Chauvin’s mind, showing Exhibit 17, a screenshot of Mr. Chauvin taken by one of the bystanders. He called attention to Mr. Chauvin’s body language and suggested that his pride would not let bystanders tell him what to do. Mr. Chauvin “chose pride over policing.” Recalling how 61-year-old witness Charles McMillian told Floyd that he “couldn’t win,” Mr. Schleicher told the jury, “The defendant was trying to win. . . . He was trying to win, and George Floyd paid with his life.”

Mr. Schleicher went through the body camera footage step by step, beginning with the point of view from Mr. Chauvin’s own camera, when Officers Lane and Kueng were trying to get Floyd into the squad car. “Why was is necessary to shove him in the car?” Mr. Schleicher asked, adding that Police Chief Medaria Arradondo had testified that it is rare to arrest people for counterfeiting.

Showing a slide of the definition of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt,” Mr. Schleicher told the jury that the state does not need to prove its case beyond all doubt, and that it did not need to accept the defense’s “nonsense.”

The prosecutor explained how the case met the requirements for the jury to convict on each charge, and showed a photo of Mr. Chauvin with “9:29” superimposed over him, and a red circle around the image. After hearing Mr. Schleicher repeat “nine minutes and twenty-nine seconds” over and over, this image almost seemed like an advertising logo. By the end of Mr. Schleicher’s closing, he had uttered the phrase “nine minutes and twenty-nine seconds” 17 times.

The prosecution used audio-only clips a few times, and one was particularly deceptive. Floyd very clearly says, “My stomach hurts; my dick hurts,” but the audio was manipulated so that the word “dick” is barely intelligible. The prosecution then misquoted Floyd several times, claiming that he had instead said, “My neck hurts” and “My back hurts.”

Mr. Schleicher concluded with: “It’s what you felt in your gut, it’s what you felt in your heart. This was not policing. This was murder.”

Derek Chauvin took off his face mask in front of the jurors for the first time as defense lawyer Eric Nelson began his closing argument. “You start with the proposition that Mr. Chauvin is innocent of these charges,” Mr. Nelson said. “The state has to advance substantial evidence to convince you that the only doubts that are remaining are unreasonable doubts.”

Throughout the trial, Mr. Nelson stressed that the jury would need to consider the “totality of the circumstances,” and he derided the prosecution’s use of “little snippets . . . a screenshot here, a screenshot there.”

He said, “Lawyers like to present evidence that favors them, but we have to be intellectually honest about the evidence.” He then explained that Dr. David Fowler, a forensic pathologist who testified for the defense, said that carbon monoxide could have contributed to George Floyd’s oxygen deprivation. The next day, the state brought back one of its expert witnesses to tell the jury that this was not possible because Floyd’s oxygen saturation had been 98 percent. (Blood oxygen levels below 80 percent may hurt the brain and heart; the normal range is 95 – 100 percent.) Mr. Nelson said that he could then have stood up and asked, “How could Floyd have been asphyxiated [a key part of the prosecution case], when he had a 98 percent oxygen level?” but that would not have been honest. Mr. Nelson told the jury that Floyd’s blood oxygen level was 98 percent because paramedics and the ER doctor oxygenated his blood when they tried to save him.

“You also can’t prove that there was no carbon monoxide in Floyd’s blood because of this 98 percent figure,” Mr. Nelson said. “The state has failed to meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Mr. Nelson later showed how the prosecution, and particularly its expert witness, Dr. Martin Tobin, were biased. The prosecution had shown a screenshot of Floyd’s knuckle against the wheel of the squad car, and Dr. Tobin said that Floyd scraped his knuckle as he used it to push himself up, in order to expand his chest and breathe. Mr. Nelson played the video of that moment, pointing out the time stamp. Floyd’s knuckles were against the car tire when the officers had him in the side-recovery position, shortly after he was on the ground. This position would not have prevented Floyd from expanding his chest.

Mr. Nelson also played the video of the split-second moment when Mr. Chauvin’s toe was off the ground. The prosecution had used a still photo of this moment to hide the fact that it had been so brief. Mr. Nelson told the jury: “You cannot take a single frame and draw conclusions. You have to analyze the totality . . . . Do not let yourself be misled by a single still-frame image.”

The defense’s closing argument revolved around two points: Whether Mr. Chauvin’s actions were an authorized use of force and the cause of George Floyd’s death. If the jury finds that Mr. Chauvin’s actions were authorized, then no crime would was committed. During jury instructions in the morning, Judge Cahill read the following:

No crime is committed if a police officer’s actions were justified by the police officer’s use of reasonable force in the line of duty, in affecting a lawful arrest or preventing an escape from custody. The kind and degree of force the police officer may lawfully use in executing his duty is limited by what a reasonable police officer in the same situation would deem to be necessary. Any use of force beyond that is not reasonable. To determine if the actions of the police officer were reasonable, you must look at those facts which a reasonable officer in the same situation would have known at the precise moment that the officer acted with force. You must decide whether the officer’s actions were objectively reasonable in light of the totality of the facts and circumstances confronting the officer, and without regard to the officer’s own subjective state of mind or intentions or motivations. The defendant is not guilty of a crime if he used force as authorized by law. To prove guilt, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s use of force was not authorized by law.

Mr. Nelson spent a lot of time showing body camera footage to get the jury to see things from Mr. Chauvin’s point of view. Mr. Nelson pointed out that we didn’t have Mr. Chauvin’s own body camera footage because Floyd had knocked both the camera and Mr. Chauvin’s badge off as he fought to stay out of the police car. The video evidence shows that one of the other officers nearly lost his wedding ring.

The defense had proposed all along that George Floyd died of a heart attack. Mr. Nelson reminded the jury that the autopsy contained no report of bruising on Floyd’s neck, back, spinal column, or hypopharynx. He also said that the medical examiner would not have mentioned Floyd’s diseased heart or the presence of drugs in Floyd’s blood if he had not believed that these things contributed to Floyd’s death.

Mr. Nelson went through a timeline of Floyd’s last moments, noting that Floyd went limp only 39 seconds after his last words. Mr. Nelson said that this is inconsistent with low oxygen or strangulation, because people can hold their breaths for 39 seconds without passing out. He said 66 seconds passed between Floyd’s last words and going limp, suggesting a sudden cardiac arrhythmia.

Mr. Nelson concluded: “Human beings make decisions in highly stressful situations that they believe to be right in the very moment it is occurring . . . . There are lots of what-ifs.”

Prosecutor Jerry Blackwell’s long rebuttal repeated much of what Mr. Schleicher had already said. Mr. Blackwell also repeated several times that this was such a commonsense case that a nine-year-old bystander understood it. As he said this, he showed a photo of the girl.

Mr. Blackwell took every chance to paint Mr. Nelson as a liar, making comments such as: “You didn’t get the whole truth.” “The facts have been altered.” “You were told that homicide is a medical term. That’s not what Dr. Baker said.” Mr. Nelson objected when Mr. Blackwell accused him of “shading the truth.”

