Nancy Pelosi’s husband Paul, 82, arrested for DUI

[Thaidup]

Actual news,

https://nypost.com/2022/05/29/nancy-pelosis-husband-paul-82-arrested-for-dui-report/amp/

[23RD]

Prominent Democrat don't expect any form of justice as seen last week in the Sussman case.

 

[TopDeadSenter]

no mugshot released even after several conservative media outlets bdgering the SF cops for it. No dashcam and officer cam footage of the arrest. No pretence that bigshot democrats are liable under the law of the land.

Pelosi's BS is aging like a bag of prawns in the sun.

 

'No one is above the law'

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/05/nancy-pelosi-full-trump-impeachment-statement

 

[Smithydog]

Seems to me the US justice system has followed usual practice. Crime committed, person arrested, person charged, court date set, bail set and posted for the misdemeanors and then released. Appears the normal process for such infringements has been followed. Or are you expecting the 82 year old to be locked up in the slammer with the drug bosses etc?

That is despite that silly Republican Rep Lauren Boebert of Colorado claiming otherwise. This report which includes a statement from the police clearly shows that.

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/06/posts-misrepresent-status-of-paul-pelosis-dui-charges/

Just another example of false partisan garbage. 

[Thaidup]

3 hours ago, Smithydog said:

Seems to me the US justice system has followed usual practice. Crime committed, person arrested, person charged, court date set, bail set and posted for the misdemeanors and then released. Appears the normal process for such infringements has been followed. Or are you expecting the 82 year old to be locked up in the slammer with the drug bosses etc?

No, we just want to see all the pics and footage so we have laugh, no harm in that,, Biden's son has it out there. And its public property. The PD had no problems releasing this one.

[Smithydog]

Your choice.

But to me, the desire to make fun out of such a thing just reveals the true immaturity of a person as does the desire to make political gain out of it. 

Politicians maybe fair game but leave the spouses and their families out of it in my opinion. 

[Thaidup]

On 6/11/2022 at 5:23 PM, Smithydog said:

Your choice.

But to me, the desire to make fun out of such a thing just reveals the true immaturity of a person as does the desire to make political gain out of it. 

Politicians maybe fair game but leave the spouses and their families out of it in my opinion. 

They are both Multi Millionaires since Nancy got into politics, both fair game,, And No-one said to "make Fun " of them, I said we can have a laugh, unless that is tooooo politically incorrect, My generation is fine with making jokes about ourselves, might be a reason why we had less killings back then Hey?

[Smithydog]

4 hours ago, Thaidup said:

They are both Multi Millionaires since Nancy got into politics, both fair game,, And No-one said to "make Fun " of them, I said we can have a laugh, unless that is tooooo politically incorrect, My generation is fine with making jokes about ourselves, might be a reason why we had less killings back then Hey?

He is not the politician. I am from the same generation based on your profile and like many see no moral standing for someone to "have a laugh" at someone else's misfortune, whether it was accidently, intended or just through being stupid.

In fact, any people that did were were usually ignored or received the derision that justifiably they had earnt. Even at the pub!

You feel quite happy to have his photos paraded around for all to see. All for what? To just have a laugh at him. 

Sad that people need to look at the misfortunate of others or their real life stupidity for a source of "just having a laugh". Go watch some freely available comedy shows if you want a laugh, and support the real working comedians. Leave the man alone.

[23RD]

5 hours ago, Thaidup said:

They are both Multi Millionaires since Nancy got into politics,

Probably from all the insider trading they've been doing. 

[hardright]

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/jun/13/paul-pelosi-mugshot-released-after-nancy-pelosis-h/

 

Edited June 17, 2022 by hardright

[Thaidup]

On 6/14/2022 at 7:47 AM, Smithydog said:

He is not the politician. I am from the same generation based on your profile and like many see no moral standing for someone to "have a laugh" at someone else's misfortune, whether it was accidently, intended or just through being stupid.

