California's zero bail policy at work

Your obsessions must greatly embarrass any family members you have that tolerate you being around them for any length of time, David.

Unintended consequences.  Let us hope this zero bail policy is temporary.  Maybe this guy in the story would rather spend a few nights in the pokey...three hots and a cot, that sort of thing, yet they keep letting him go, so he tries again.  Sounds like something from The Andy Griffith Show. 

Does this zero bail policy include a "three strikes and you're IN" condition?  Waste of law enforcement time, for one thing.

I think it's a very understandable policy, very much like the one cities across the country (not just liberal socialist commie pinko snowflake Hillary-loving California) are implementing, to release inmates who are nearing the end of their sentences in order to alleviate overcrowding.

Circumstances change. Prison and jail overcrowding is much more of a problem, with much worse consequences, than it was before the pandemic. It is therefore only common sense to temporarily alter the criteria under which we incarcerate people.

There will always be people who try to make political hay out of that by screaming that them LIBURRUL cities is soft on crime, MAGAMAGA sis boom bah. Fox News prints its paychecks precisely by spreading such tommyrot, as I verified this morning by reading their coverage and comparing it to that of legitimate news sources.

Of course Kevin thinks it's a very understandable policy.  I'm shocked.

You mean you are incapable of understanding why the policy was implemented? I'm not shocked.

I don't agree with it, but I understand why it's being done. And that's not because California is a liberal pinko commie socialist Hillary-loving Trump-hating snowflake state.

If you truly don't understand the reasoning behind the new policy (whether or not you agree with it), then your shrinking Trumper brain is smaller than I thought.

And so it begins......Michael FLynn - the guy who got busted for telling Russia he would urge the incoming president to ease sanctions put in place due to Russia's meddling in our election....and then lied about it to the FBI.    That guy.    He's a free man today because our president and his attorney general are traitors to the UNited States and are setting free  a federal felon who was acting against our democracy.

So tell me again about California liberals setting criminals free or something?   The joy ride guy?  OOoo!

PJ - were you physicaly there when Flynn told Russia what you claim he said? Or are you doing your normal idiotic rant without any real proof? I know that you were not there, therefore, my second statement is odds on to be correct. Can I help you with anything else?

The fact that he got busted for saying those things is pretty good proof that he did indeed say them.

And "were you there" is an idiotic, pointless rhetorical question. You don't have to have been physically present at a conversation to know that it took place.

And for that matter, Stalker wasn't there, either. So claiming that he knows what Flynn said, even though he wasn't there, and then challenging PJ because he wasn't there, either--well, can you say "hypocritical," boys and girls? I knew you could!

Here is Mike Flynn under oath, stipulating to the charge and pleading guilty:

Judge Emmet Sullivan, Dec 2018: "Do you wish to challenge the circumstances under which you were interviewed by the FBI?”

Mike Flynn: “No, your honor. I was aware that lying to the FBI was a crime.”

Judge: " Do you believe that you were entrapped by the FBI?"

Flynn: "No."

Kevin says -"And "were you there" is an idiotic, pointless rhetorical question. You don't have to have been physically present at a conversation to know that it took place.

And for that matter, Stalker wasn't there, either. So claiming that he knows what Flynn said, even though he wasn't there, and then challenging PJ because he wasn't there, either--well, can you say "hypocritical," boys and girls? I knew you could" -------------------------------   First of all there is no way , unless there is video proof or taped wiretapping, that anyone can know what was said during a conversation unless one is there. So that makes Kevins statement false. Secondly, I never claimed I personaly know what Flynn said - that is Kevin lying again.