Mr. Blackwell overused the word “story”:

When the case started, I think you were all asked and talked to about there being two sides to every story. Two sides to every story. One of the most dangerous things, I think, about the process of truth because it suggests that everything is simply reduced to a story. And if it is a story, that means there can be multiple sides to a story and there can never be a truth. Or a reality. Except that what we’re about here, is getting to the truth and not simply stories.

The judge told him to stop using the word “story,” but he used it again several times.

Mr. Blackwell ended by referring to Floyd’s enlarged heart, saying that the defense wanted the jury to believe that Floyd had died because his heart was too big. “The reason Mr. Floyd is dead,” Mr. Blackwell concluded, “is because Mr. Chauvin’s heart is too small.”

Judge Cahill gave the jury final instructions, and warned against implicit or unconscious biases. “If the people involved in this case were from different backgrounds, for example, richer or poorer, more or less educated, older or younger, or of a different gender, gender identity, race, religion or sexual orientation, would you still view them and the evidence the same way?” The judge also said jurors should help each other to resist evaluating the case in a biased way.

He warned the jury not to let public opinion influence their decision. “You must not consider any consequences or penalties that may follow from your decision.”

After the jury left the courtroom, Judge Cahill saw that Mr. Nelson wanted to speak, and guessed that he wanted to talk about the objections he had made when the prosecution spoke insultingly about him. The judge told Mr. Nelson that he had addressed that properly in front of the jury.

Mr. Nelson said, “I do believe that it constitutes prosecutorial misconduct and is potentially basis for a mistrial.” “I think the word “nonsense” is what you’re talking about originally?” Judge Cahill asked. Mr. Nelson replied:

Originally, your honor. But during the rebuttal, there were implications that we were ‘shading.’ ‘Creating Halloween stories’ was another example. These were ‘stories,’ that was a repeated comment. That we ‘misrepresented facts’ and ‘put words into Dr. Baker’s mouth,’ that we made several statements that they put forth as ‘stories.’ After the court instructed him to stop using the word ‘stories,’ he clarified that it’s ‘just fabricated facts.’

Mr. Nelson cited State vs. McDaniel: “The prosecutor must not act as a zealous advocate for criminal punishment but as a rep of the people to seek justice.” Judge Cahill said he would not make a finding of prosecutorial misconduct.

Mr. Nelson then pointed out that before coming into court for closing arguments, a Member of Congress “made threats against the sanctity of the jury process . . . . threatening and intimidating the jury that if there was not a guilty verdict there would be further problems.”

Mr. Nelson told the judge that he had recommended that the jury be sequestered from the beginning, and he thought there was a high probability that the jurors heard about those threats. Mr. Nelson mentioned that two fictional television shows in the past week had been based on this case and added. “Now that we have US representatives threatening acts of violence in relation to this particular case, it’s mind-boggling.”

Judge Cahill mentioned Maxine Waters by named and told Mr. Nelson that she may have given him something to have this verdict overturned on appeal:

I’m aware that Congresswoman Waters was talking specifically about this trial, and about the unacceptability of anything less than a murder conviction, and talk about being confrontational. . . . This goes back to what I’ve been saying from the beginning. 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. I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so . . . in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution to respect a co-equal branch of government. Their failure to do so is abhorrent.

Nevertheless, Judge Cahill said he did not think Maxine Waters’ comments would prejudice the jury. The jury is sequestered during deliberations.

(Republished from American Renaissance by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 7 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. This is shaping up to be an easy guilty verdict.

  2. El Dato says:

    Maybe manslaughter will stick.

  3. Derek Chauvin is a pawn in a much larger power struggle, and in a way, Chauvin is in trouble because even Donald Trump and white populists have succumbed to the same gods controlled by the Jews. When Jews control the gods and when Jews dole out the money(to all the whores, of which there is never any shortage), the US ‘power-brokers’ are essentially in the hands of Jews.

    This whole George Floyd thing wouldn’t have gotten so out of hand if it weren’t for the Jewish-run media pushing a certain narrative based on false perception and for the Jewish-run state giving the go-ahead to the entire nation to go full throttle on Negrolatry. Now, blacks being blacks, even had the media been responsible and restrained in their coverage, there would have been riots and the like. But it would have been contained.
    Now, who gave the go-ahead to turn a local event into a national and then even a global one, what with BLM protests spreading across EU and even in parts of East Asia? It was the deep state that takes orders from Jewish Supremacist Central. And why did Jews do this? To hurt Trump with black voters and to boost ‘white guilt’ to counter the rising tide of white populism. These Jewish Supremacists are truly awful people. Not long ago, they sought to clean up cities and hired more cops to get tough on black crime. Jews supported more incarceration and policies like stop-and-frisk. Jews pressured US police departments to take cues from IDF and Israel security forces that deal harshly with Palestinians. But, when Jews needed black votes(and electoral fraud) to unseat Trump, they pushed the Narrative that innocent blacks are killed by ‘racist’ cops in Trump’s America. Really? Who’s been controlling Minneapolis forever? MAGA folks? That’s about as believable as Jussie Smollett’s story of being jumped by two MAGA-hat wearing thugs.

    To better understand what happened between 2016 and 2020, there is something we can learn from 1962 to 1966 in China. Of course, there are vast differences between China then and US now, but there are certain general patterns in history that match or resemble one another. For some time, it’s been duly noted in some quarters that the US under PC has undergone something akin to the Cultural Revolution in China. But overlooking who’ve been behind the US version would be like taking Mao out of the equation in the Chinese upheaval(which was more like a ‘downheaval’, or an event ordered from above, or a youth ‘rebellion’ orchestrated by Mao and the Gang of Four). In other words, despite the seemingly spontaneous mass-gathering and uprising of Chinese youths, it was actually coordinated by Mao and his cohorts. If Mao hadn’t called on it, there would have been no Cultural Revolution in China. Indeed, when Mao and the military had just about enough(and the usefulness of Red Guards had passed the expiration date), the mass movement suddenly came to a halt, and many young ones were conveniently deployed to villages to ‘learn from the peasants’, thus no longer able to destabilize cities. Likewise, BLM2 or Floyd-Mania couldn’t have happened without the go-ahead from the Jews. However vocal and violent the riots would have been without blessing and encouragement from above, it would have been a much smaller event. Jewish Power fanned the flames and turned a local fire into a national forest fire. Just like Big Tech companies coordinate their censorship policies, big city Democrats(and some RINOS) also acted together to use the insanity as political weapon against Trump and the populists. But then, why were Trump and his supporters so hapless and ineffective in combating this lunacy? Well, Jews control the gods, and both sides worship the same gods.