In fact, any people that did were were usually ignored or received the derision that justifiably they had earnt. Even at the pub!

You feel quite happy to have his photos paraded around for all to see. All for what? To just have a laugh at him. 

Sad that people need to look at the misfortunate of others or their real life stupidity for a source of "just having a laugh". Go watch some freely available comedy shows if you want a laugh, and support the real working comedians. Leave the man alone.

Ever ask why? Smitty. Why do rich people have the police hide their mugshots and bodycam footage hidden from the taxpayer unless FOI requests are submitted to a court?

[TopDeadSenter]

Interesting it turns out there's now a witness to the crash. Someone walking alone at 2am? or as Jesse Waters theorizes, the witness could have been in Paul's car during the drunken joyride which would certainly account for the difficulty getting the cam footage released as it would have been when a "normal" citizen gets nabbed for DUI. When the cat's away hey!

[Smithydog]

9 hours ago, Thaidup said:

Ever ask why? Smitty. Why do rich people have the police hide their mugshots and bodycam footage hidden from the taxpayer unless FOI requests are submitted to a court?

No, I don't. I simply understand the legal rights to privacy. What legal right do you have to interfere with my personal affairs? 

For your information, it is not just the rich whose mugshots are withheld by many of the Police Forces in California. The following article may help you understand the change that happened and decisions made by some individual police departments.

https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2021/07/28/new-state-law-prohibits-law-enforcement-from-posting-mugshots-on-social-media

Here is the law if you are interested in the rights of people under Californian law. If they can prove they have a justifiable right to the disclosure of personal information, then they can follow the law and make a suitable application. Seems a perfectly fair and balanced option for all. Protects the innocent until proven guilty and yet allows others to prove such should be visible.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=CIV&division=3.&title=1.8.&part=4.&chapter=1.&article=6.

I would suggest though that requesting a copy of the mugshot just to satisfy some sort of irrational desire to embarrass people further, many of who have already been embarrassed by their actions, wouldn't meet the grade for disclosure.

People must be desperate if they feel the only way they can sell their story or get their thrills / joy joys is by seeing a mugshot. And after all the work those people went into embarrassing themselves whilst creating Jackass and Funny Home Videos! They at least supplied it of their own free will.

Quite frankly, there are after all, far more important things happening in the US and the world right now.

 

[Thaidup]

25 minutes ago, Smithydog said:

Quite frankly, there are after all, far more important things happening in the US and the world right now.

Yes, And some comic relief is well deserved, especially when directed at those who put us all in this period.

Your first link is dated 2021, so I skipped over it, I instantly presume Newsum is covering for his mismanagement.

The 2nd link in the first line explains that it is fine to expose those charged, but not people that are not involved, (plain english)

  

An agency shall not disclose any personal information in a manner that would link the information disclosed to the individual to whom it pertains unless the information is disclosed, as follows:

 

(a) To the individual to whom the information pertains

 

 

 

 

[Thaidup]

The updates are he has been charged for DUI causing Injury.

https://news.yahoo.com/nancy-pelosis-husband-paul-pelosi-002253793.html

[Smithydog]

1 hour ago, Thaidup said:

Yes, And some comic relief is well deserved, especially when directed at those who put us all in this period.

Your first link is dated 2021, so I skipped over it, I instantly presume Newsum is covering for his mismanagement.

The 2nd link in the first line explains that it is fine to expose those charged, but not people that are not involved, (plain english)

  

An agency shall not disclose any personal information in a manner that would link the information disclosed to the individual to whom it pertains unless the information is disclosed, as follows:

(a) To the individual to whom the information pertains

 

So by your own admission, you ignore the law  through your own ignorance! Interesting interpretation. Does that mean any law prior to today's date can be ignored? Or do you only pick the laws that suit your position

And are you serious?

