its been official for some long time. We now have two types of justice in this country, One for rich elites and another for the peons. We all should know by now that Mr Pelosi will never be tried and convicted for his offense. He will contribute some of their ill gotten wealth to a charity for drunk driver victims and all will be forgotten and the Pelosi's will once again be invited on all the AAA lists of parties that libs attend.

With regards to the different news outlets, it's funny that some are calling it "suspicion of DUI"

This is incorrect. SUSPICION of DUI is what allows the cop to pull them over. Then, they gather evidence........field sobriety test/observations and breathalyzer on site.

If they flunk the tests they go to the police station and have an extremely accurate/precise , well calibrated machine test them for definitive proof. Then they are charged with a DUI and the suspicion was a long time ago.

Since he was arrested and booked, the suspicion part is not just misleading but it's FALSE. The indisputable evidence was a pre requisite for him to be CHARGED and booked for this crime. 

Pelosi's husband was arrested on suspicion of DUI in California

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/30/1102036672/paul-pelosi-husband-arrest-dui

I would like to see his BAC level before commenting.

There are serious factors that make a huge difference here. I had DUI's when the drinking age was 18 and I was 18-20 in Detroit and am a non drinking alcoholic that has spent thousands of hours learning about the disease and treatments. My youngest son, has one of the most severe alcoholic brains that exists and can get up to .50+, 6 times the legal limit and be up funtioning. Most people pass out before .30 and many die above .40.

1. Was his BAC .10-ish or was it .20-ish?

2. Since there was an accident, the cops may have been required to charge him but each jurisdiction is different.

3. Did he cause the accident? What were the circumstances and how bad was the accident. Was anybody hurt?

4. Was he cooperative? Honest?  If you want to get hauled in the quickest, lie to the officer about how much you had to drink(trust me, their field breathalyzer is just  like a lie detector test) or tell them who you are, trying to intimidate them.

5. I was involved in an accident in Evansville while on tv, back in 1987 coming from a party in the afternoon with a 24 pack that only had a few beers left in the back seat(because other people drank most of it). This was before the field breathalyzers. My first statement was that I only had a couple of beers. Then they took me in because of the accident and when I was in the back of their car, I changed my statement and said. OK, the truth is I had 5 beers and I'm so sorry for lying to you at first. You guys can tell when somebody is lying and I totally understand that you're just doing your jobs and you'll see, when I take the breathalyzer that I'm telling the truth this time.  At that point, they were probably expecting a really high reading.

It was .07, which was just below the DUI limit and confirmed my truth but I still could have received an impaired driving charge because of the accident ..........and it could have wrecked my career.  Anything higher than .07 and they would have had no choice but to give me a DUI. For sure they were swayed by my attitude which was also very remorseful about drinking and driving and acknowledged accountability.

They let me go with no charges. Part of this, was probably because they knew charges would probably wreck my career and I was such an honest, remorseful guy that didn't deserve that for drinking 5 beers and driving.

I immediately called our news director, who was a rip roaring alcoholic. Extremely brilliant guy but would call extremely drunk in the evenings/weekends and have double martini's with his lunches.

I was concerned that this story might leak out and mess up the TV station or me.

He wanted to know the BAC. I told him. So we just waited to see if the media learned about the story(like they would have today).

Not a peep. Dodged a bullet.

So, I'll wait to hear more about this before forming an opinion.

And so what if Nancy Pelosi's husband drove drunk?

The only reason it's news is that his wife is Nancy Pelosi and far right sources want to attach profound significance to it.

Edit: Rewrote the statement above to better clarify the meaning, thanks to Tim's astute observation!

1. The only reason it's news is that his wife is Nancy Pelosi.

2. Far right sources want to attach more profound significance to it.

After that however, my insurance company, American Family cancelled the policy.

I went in to dispute the decision because there were no charges and no tickets.