    [MORE]

    This is where what happened in China is useful to our understanding of what happened recently in the US. But first, a brief summary of what happened in China. In the late 50s, Mao was full of arrogance and impatience. Especially with the death of Josef Stalin and with Third World liberation movements sprouting all over, Mao regarded himself as the new leading light of the worldwide communist movement. He believed the East Wind was prevailing over the West. He also thought that China could transform into a first-world economy within a decade with mass enthusiasm and sheer power of numbers. Like Adolf Hitler on the eve of Operation Barbarossa, Mao saw himself as a Man of Destiny. He felt an aura of invincibility. As if to demonstrate this, he embarked on one of the most ambitious projects in human history: The Great Leap Forward. It would turn peasants into steel-producers overnight. Harvests would double, triple, quadruple within years. China would soon catch up with the UK and then even with the US. The will of the Chinese people, orchestrated by Mao, would make anything possible. Mao’s East Wind would indeed prevail over everything. But in fact, the whole thing turned out to be ill-conceived and ill-planned. Despite all the enthusiasm of the populace swept up in the fervor, it not only undermined the industrial sector but wrecked the all-important agricultural sector(in a nation that was overwhelmingly agrarian). What ensued was the biggest famine in history, losing anywhere from 25 to 40 million lives to starvation. It proved to be so calamitous that it endangered the authority of Mao, a godlike figure at the time. While the criticism of the Great Helmsman was tempered in most quarters, the very fact that some dared to criticize him at all was deeply unsettling to Mao. And in a way, there was a silent semi-coup of sorts. Mao kept his prestige as the great ruler of China, but the day-to-day operations ended up mainly with Liu Shao-Chi and righthand man Deng Xiaoping. Indeed, Mao began to resent that he was ignored and not informed of what was happening in the affairs of the government. He still held the title but felt more like a national symbol than an actual ruler. It seemed most people in the state took cues from Li and Deng; they hardly had any use for Mao whose reputation was discredited within the state(though no one dared to say it out loud). Now, Liu and Deng publicly deferred to Mao as the one-and-only ruler of China, but they held more operational power and made most of the key decisions on matters related to economics and culture. Mao suspected they wanted to turn him into a ceremonial figure.
    And Mao knew why Li and Deng held certain key advantages. Despite Mao’s great prestige, he was associated with the disaster of the Great Leap Forward. While the masses were fed the usual official lies and propaganda, those inside the state knew Mao was most to blame for the failure that affected countless lives, millions of whom perished in horrible conditions. Just like there is inside information(for the elites & connected) and outside information(for mass consumption) on finance and government even in the ‘Liberal West’, it was even more so in China. To keep the nation together, Mao was hailed as the one-and-only unifying symbol of China despite the disaster of the Great Leap(the failures of which were conveniently blamed on the weather or the Soviet Union’s withdrawal of aid) for public consumption, but in the inner circles of the Chinese state, many knew Mao had grown imperious, impetuous, erratic, and unstable over the years. Whatever sterling qualities he had exhibited as a wartime revolutionary on the path to communist victory, he proved himself a dangerous ruler of a nation that required stability, order, or patience to modernize and bide for time in a hostile environment. So, even as almost all Chinese officials praised Mao in speech, they lent their ears to Liu and Deng for advice and instructions. Mao felt that it was only a matter of time before he would be completely robbed of power except as something akin to a ‘constitutional monarch’. (A similar pattern in the US would be that it was well-understood that black thuggery and criminality did most to destroy cities and communities. And so, tough measures were taken by Neo-Liberals beginning with Bill Clinton to lock up record numbers of blacks and implement law-and-order policies to control black behavior, such as stop-and-frisk. This did wonders for safer streets, at least in communities on which Section 8 blacks weren’t dumped. These policies were based on what was understood, but this understanding was never articulated into a Narrative. If anything, even Neo-Liberals whose policies were based on Willie-Hortonology pushed the Narrative that the Bush campaign had run an outrageously ‘racist’ ad, and Bill Clinton took every opportunity to appear the ‘first black president’. Neo-Liberals used increasing ‘anti-racist’ rhetoric and Negrolatry to cover up their tough race-ist policies premised on facts of black criminality and thuggery. So, while the nation was made safer by clamping down on blacks, blackness was placed ever higher on the pedestal. Even as white urban progs enjoyed safer streets as the result of the war on black thuggery, they were even more taken with ‘woke’ rhetoric and idolatry about the Noble Negro. They lived one reality while believing in a rhetoric that ran counter to the reality. This explains the insane contradictions of the BLM moment from 2016 to 2020. In China between the end of the Great Leap and opening of the Cultural Revolution, even as the state moved drastically away from Mao’s radical policies in actual policy, it continued with Mao Worship as the neo-religion of the state. Something had to give.)

    So, Mao decided to strike back. But how could he? After all, his name had been sullied by the disaster of the Great Leap Forward. Most people in government switched their main loyalties to Liu and Deng who seemed professional and responsible. They seemed rational players as opposed to the radical romanticism of Mao who treated history and humanity as the stuff of myth. After devastating famines that wiped out so many people, Liu and Deng restored the economy(with limited market reforms), and the Chinese people were, at the very least, no longer starving. The worst was over in China managed by Liu and Deng, and most people in government believed the nation was headed in the right direction under the more techno-bureaucratic minded elites. So, even as most bureaucrats said all the ‘correct’ things about Mao — how awesomely great he is and so on —, few would have switched their real loyalties from Liu & Deng back to Mao. They believed China needed peacetime builders and managers, not a wartime revolutionary who embarked on economic policies as grandiose campaigns against nature, real and human. They wanted pragmatism and expertise, not hardline ideology and radical passion. They wanted predictability and consistency in the rulers, not the tempestuous style of Mao who drove history like a Chinese man drives a car. So, Mao knew that it was nearly impossible to win back his authority by calling on those within the government and state institutions. This was a huge disadvantage in a country where the state was everything and there was virtually no power outside the state.

    But Mao’s one advantage was huge, and it had remained intact because those who’d pulled the semi-coup against him chose not to defame it(in the manner Nikita Khrushchev had done with Stalin’s cult of personality, though after the great man died, to be sure). Now, sustaining Mao’s lofty reputation wouldn’t have mattered had he died before the Cultural Revolution. Indeed, even when Deng moved dramatically toward market economics in the 1980s, he didn’t go all out in attacking Mao. He said Mao made ‘serious mistakes’ and innocent people were hurt; but, he maintained that Mao was still 80% good and only 20% bad, and besides, much of the blame was dumped on the Gang of Four. But as Mao was dead with no Maoist heir-apparent around, China in the 1980s could use Mao as a symbol and not worry about another Cultural Revolution; if anything, the great Tiananmen Square movement owed more to influence from the West than anything owing to Maoism.
    At any rate, Mao was alive and well in the early 1960s and very much wanted his full power back, not least because his vindictive egotism could hardly forgive Liu and Deng for having bested him in the power game. After all, he didn’t become the Great Helmsman in the first place by being a slouch in the game of power politics. Mao had few cards in the game but the trump card. Because the Liu-and-Deng faction had dared not discredit Mao in terms of prestige, Mao not only continued to control the gods but was the god himself in China. He was still the one-and-only Red Emperor even if his underlings in the state bypassed him and went to Liu and Deng for instructions. Because he was still the god of China idolized by many millions, especially the impressionable and restless young, he had a magic bullet against Liu and Deng. Masses of violent youths invoking his name could exert tremendous pressure on the state, especially as the state officially propped up Mao as the one-and-only great leader. One other thing Mao needed was the support of the military, and he secured this by recruiting Lin Piao who, for personal and other reasons, was at odds with Liu and Deng. So, Mao, backed by masses of youths whose violence was tolerated and even protected by the military, could deal a serious blow to the Liu-Deng faction and the bureaucracy as a whole.