You are quoting "To the individual to whom the information pertains" as your rebuttal. You do realise this means they can disclose the information only to those people the information is directly about. In this case that would be the mugshot to the person who committed the alleged crime. No-one else!

Are you suggesting that person should release their own mugshot so people can laugh at him?

Did you have permission to show the picture of the person you did in your post?

You also stated, "especially when directed at those who put us all in this period." remember, your words, not mine. So please enlighten us to what this man has done to put us all in this period. His wife is the decision maker, not him. She is the politician, not him.

If you have any sensible evidence that his personal actions did anything to "put us all in this" I am happy to read it.

As to the influence of Governor Gavin Newsom, the original privacy was codified under the California Public Records Act.  This was signed by then Governor Ronald Reagan. Gavin Newsom was 11 months old, and whilst I acknowledge politicians, often to some, speak in a manner that could be thought more like a baby, I hardly think he was capable of much influence at that time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Public_Records_Act

As to the original act I mentioned, that you ignore, for the record it was passed 74-0 by the California Senate with 5 Abstentions, before the Governor could sign or veto it. This included 15 out of 17 Republicans voting Yes. A true bi-partisan measure by the looks of it and not subject to bias like you seem to have.

https://openstates.org/vote/64c2ee7e-c2b1-40b7-a747-b378d84da614/

I would suggest you fight for your jolly's elsewhere in a different state as it seems the Californians are not going to satisfy your petty needs. 

[Guest1]

On 6/17/2022 at 6:37 PM, hardright said:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/jun/13/paul-pelosi-mugshot-released-after-nancy-pelosis-h/

Is that really a mugshot? I am missing the lines and the name plate.

Aside, didn't they release that one ONLY, because fake mugshots started to pop up?

[riclag]

1 hour ago, Smithydog said:

So by your own admission, you ignore the law  through your own ignorance! Interesting interpretation. Does that mean any law prior to today's date can be ignored? Or do you only pick the laws that suit your position

And are you serious?

You are quoting "To the individual to whom the information pertains" as your rebuttal. You do realise this means they can disclose the information only to those people the information is directly about. In this case that would be the mugshot to the person who committed the alleged crime. No-one else!

Are you suggesting that person should release their own mugshot so people can laugh at him?

Did you have permission to show the picture of the person you did in your post?

You also stated, "especially when directed at those who put us all in this period." remember, your words, not mine. So please enlighten us to what this man has done to put us all in this period. His wife is the decision maker, not him. She is the politician, not him.

If you have any sensible evidence that his personal actions did anything to "put us all in this" I am happy to read it.

As to the influence of Governor Gavin Newsom, the original privacy was codified under the California Public Records Act.  This was signed by then Governor Ronald Reagan. Gavin Newsom was 11 months old, and whilst I acknowledge politicians, often to some, speak in a manner that could be thought more like a baby, I hardly think he was capable of much influence at that time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Public_Records_Act

As to the original act I mentioned, that you ignore, for the record it was passed 74-0 by the California Senate with 5 Abstentions, before the Governor could sign or veto it. This included 15 out of 17 Republicans voting Yes. A true bi-partisan measure by the looks of it and not subject to bias like you seem to have.

https://openstates.org/vote/64c2ee7e-c2b1-40b7-a747-b378d84da614/

I would suggest you fight for your jolly's elsewhere in a different state as it seems the Californians are not going to satisfy your petty needs. 

Face it @Thaidup you chose the wrong words “so we have laugh”! Imop

Maybe so we could ridicule the Polosi’s, might of been better!

When i first saw the story I immediately thought I hope he is held accountable like everyone else.But they dismissed what seems was the first charges, I was pissed off.

Now he’s back! I too wish them embarrassment and all manifestations of plague and accountability.

