Oh, oh…we’ve got a mugshot but…still pondering.
California Sheriff’s Office Releases Paul Pelosi’s Mugshot as DA Ponders Charges of Alleged Drunk Driving
Finally. Amazing how these decisions don’t take this long for the peasants who get caught drinking and driving.
It only took a month for libs to understand it isn’t going away and if you attempt to shuffle it under the table, it will only exacerbate this whole situation. Charging him was the lessor of Nancy’s evils.
It wasn’t the libs prophesising that nothing will happen to him. It only took a month for you guys to be wrong …. Again.
Uh, huh…it always takes a month to decide when a person runs a stop sign, causes a wreck with another car, blows greater than the legal standard for a DUI…whether or not they should be charged.
1 Like
True. Clearly there was pondering based on celebrity status money etc. but i guess the fact checkers weren’t false?
2 Likes
There can’t be anything criminal in this because Nancy said, she’s a practicing Catholic and one would then have to ask, would Jesus have done the same thing?
Sounds like classic insider trading.
1 Like
Corruption of just or any other corrupt bureaucrats will do a ■■■■■■■ thing…Pelosi’s are untouchable.
1 Like
Doesnt matter what letter they have after their name, they and their families all have their snouts in the trough.
I am sure some enter public service to serve but they soon end up like all the rest.
2 Likes
I hope he is convicted and sentenced to the maximum sentence allowed by law.
Perhaps a harsh punishment will detour him. Taking away/ suspending the license of someone who can afford a driver doesn’t do much.
I can see if the guy was stumbling drunk, but lets be real here. He was what, just barely over the limit? It would have been fine in 1999. Someone that never drank before would probably feel woozy, but him, his body at rest probably has a BAC of .08. By law he was drunk. But he was not actually drunk.
Do you think he was ignorant of the law?
Do you think he was unable to call an Uber?
I don’t care who he is, who he married to, what his political persuasion is.
No and no. But do I care? No. He wasn’t drunk and decided to drive home like he probably did 1000 times. Just like a ton of people do every day. I’m more concerned with people so intoxicated that it puts others lives at risk. I’m not so concerned over the strict definition of what the law has to say about being drunk. I’m concerned over actually someone driving drunk. And this is coming from someone that can’t stand these democrats.
1 Like
I don’t think that people who have been drinking and are above the legal limit should be deciding whether they are okay or not .
You said it yourself he’s probably done it 1,000 times. I know that the person that killed my son had done it many times before and was let go actually. And now he is serving 35 years in prison. He killed 2 people.
So, I do not agree.
I hate to bring up my personal stuff like this, but I don’t know how else to make people see that this is a horrible thing to do. There is no excuse, and drinking and driving ruins peoples lives.
How else can you curb this behavior other than seriously harsh punishments before they kill someone?
Sorry to hear that, I can’t begin to imagine something like that. Someone I knew from work was killed by a drunk driver about 2 years ago. He was a repeat offender and currently driving without a license. In the wrong direction.
My point was that it doesn’t take much to be .08. But your last sentence makes a lot of sense, and I didn’t consider it. It only takes once to drive after you’ve had too much. Better to discourage it beforehand. Even though there are some that still never learn.
1 Like
It’s 2022, want to go out drinking, get an uber.
1 Like
…and what happened to Martha Stewart for doing that? I guess this…is different?
1 Like
I’m guessing Martha Stewart’s insider trading pales in comparison to the Pelosi’s trading as well.
1 Like