    Now, why couldn’t Liu and Deng fight back? One reason was they didn’t have the iron will and utter ruthlessness of Mao. Also, they lacked imagination and refused to believe(until it was too late) that Mao was capable of something so insane to destroy with his enemies, real and imaginary. They knew Mao could be erratic but couldn’t imagine him waging war on the state itself and destroying his closest collaborators in service of his own ego. But, more importantly, they’d stuck with the idolatry and narrative of Mao as god-emperor of China and World Revolution. So, whatever they’d done(against Maoism) in day-to-day affairs of running the state, they’d spoken up for Mao Zedong Thought as the greatest thing since steamed buns. So, what moral or ideological argument could they have against the millions of Red Guards who were rabid in their passion for all-things-Mao? Indeed, the sad and pathetic thing is Liu, even as the walls were closing in on him, did all he could do to appease Mao and the Red Guards by hunting down ‘class enemies’ and ‘capitalist roaders’ when, in fact, the main target of Mao was none other than himself. So, even as Mao was making him out to be the devil to destroy, he acted as if Mao was the god to appease.
    Things would have been different if, following the disaster of the Great Leap, a proper coup had been pulled off against Mao(like the one against Khrushchev who was not only toppled but disgraced). In contrast, Liu and Deng weren’t willing to bite the bullet and go for total removal of Mao from power. Whether Mao still had too much power/support or Liu & Deng lacked the iron balls to go all in, Mao was allowed to keep his throne and prestige as the Great Helmsman, without whom the sun doesn’t rise in the East. So, even though Mao lost much of the power-of-man, he kept the power-of-god. He was still the object of worship, whereas Liu and Deng, though having the authority of the state, weren’t objects of veneration.
    It’s telling that Mao understood this dynamics in regard to Khrushchev. When Khrushchev fell from power, Mao mused that Khrushchev’s position had been vulnerable due to his failure, unwillingness, or inability to cultivate his own myth. Those around him in the Soviet State could remove Khrushchev because he was regarded merely as a political leader than the god of the nation. Had there been a cult of personality around him, the Soviet state would have thought twice about removing him so suddenly and unceremoniously. In contrast, precisely because Mao held onto his quasi-divine status, even Liu and Deng(and their supporters) who’d done much to reverse Maoist policies nevertheless professed undying fealty to him in their official capacity. They could quietly do ‘no’ to Maoism but had to loudly say ‘yes’ to Mao-Idolatry or Maodolatry.
    But this made them vulnerable and defenseless against attacks when the Cultural Revolution came charging right at them. If indeed they professed to be adherents of Maodolatry, why had they acted as ‘capitalist roaders’ with their ‘reforms’? Why did they act like the ‘bourgeoisie’ in creating a bureaucracy that acted independently of Mao’s knowledge and approval? At best, they were hypocrites who claimed to revere Mao but pushed anti-Maoism, and at worst, they were crypto-capitalist agents who’d planned all along to subvert communism and set China on the path to ‘reactionary’ capitalism. So, even though Liu and Deng had much of the CCP government behind them, they were ineffective in pushing back against the Maoist tide because both sides(indeed all sides) had to be pro-Mao. Mao’s side hailed Mao as all-knowing, wise, and awesome ruler, and Liu’s faction(though having gained power by sidelining Mao in day-to-day running of the state) also praised Mao as the great and tremendous ruler. But if both sides were agreed that Mao is so supremely superb, then the side that fudged even a little bit on Mao Worship must have been at fault. After all, if both A and B are agreed that C is awesomely awesome, B could be in hot water if it says C is 99% great than 100% great. Why the 1% of doubt when C is awesomely awesome? Shouldn’t one be 100% for C and aspire to be 110%?

    Even though Liu and Deng had gained at the expense of Mao in the CCP, neither developed a counter-cult of their own. Even with expanded political power, they allowed Mao to own all the mythic aura. Liu had political authority but Mao kept the divine authority. Liu had loyal humdrum bureaucrats, but Mao could muster up millions of rabid devotees and crusaders willing to do ANYTHING in his name. So, even when Mao’s red crusaders came knocking on Liu’s door to berate him, rough him up, and remove him from power, his only defense was that he’d been a loyal and stalwart supporter of Mao. When Mao waged a campaign against him, he didn’t dare wage a counter-campaign against Mao but only tried to demonstrate his utmost devotion to Mao. Even after he was brutalized and lay in prison rotting away to a miserable death, his side presented no argument against Mao but only maintained that it’d been misunderstood because its support for Mao had always been unwavering. Deng’s family was also attacked, and Deng himself was put under house-arrest, but his defense was always pro-Maoist, willing to confess errors in having deviated from the Maoist line that was of course infallible.

    Now, what parallels can we draw between what happened in China from 1962 and 1966(when the Cultural Revolution exploded on the scene) and what happened in the US from 2016 to 2020(when the Deep State coup against Trump took off in earnest with Covid hysteria and BLM riots)? Even though the problems faced by Americans in the era of globalism pale in comparison with the horrors of the Great Leap Forward, many Americans, especially since the end of the Cold War, have felt that the massive transformations have benefited the cosmo-urban elites at the expense of everyone else. Many Americans, especially white ones, don’t feel this is their country anymore. Not only did the US lose a lot of working class jobs but the cultural degeneracy has negatively impacted so many lives with family dysfunction, drug overdose, and the general culture of ugliness. For the upper elites of America(and in the modern world in general), they never had it so good as under globalism. But for many Americans, middle class and down, things have been getting worse and worse. What Mao and the globalists share is the confidence, indeed arrogance, of history being on their side. Their way is the way, an inevitability. And they are so totally right, and if anything goes wrong, the fault is always with others than with themselves. And just like Mao, having amassed all that power, became accustomed to everyone agreeing with him and never faulting him for anything, the globalists(with Jewish supremacists at the top) got used to their monopoly hold on power and grew utterly intolerant of anyone who dared to say NO to their agenda, be it Open Borders for Europe or ‘gay marriage’ all around. Jewish megalomania came to match Mao’s megalomania. And just like Mao was prone to thinking big, Jewish power-lust lost all sense of limits. Not only did Jews turn the world upside down with new economic arrangements(mainly to enrich themselves), but they also pushed various wars that drained the US treasury and cost thousands of lives(and maimed many more in wars that never seemed to end). But in all this, Jews got no blame, and/or the blame was shunted off to others, especially white goyim.

    Then, just like there was a backlash to Mao’s insanely conceived Great Leap Forward, an agenda driven by blind hubris, there was a backlash to the New World Order or Jew World Order in the form of nationalism and populism as embodied by Donald Trump(among others), a new kind of politician the US hadn’t seen in many years, perhaps since Theodor Roosevelt or, even further back, Andrew Jackson. Especially the fact that Donald Trump won the election despite pushback by the entire Power Apparatus showed how deep the disenchantment was among large swathes of Americans. It seemed to imply that the Jew World Order, which took off with Bill Clinton and accelerated under George W. Bush & Barack Obama, was at odds with many Americans. And even those who voted for Hillary showed no great enthusiasm for the Neo-Liberal order in which the Democratic Party replaced the GOP as the party of the business class, all the while desperately clinging to the mantle of Progressive politics.