 

[Smithydog]

No charges have been dismissed, despite fake social media posts (once again) to the contrary. Here is the official media release from the District Attorney.

https://www.countyofnapa.org/DocumentCenter/View/25620/Press-Release---Injury-Charges-Filed-against-Paul-Pelosi-6232022

The photo was released by the Department of Corrections, they say under an established policy and he was treated the same way as all alleged offenders.

 "In the days after Mr. Pelosi’s arrest, Napa County followed the Department of Corrections’ policy regarding the release of booking photos and mugshots. Mr. Pelosi received the same treatment under that policy that all individuals released from County Jail receive."

https://news.yahoo.com/napa-county-authorities-release-paul-212728090.html

So despite the desires of some, the beliefs of others, his advanced age, and his wife, they appear to have done everything in line with what they do for other alleged offenders. 

For those wanting to see his mugshot. Well now you have seen it. Print it out and stick it on the wall. 

Kids are being killed at school by guns in the USA. Political divides, led by a lying ex-President, and garbage is at an all time high. Climate change is threatening our planet. People, soldiers, civilians, and innocent kids are being killed in a terrible war.

Yet what you are interested in....to laugh at a picture of an 82 year old man, not because he has done something to inspire real humour in these negative times, but because he was stupid, broke the law, and was caught.

That tells us all volumes about your moral thinking or lack thereof.

[riclag]

40 minutes ago, Smithydog said:

No charges have been dismissed, despite fake social media posts (once again) to the contrary. Here is the official media release from the District Attorney.

https://www.countyofnapa.org/DocumentCenter/View/25620/Press-Release---Injury-Charges-Filed-against-Paul-Pelosi-6232022

The photo was released by the Department of Corrections, they say under an established policy and he was treated the same way as all alleged offenders.

 "In the days after Mr. Pelosi’s arrest, Napa County followed the Department of Corrections’ policy regarding the release of booking photos and mugshots. Mr. Pelosi received the same treatment under that policy that all individuals released from County Jail receive."

https://news.yahoo.com/napa-county-authorities-release-paul-212728090.html

So despite the desires of some, the beliefs of others, his advanced age, and his wife, they appear to have done everything in line with what they do for other alleged offenders. 

For those wanting to see his mugshot. Well now you have seen it. Print it out and stick it on the wall. 

Kids are being killed at school by guns in the USA. Political divides, led by a lying ex-President, and garbage is at an all time high. Climate change is threatening our planet. People, soldiers, civilians, and innocent kids are being killed in a terrible war.

Yet what you are interested in....to laugh at a picture of an 82 year old man, not because he has done something to inspire real humour in these negative times, but because he was stupid, broke the law, and was caught.

That tells us all volumes about your moral thinking or lack thereof.

I got caught up in that social media misinformation ! Glad to see the charges not dropped and for him to get everything he deserves!

[Thaidup]

I tend to wonder, if, would he have gotten away with it without some social media people wanting to see the "mug shot"? And the next question is, What would happen to you or me if we smashed our car into another car and injured a third party when driving drunk?

[Smithydog]

10 hours ago, Thaidup said:

I tend to wonder, if, would he have gotten away with it without some social media people wanting to see the "mug shot"? And the next question is, What would happen to you or me if we smashed our car into another car and injured a third party when driving drunk?

You would be arrested charged, held overnight until bail hearing, and either posted bail and released or held pending fronting court again if you couldn't post bail.

That is how the justice system works in reality. Exactly, like it was done for him! Do you have any evidence that this process was not followed?

As has been in previous posts, the district attorney's office in that county does not release mug shots. He has to be held in the county lock up for that to happen, even though I disagree they should release the mug shot of anyone held on charges.  So it would have zero influence on them or their decisions.

The desire to try and place a spin on something that simply lacks evidence of to support does not support a "one rule for all" principle, negating any apparent desires for all to be treated the same way.

Just for the record, as far as I am concerned they can throw the book at him if convicted in court. But if you want people to be treated fairly and equally, you have to start with everyone being put through the same process, with the same rights, in the same manner. No exceptions.