close to the sketch. crooked politicians and political appointees in california spent more than two weeks trying to keep this photo from going public. why? was it really that bad? pretty handsome for a drunk 82-year-old. initially napa county claimed this would jeopardize the investigation. did it jeopardize? of course not. they were just trying to protect the most powerful democrat in california nancy pelosi. and the most powerful woman in america, sorry, kamala. it s worth noting they sent this to all the other media outlets before fox. even though we were the only network that asked for it so they are bitter. now, i know what you are thinking. this isn t about politics. this is about fairness. we just want to know what happened. and we re entitled to the same information they would release about any other dui arrest like someone lo married to california royalty. the d.a. is still stonewalling though on the dash cam, the body cam and the drunk tank cam we re not going to
out, right? and then when you and fox went and tried get dash cam video footage and the mugshot, then the d.a. is saying well, wait a minute, we are not sure we are going to charge him with anything. how in the heck did you then take him to get booked? you have to have evidence before you take somebody to arrest them to get booked. the evidence, for example is what you are talking about. did he do a breathalyzer test? if i did, what was the result? it was above .08? i bet it was or they wouldn t have taken him in to get booked. if he refused that did he do a blood test. if he refused that, did he do a sobriety test? what was the result of the sobriety test? this tells me that after he was booked and he wailed out, that the whole platted form changed here and they stopped you from getting information that you are entitled to, there is a law in california ab 754, 2019 law you are entitled to that dash cam footage unless that d.a. can show clear and convincing