    Just like the failure of the Great Leap Forward forced Maoism to retreat within the Chinese state, the problems of globalism elevated Trump to presidency, and for his supporters, it meant the restoration of national sovereignty, repairing of US borders, an economic reset with China(that worked hand-in-glove with US globalists), ending pointless overseas wars, and finding common ground with Russia(to avert another stupid and costly ‘cold war’). And even though Trump couldn’t do much(as he was surrounded by hostile Deep State players and also because his main instincts are that of a charlatan-hustler than an idealist and man of principles), illegal immigration did decline, there were no new wars, and ‘woke’ idiocy was restrained some. While Trump couldn’t turn the car around and drive in the opposite direction, he was able to apply some brakes. All said and done, for all his bluster, Trump sought middle-ground with the Deep State. Partly, it was because the ‘swamp’ was the only game in town but it was also because Trump’s vanity wanted acceptance and validation by the People of Power. Even as he became president by garnering votes from the hoi polloi by vilifying the ruling elites, he used his position to gain respect from the ‘better kind of people’. In this, Trump miscalculated the ruling elites, especially the Jews, as much as Liu and Deng miscalculated Mao in the post-Great-Leap years of stabilization. Even though or especially because Liu and Deng restored the Chinese economy(and got well-deserved credit), Mao’s fury boiled over. Mao’s megalomania simply couldn’t share credit with others; Mao’s pride could barely accept any blame for anything he did, no matter how disastrous. Therefore, Mao was hellbent on using whatever means to bring down Liu & Deng to show who’s the real boss. Likewise, Trump failed to understand the true nature of Jewish Power. Perhaps, if Anglo-Americans still constituted the uppermost elites of America, they might have been willing to accommodate Trump and populism, as indeed such had happened in the past. But the new ruling elites of America were Jews, and they simply couldn’t brook any criticism or settle on compromise with filthy goyim. By hook or by crook, they were determined to topple Trump and utterly destroy the mass movement associated with him.

    Jewish power was so deranged in its agenda to punish American Populism and Trump that it didn’t care about the negative consequences for the the country and the world(much of which is a mere satellite of American Power, which in turn is a tool of the Empire of Judea). Mao was willing to do ANYTHING to regain total power as the indisputable ruler of China. It wasn’t enough to be god-emperor of the Red Middle Kingdom. He had to be the Big Boss at whose feet everyone in government trembled. To intimidate the bureaucrats who were loyal to Liu, Mao needed rage mobs who hollered with clenched fists, ready to accuse anyone of being a foreign spy, a ‘capitalist-roader’, Soviet agent, reactionary, and etc. And of course, one couldn’t debate any of these issues. When mobs of young radicals come at you in fever-pitch of rabid hysteria, all you could do is plead for mercy or chant along with the mantras in the hope that you’d be accepted as one-of-them. It’s like zombies don’t attack fellow zombies(in DAWN OF THE DEAD), and pod people don’t go after fellow pod people(in THE INVASION OF THE BODYSNATCHERS). Mao knew he was playing with fire, but it didn’t matter. If Red Guards were to turn China upside down, beat up countless people(virtually all of them falsely charged), destroy artworks & cultural heritage, paralyze the state, and create all kinds of havoc across the nation, the price was worth the cost as far as Mao was concerned. His megalomania demanded that he be absolute ruler in every way. The horrible consequences for many Chinese were merely an afterthought to Mao. He mattered more than the rest. He was China, China was him.
    Jewish Power feels much like Mao. Just ask the Palestinians or Syrians. Just ask the Iraqi children whose dead lives were ‘worth it’ in the words of Madeleine Albright. Jewish Power is ethno-megalomaniacal. Jews feel that the US, as the ‘lone super power’, belongs to them. They believe they are the rightful rulers of America and masters over inferior goyim. Jews are resolved on turning white Americans into a minority. They boast about this with hideous glee but have the gall to blame whites of ‘antisemitism’ and ‘white supremacism’ when whites notice. They are committed to using Diversity to make goyim fight among themselves. They demand that all goyim, white-black-yellow-brown-etc, bow down before Jews.
    But then, Trump came along with ‘America First’, which reminded Jews of Charles Lindbergh’s movement. To Jews, ‘America First’ reeked of “goyim should put goy interests first instead of whoring out to Jews 24/7”. Also, Trumpers seemed defiant of the Narrative pushed by Jews. Even after all these years of mass manipulation via media and academia, the Trump movement showed that many Americans, at least half, weren’t with the program or not fully. Of course, Trump and his supporters mindlessly praised Jews and Israel, but that wasn’t good enough. Jews sensed a crack in their total hold on power in America, and they were going to do ANYTHING to regain it. And just like Mao didn’t care about the consequences of the Cultural Revolution, Zion-First Power didn’t care how negatively America and the world might be impacted under their agenda of mass hysteria and violence. What if countless small businesses were to face ruin? What if many people wouldn’t be treated for serious illnesses? What if school lockdowns would lead to widespread depression and loneliness among students, as well as degrade their education? What if Americans would grow paranoid of another? What if constitutional rights would be violated? None of this mattered to Jews. Whatever threat Covid-19 posed, it could have been handled far more rationally and sensibly, but the most extreme measures were pushed with the aim of consolidating power in the state, favoring mega-globalist corporations at the expense of small businesses, and reducing the majority of people into scared sheeple with faces veiled with masks(though many wore them as face badges of commitment). But that wasn’t enough. If Covid-19 was a statist attack on Trump & populist-nationalism from the tower, BLM lunacy was an attack on American Patriotism from the streets. Just like Jewish Power didn’t care how many people were harmed by the medical tyranny of Covid Hysteria, they didn’t care about the victims of racial violence and riots as long as they hurt Trump’s chance of re-election. The very Jews who’d pushed mass-immigration and mass-incarceration to reduce black crime(to make way for urban gentrification) did a turn-about and unleashed black rage and mass violence to shore up black support for the Democratic Party and to beat White America once again with the stick of ‘white guilt’. ANYTHING to have it their way. So, just like Mao was willing to sacrifice the well-being of the entire nation to regain total control, Jewish Power was willing to terrorize and brutalize the entire country as a form of quasi-divine punishment upon goyim for having defied any aspect of the New/Jew World Order agenda.

    While the Covid Hysteria and BLM violence didn’t impact the US as badly as the Cultural Revolution did China, they were in some ways more troubling. After all, it was hardly surprising that a totalitarian communist system could unleash such mass lunacy. Red Guards had been indoctrinated from cradle on nothing but Maoism. Their entire formative experience had been under Mao’s rule. And besides, Marxism-Leninism at its core was a radical ideology. Combined with Mao’s megalomania and vestiges of Oriental Despotism(as well as the Asiatic tendency to conform and obey), that something like the Cultural Revolution could happen wasn’t exactly all that shocking. In contrast, the US has long billed itself as a country of Rule of Law guided by secular culture and rationalism going back to the Enlightenment. Americans have also prided themselves on moderation and pragmatism, which was why there was a swift backlash against Sixties radicalism. Americans have also been big on individualism, the idea that one’s dignity is independent of the state or the mob. Richard Nixon’s landslide in 1972 was a testament to that. Even the Liberal Establishment that sympathized with blacks and radicals soon soured of the mass violence and terrorist acts. Besides, the Democratic Party then wasn’t just made up of armchair ‘progressive’ types but white ethnics who dominated the political machines in big cities. They were Democratic but socially conservative and patriotic in many respects.