The board had a  discussion about this and decided they didn't want to insure a high profile celebrity that drank and drove(it was in the police report they got) and could make me a target for a million dollar lawsuit in the future. Not worth their risk.........end of story.

I appealed and lost.

We found Farm Bureau Insurance after that and have been with them ever since. Awesome car insurance. Blessing in disguise.

The only reason it's news is that his wife is Nancy Pelosi and far right sources want to attach profound significance to it.

So now ABC News is a "Far Right Source"?

LOL.  Wow MM,  you've really gone over to the dark side <G>

Let me help clarify the meaning intended from that statement Tim, so you don't have to worry about me going over to the dark side (-:

original statement: The only reason it's news is that his wife is Nancy Pelosi and far right sources want to attach profound significance to it.

1. The only reason it's news is that his wife is Nancy Pelosi.

2. Far right sources want to attach more profound significance to it.

My poorly written sentence was misleading and should have been 2 independent sentences. Thanks very much for noticing, Tim by getting the wrong idea and commenting because, seriously, you are correct.

You will note that I demonstrated this idea with an article from very left leaning NPR that was not even calling it him being arrested or charged but instead, calling it "suspicion" which is the stage when the cop first pulls over somebody or comes to the scene of an incident and have no concrete evidence yet to charge the offender.

If you want the truth, I'm making more verbiage mistakes, and grammar errors(spell check saves me) than I have in my life and I get enough practice typing here, so that I should be flawless.

But I seriously think I'm just getting old and maybe have brain damage from decades ago when I was an extreme type drinker.

So this story has special meaning to me because I know a thing or 2 or 1,000 about excessive drinking.

ORRR, I could just be getting careless with my proof reading because I'm so busy and post so much!

Another basic premise of the Bill of Rights is "presumption of innocence until proven guilty" and it's crucial to due process.

So, everyone is a suspect, all charges are alleged, all charges are based on suspicion until the defendant is convicted in a court of law.

It's quite apparent that many of our citizens have apparently forgotten this crucial and basic foundation of our system of justice.

This is true Tim but he was CHARGED with a crime (booked) because of overwhelming evidence, an incredibly accurate breathalyzer and other items we don't know about.

If he blew a .08, I will have more sympathy for him than if it was .18.

Laws have to be universal and apply equally to everyone but practicing alcoholics can perform at .10 and lower almost as well as sober, maybe even better if sober means withdrawal. Much higher levels.....not so much and much higher levels, especially for a person this age means severe alcoholism is likely and a very compromised ability to drive because old people's reflexes are already compromised from age.

People can sometimes beat the system for a crime they committed with a good lawyer that noticed the cops slipping up and not following procedure.

This is exactly why I said, I'm waiting to find out more here because initial facts are missing to many variables.

Cops can charge people with intoxication, for instance if they are under the influence of "something" which won't show up in a breathalyzer or drug test.

Dextromethorphin in cough and other medicines, for instance is sometimes abused by people and there is no test for it, except maybe a blood test, which the person can refuse. 

It gives them a unique "high" described below. My youngest son was using it for an extended period to evade my drug tests...........but I wised up after he OD'd on it.

It causes your blood pressure and pulse to sky rocket to readings like 160/90 and 100+ and this is a young person. 

EDIT: Watching this in the ER with him on monitors, gave me a great idea!

So when he came home messed up, I checked his BP and pulse. Actually saved me alot of money on drug tests because a BP measuring unit can be used many  hundreds of times until it needs more batteries.

 The kids abusing it in this area almost 2 decades ago called it C3s.

Everything You Need to Know About Robotripping

https://www.healthline.com/health/robotripping

DXM

https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/DXM-2020.pdf

They're calling the shooter in Buffalo the Alledged/suspected shooter.  They have videos and witnesses.

This is typical.   I've already exaplained why.

Alleged Buffalo shooter Payton Gendron's plan shared online just before attack (nypost.com)  

Thanks Tim!

I get it.