    But things were different in 2020. The white middle class had imbibed all the craziness. Their feelings about blacks went way beyond sympathy; it was more like reverence, even worship. Cut off from roots, their entire worldview came from PC education(controlled by Jews), mass media(controlled by Jews), and idolatrous pop culture(controlled by Jews). Rootless and spineless, they bent to every fad and fashion, every rage of the moment. Not only had the Silent Majority come close to being a Silent Minority but the very white middle class that one would expect to serve as the bulwark of sanity, stability, and common sense was swept up in what came to be known as ‘wokeness’, rather odd when the so-called ‘woke’ are, far from being sober and awake, drugged by PC.
    Indeed, this led to a crisis of confidence among middle class whites. In terms of their livelihoods, they are much like the middle class of old: well-off or affluent with stable jobs. But unlike the past middle class, they are under the spell of ‘radical’ ideology, or more like idolatry, because the new radicalism owes less to a set of principles than the special cult-idolization of certain groups, especially Jews, blacks, and homos. In the past, a middle class person had middle class views. Today, a middle class person, having been influenced by Jewish-run academia, mass media, and pop culture, is likely to have ‘radical’ views, if only out of conceit of being ‘more evolved’ and ‘committed’. This leads to self-loathing, a sense of having compromised with ‘white privilege’, especially when they are so convinced of ‘wokeness’. Thus, if past middle class pushed back against the violence of radicals and blacks, today’s middle class is likely to cheer it on(even if from a safe distance in their nicer and whiter neighborhoods). And why not when, even more incredibly, the very apparatus of the state from top to bottom fanned the flames of racial violence as righteous reckoning against so many innocent Americans who were harassed, beaten in the streets, and/or had their properties destroyed? Imagine that, the very state that exists to protect people from mob violence actually fanned the flames of violence against regular people… and so many regular white people cheered this on. The people of power from Washington D.C. down to the local level made excuses for Antifa thugs and BLM rioters(who were called ‘mostly peaceful protesters’ by the Jewish-run media).
    Just like Mao unleashed the Red Guards to cause havoc all over China and ordered the military to stand back and let the violence take place, the very power of the US state in 2020 sided with street violence, mob rage, and lunacy. And when Trump called on the state to do something, it rebuffed the president and accused him of ‘fascist tendencies’. (This is the very state that accused the far less violent rioters at the Capitol on Jan 6 as ‘domestic terrorists’ and ‘insurrectionists’ and used heavy military presence to barricade the entire city.) Of course, the state acted thus because US government is now mostly made up of goy cucks to Jewish Masters. If Jews want it, they get it. Jews want to keep total power, and goy cucks who made their careers under Jewish Power are too ashamed to face the fact of their perfidy. So, they pretend they’re on the side of ‘social justice’ and work with Jews to attack nationalism and populism.

    Given how the US bills itself as a Liberal Democracy defined by moderation, rule of law, freedom, individuality, dialogue, and concern for truth, the events of 2020 were more horrific than the Cultural Revolution. Far fewer people died, but how could this happen in a so-called democracy? How could a country based on Rule of Law do nothing to protect regular people from mob violence and, if anything, fan the mob violence by protecting Antifa thugs(who are hardly charged for anything) and coddling black rioters and thugs as ‘mostly peaceful protesters’? Maoist China going nuts was predictable. Liberal Democratic US going nuts in this way was shocking. Indeed, it proved that US is not a liberal democracy but a ethno-monopolistic tyranny dominated by Jews who now treat white Americans like Israeli Jews treat Palestinians. US is no longer about negotiations between elites and the masses. It’s about Jews saying, “We want this” and demanding that all goyim meekly comply… or else.
    In the past, such would have been impossible for Jews as the great majority of white Americans were patriotic and had pride in their own identity. But especially since the Sixties, generations of whites came under Jewish mind control and don’t know how to stand up for themselves. The very notion of ‘white interests’ has become anathema. Jews have convinced whites that white justification for existence can only derive from its usefulness to Holy Jews, Noble Negroes, and Wondrous Homos. Jews, who’d argued in favor of the Constitution in the past when free speech suited their needs, are now totally against the First Amendment. The Jewish Way is ‘our way or the highway’. Just ask the Palestinians. Thus, current US is less guided by the Constitution than by a Cult. The Cult of Ethnicity, that of Jewish Supremacists who believe they are the best, know best, and deserve the best; therefore, we goyim exist only to obey and follow. If we dare have views of our own and speak truth to Jewish Power, we are to be smeared, deplatformed, destroyed, denied banking services, and etc.

    Given all such craziness, one might have expected Americans to really wake up and push back. And yet, Jewish Power has prevailed for the same reason Mao prevailed against Liu and his supporters in the bureaucracy. In China, Mao was god; and Mao Zedong Thought was the sacred dogma of the land, even as Liu and Deng deviated from it to restore the Chinese economy. So, the conflict wasn’t between pro-Mao people and anti-Mao people but between pro-Mao radicals(Red Guards & the Gang of Four) and pro-Mao pragmatists(Liu and Deng). Even Liu and Deng who built up their own political base and deviated from hardline Maoism nevertheless praised Mao as the great and awesome sun that rises in the east in their official capacity. Thus, when push came to shove in the ideological campaigns, the pragmatists had to answer for having deviated from the Maoist line. If indeed Mao is all-knowing and so great, how dare Liu, Deng, and their supporters embark on any program that could only be heretical to Maoism. Thus, Liu and Deng were doomed.

    Likewise, as virtually everyone that matters in the US worship the same gods(controlled by Jews), it was difficult for Trump and his base to push back against BLM lunacy and the Jewish Power behind it. Both parties worship MLK as bigger than god and jesus. Both parties go on and on about Magic Negroes. Both parties say white ‘racism’ was, is, and will be the worst-thing-ever. Both parties believe it’s wrong to blame blacks for anything; why, that’d be ‘racist’. And of course, both parties are totally owned by Jews. Goyim in both parties are obsequious in their awe of Jews and/or deathly afraid of them. So, just like Liu praised Mao even as he was brutalized and driven to death by Mao’s goons, Trump continued to praise Jews and Israel to high heaven even as World Jewry was doing everything to pull his pants down, twack his penis with a mouse-trap, piss all over him, smear him with feces, and ram a big hot pepper up his arse. Against all that, Trump’s response was “I give Jews the best blowjobs and let me prove it once again.” And even as blacks were burning down cities, attacking MAGA people, and badmouthing the Donald, his response was a Platinum Plan for the glorious Negroes.
    The parallels with the Cultural Revolution are truly amazing. It goes to show that those who control the gods have tremendous leverage over those who don’t. Those who control the gods decide the terms of heresy. The accused heretic is at a disadvantage because he too claims to believe in the same gods. But if so, why the heresy from the official dogma? Unlike a blasphemer who proudly spits on the dogma, the heretic claims that he is a true believer and pleads for understanding and sympathy. Jews control the gods, and the American Cult(as opposed to the American Constitution) is about the divinity of Jews, Negroes, and Homos. (The fact that the Power turned a blind eye to so many immigrant groups attacked by blacks and Antifa goes to show that Diversity matters far less. While useful against whites, diverse folks of various backgrounds, often immigrant in nature, are ignored when harmed by blacks or Jews. Whether it’s Asians attacked by black street thugs or Muslims/Arabs traumatized by Wars for Israel, they take a backseat to Jews, blacks, and homos.) Trump, for all his attempts to slow down immigration, pledged his fealty to the same gods, those controlled by Jews. For all the Jewish hostility toward him, he was always servile to Jewish Power. Despite most blacks sticking with the Democrats and using election fraud against him, Trump’s attitude has been, “Mr. Super-Negro, can I suck your dic*?” And Trump’s been chicken on the homo issue.
    So, how could he push back in his four yrs in office? Jews attack Trump as ‘worse than Hitler’ and his MAGA followers as ‘deplorable Nazis’, but Trump only praises Jews and sucks up to Israel. Jews punch him in the face, and he kisses their toes. Jews kick him in the stomach, and he goes down to offer another blowjob. Jews fan black rage at Trump’s America, and Trump sings paeans to that scumbag George Fentanyl Floyd. This is why nothing will change unless white patriots stop worshiping the gods controlled by Jews. Though Christianity is now a defunct religion, the cry of “Jesus is King” is somewhat useful against Jewish Power. At the very least, it says there is something bigger, holier, higher, and deeper than Jewishness(and globo-homo and Magic Negro). But for most in the GOP establishment, their sacrament is “Jews, blacks, and homos are king”, and this goes for Trump as well. When your enemy attacks you but you accept his divinity, how can you win? His divinity lends him leverage over you. He is godly, whereas you’re just a man. Worse, what if your type has been associated with deviltry, as Jews have done with whiteness? Indeed, the core of so-called ‘wokeness’ is all about maintaining Jewish Supremacist Power. Jewish Power relies on white obeisance, and Jews figure whites must be paralyzed with ‘white guilt’ and self-loathing to be made sorry-ass, servile, and submissive to Jewish Power. On the outside, ‘wokeness’ sells itself as ‘equity’ and ‘social justice’, but it’s really a tool of undermining white identity and preventing white liberation to keep whites as soul-slaves of Jewish Supremacists. Whites aren’t, as yet, physical slaves, but many of them are already soul-slaves as they’ve been made emotionally incapable of breaking free of Jewish tyranny and its Noble Negro ‘white-guilt’ trips. It’s as if Jews are doing to the white race what Jewish Mothers had done to their sons over the ages. It’s like what Ramzpaul says about how so many whites have been made more sensitive to black pain than white pain.

    https://rumble.com/vfncxf-a-clockwork-white.html

    Now, in some ways, the analogy of Mao and the Cultural Revolution seems the reverse of what’s been presented above. One could argue Trump has been like Mao whereas Jews and the Deep State have been like Liu & Deng. After all, the Cultural Revolution was an alliance of demagogic Mao and the crowd against the bureaucratic Deep State controlled by Liu and Deng. Prior to Liu’s downfall, he had the bureaucracy on his side. Most people in the state apparatus preferred Liu and Deng over Mao for their relative stability, pragmatism, and consistency. Mao, ever so erratic, seemed unstable and unreliable. Because the deep state of China was solidly with Liu, Mao launched the Cultural Revolution that called on youths all across the nation to converge in Beijing. Then, he ordered the youths to ‘bombard the headquarters’ and to give hell to the bureaucrats and so-called ‘experts’. One may seen parallels between that and Trump’s calling on the Deplorables to come to Washington D.C. on January 6 to send a clear message to politicians and the state, which is 96% Democratic in D.C. And when the Capitol building was stormed, it seemed like Deplorables were having their ‘bombard the headquarters’ moment. But as it turned out, the violence was limited, and most people who entered the building just walked around. And order was soon restored and the whole city was put on military lockdown(something that was denied when the city was aflame during the BLM riots). Indeed, even though Trump sure could work up a crowd, there was very little pro-Trump violence from 2016 to 2020. Trumpian populism was about enthusiasm, not violence. The Red-Guard-like violence came from Antifa types, ‘woke’ mobs, and black thugs. Even college geeks committed more acts of violence than working class Trump supporters. Nothing the Deplorables did resembled the Cultural Revolution or what happened on Kristallnacht in Germany. Indeed, pogrom-like violence were almost entirely carried out by blacks and Antifa types, often with support and protection by the Jewish-run media and Jewish-run legal teams working pro-bono.

    Also, even if one were to note certain parallels between Trump and Mao, the biggest difference is Trump didn’t control the gods whereas Mao did(and went one better by being the god of China). Trump, for all his vanity and swagger, never had godlike aura. He was a star and had star power, but it falls short of divine power. It’s like Muhammad Ali called himself greatest in the ring but was humble before Allah and Muhammad. It’s like Elvis Presley answered the question about him being the ‘King of Rock n Roll’ with “There’s but one King(Jesus)”. Ali and Elvis were stars, not gods. Trump as politician was certainly a star, but he was no god and didn’t control the gods. All said and done, his gods were those controlled by the Jewish Power: Holy Jews and Noble Negroes. He deviated from the other side in not being so totally into globo-homo, but his political bible was about prostrating himself before Jews and Negroes as gods. Even as he reached out to the white masses, he never said anything positive about whiteness, and he did far more for Jews and blacks than he did for whites(which is why his share of the vote among white males dipped in 2020).
    In the US of 2020, it was the Jewish-run deep state that controlled the gods. Thus, it had the Mao-like power. And having such power, it unleashed the American variant of the Cultural Revolution, which might as well be called the Cult Revolution as it’s about the cult of Jews and Negroes.
    On that note, what happened in 2020 America was in reverse dynamics of what happened in 1966 China. In the Chinese Cultural Revolution, Mao called on the mass violence whereas Liu’s deep state sought to contain and control it. In contrast, it was the Jewish-run US deep state that engineered the Cult Revolution of Covid Hysteria and BLM madness, whereas Trump, for all his star power, was helpless to stop or contain it. In more ways than one, Trump was in a far weaker position that Liu and Deng. At the very least, Liu and Deng had the Chinese deep state on their side. But because they were confronted with millions of rabid youths and besides also acknowledged Maoism as the highest law/truth of the land, they could no longer maintain control. In contrast, Trump controlled nothing when the madness of 2020 hit. The deep state was totally controlled by Jews and goy cucks. The military was mostly on the side of the Deep State. All the big city mayors worked with Jews to push the anti-populist agenda. The energized youth, brainwashed by academia-media-pop-culture, were the tools of the Jewish elites. If in the Chinese Cultural Revolution, Liu controlled the deep state whereas Mao controlled the gods and the youth, with the military sitting somewhere in the middle(though ultimately siding with Mao), the Cult Revolution of 2020 America pit Jewish Power that controlled the gods, the deep state, the youth, and most of the military(now a cuck organization) against Trump who controlled nothing but only occupied the office of presidency; he couldn’t even keep his Twitter account. The deplorables were useless to Trump. As most were white, they were devils in the eyes of the gods controlled by Jews. The gods are Jews, blacks, and homos. Whiteness is the new satan in America, therefore the only proper role of whiteness is shame, guilt, self-loathing, and struggle for redemption. If whiteness is satanic, then the sight of whites proudly taking part in politics is blasphemous in the eyes of the current gods. Trump rallied the white crowds but couldn’t salute their identity or inheritance. Appealing to white masses was a double-edged sword. Trump might win over white votes, but his association with white enthusiasm/pride suggested the evil of ‘racism’ and ‘white supremacism’, and of course anything that is mildly pro-white is now deemed ‘white supremacist’. Pro-white politics became the Satanic Strategy according to the gods controlled by Jews. Also, unlike Red Guards who could engage in wanton violence, the Deplorables were mostly nice people. For all the Jewish smears about Trump’s ‘nazi’-like supporters, most Deplorables dared not commit any act of violence, and indeed, most Trumpian violence was in self-defense against blacks and Antifa thugs encouraged by vile Jewish Power.

    Because the Cultural Revolution was so crazy, it seemed only an erratic megalomaniac like Mao would dare let such thing happen. Indeed, it’s difficult to imagine Liu, Deng, and the Chinese deep state pulling such lunacy. It was the child of crazy man Mao.
    But in the America of 2020, it was the deep state that engineered the Cult Revolution. To be sure, the Covid-Hysteria and its controls seemed very deep-statist as it meant more state power over individuals and entire communities. But the BLM riots were something quite else. The deep state, despite its obsession with control, let loose anarchy in the streets(that even went against Covid lockdown dictates) and allowed cities to burn. The deep state even allowed the mobs to attack government buildings and ordered cops to stand back and do nothing. Some have compared this to Color Revolutions, but those were engineered to destroy other nations. What makes 2020 America an outlier is the deep state attacked its own country in chemotherapy manner. But then, who controls the deep state? Jewish Supremacism. Jewish Megalomania > Deep State. Jewish Supremacism regarded Trump and populism to be so malignant(and at odds with total Jewish domination) that radical treatment of especially potent anarcho-tyranny was deemed necessary. Use Covid-19 to gain statist tyranny over the populace and then use the anarcho-madness of BLM to terrorize White America into submission out of fear and/or guilt.

    And yet, after all that, the gods are still the same. Both parties still worship Jews and blacks(and homos). It’s like Mao’s star never faded in China. Even after the Great Leap Forward that destroyed at least 25 million lives, Mao was god. Even after the Cultural Revolution that caused so much damage, he was god. Even after Deng returned to power and embarked on fundamental economic reforms sometime after Mao’s death, Mao still remained god. Even now, when the Chinese economy has nothing to do with Maoism, he is the god of the CCP.
    It seems Jews now possess the same kind of grip over the white world. No matter what Jews do, they are to be praised. This is true even of Russia. After what Jews did to Russia in the 1990s and given the ‘new cold war’ against Russia engineered by Jews, you’d think Putin would be anti-Jewish. But nope, no matter how much Jews abuse Russia, Putin is still all about honoring and praising Jewishness. If the relatively nationalist Russia acts like that, imagine the hold that Jews have over America and EU. Jews got Mao-power or Mao-Pow over the West. Even after all the foreign policy disasters and economic wreckage caused by Jewish Power, all we hear from US and EU politicians, leaders, and public figures is “Muh Israel” and “We worship Jews”.
    Jews really did a number on the West with the Holocaust Narrative that would have us believe wholly innocent Jews were set upon by totally wicked and irrational ‘Anti-Semites’ all through the ages. But so much of what Jews call ‘antisemitic tropes’ are really ‘antisemitic’ truths. Jews need to be toppled from god status for the current madness to ever come to an end. And it’s about time people discussed the Holo-Cause than the Holocaust. Holo-Cause would be an honest examination as to why so many goyim were driven into murderous rage toward Jews. What were the true causes of the events that led to the tragedy of the Holocaust? Sure, there were many bad goy players, but it takes two to tango, and there were plenty of bad Jews. The idea that Jews were totally nice, decent, and wonderful but were mass-murdered for the hell of it is total science fiction… and the basis of Jews being the new-christs of the West.

  4. Phibbs says:

    Jews own our Gentile asses. And this brewing war with Russia has the sticky tentacles of the Jews all over it. (Remember Victoria Nuland handing out cookies? ) Jews dislike Russia because it is white, Christian and friendly to Israel’s enemies (Syria & Iran). Neocons — which is to say Jews advising the illegitimate & senile Biden — are egging this war on.

  5. This Floyd scum got exactly what was coming to him. And yet he is a saint in the satanic religion of Negro Worship. What is utterly contemptible is that the only reason this decent White man is on trial is because Whites are afraid of Negro rioting. If they riot, put down the riot with extreme, draconian violence. The riots will then stop.

  6. There are a few things that Nelson missed, or at least I think he missed.
    – George Floyd’s stomach contents were not analyzed. It is inconceivable that in a case involving suspected injection of drugs, that stomach contents were not analyzed. Nelson ought to have pounded that, on top of the other drugs found in his system.
    – The prosecution’s “cardiologist” claimed Floyd did not have “heart disease”. This is a medical trick. The coronary arteries are technically not “the heart”. Floyd had coronary artery disease, which weakens the heart. Had the cardiologist been questioned along the lines of why are stents put in coronary arteries, or gone back 25 years and asked why people chests were being ripped open for by-passes, if they were no issue for the heart, the fraud would have been easily exposed.
    – The Judge’s charge to the jury was incorrect. He gave an example of direct evidence being you saw a deer in a snow covered field, and indirect evidence being seeing deer tracks in the snow a day later. While indirect evidence of the deer tracks would confirm the same person seeing a deer in the field earlier, absent deer tracks, the person claiming to see the deer is not direct evidence. People have hallucinations. People see apparitions. Absent other evidence corroborating the sighting, such as a photo or deer tracks, the statement of seeing a deer is a narrative or opinion, not evidence.
    https://legaldictionary.net/evidence/
    All of the above is, of course, irrelevant. Chauvin was going to be found guilty even if an autopsy revealed Floyd had a ruptured abdominal aneurysm that was likely leaking while sitting in his own vehicle.

  7. @Phibbs

    Putin has thrown the Jews out of Russia and they are pissed. And Putin is Eastern Orthodox and the Russians are Eastern Orthodox. The Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholics have not been friendly since about 1041 AD when they split for good. The Eastern Orthodox are much more like Protestants than Catholics. They have no pope, no central authority, no holy city. They got screwed by the Catholics’ Crusades.

    I am not certain, but I think the Ukrainians are primarily Catholics. If so, this is basically Eastern European Catholics and Jews threatening Orthodox Christians. Really bad idea. And the Catholics and Jews expect the Protestants to support them. Not this Protestant/Atheist. Time for Protestants to make common cause with the Eastern Orthodox. Support RT.

    With a name like Chauvin, he could be Catholic. If so Biden is throwing him under the bus.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Anastasia Katz Comments via RSS