Don't forget this idiot's support of the insurrectionists in Minnesota after George Floyd's overdose:

"Harris' tough talk about serving as a prosecutor in California may crumble quickly due to her past support for the Minnesota Freedom Fund in June 2020 amid Black Lives Matter riots following the death of George Floyd."

Trump and RNC need to press this point at every opportunity.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/politics/harris-backing-bail-fund-during-george-floyd-protests-dampens-trump-prosecutor-campaign-pitch.amp

Bill Maher just *NUKED* Kamala from orbit 🔥pic.twitter.com/LqCiiIcGvn

— Kyle Becker (@kylenabecker) July 27, 2024

Does not fit the Democratic narrative . REJECT, CONFUSE, DENY, FORGET.

Lefties are all over the Internet gaslighting that she didn't support it.

Things Kamal did that lefties now claim she did not:

1. Rated most liberal Senator by GovTrack
2. Appointed border "czar" and failed miserably
3. Supported helping criminals get out on no bail

The 2024 election cycle isn't going to be like 2020. No covid to control the masses. Elon allowing free speech on Twitter acting as a truth detector to Democrat lies and legacy media censorship. And most of all, almost four years of the worst administration in my lifetime.

Maher is a jerk, but he's right to go after Harris. She's earned every bit of the scorn and ridicule she gets.

Lol, so CBS says Kamala did not donate, Trump is lying, she just encouraged everyone else to donate:

CBS lies about Trump lying pic.twitter.com/GLmm8u6Mqr

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 26, 2024

Bill is an interesting character. He's a classic liberal and not an radical leftist. He'll have an honest discussion and I've heard interviews where he and the host just agreed to disagree and move onto the next topic where they continued vigorous but polite debate. For example, he was on with Megyn Kelly (episode 797 I believe on her YouTube).

What's interesting, he has very strong views on Trump and has stated that in no way would he be able to ever support Trump.

It seems here he's no fan of Harris either. So I wonder what he decides to do in November.

I posted similarly yesterday but I'll repeat it here: there is no reason to be ashamed of supporting the Minnesota Freedom Fund in the first place.

Their mission is to provide bail money for people who couldn't otherwise afford it. These people are already eligible for bail according to the courts, the only question is can they afford it. And these are people accused of a crime, not convicted of one.

Can anyone give me one good reason that poor people eligible for bail should be forced to stay in jail while people with access to money go free? How is that not inherently unjust to the poor?

Rocag said:

---

I posted similarly yesterday but I'll repeat it here: there is no reason to be ashamed of supporting the Minnesota Freedom Fund in the first place.

Their mission is to provide bail money for people who couldn't otherwise afford it. These people are already eligible for bail according to the courts, the only question is can they afford it. And these are people accused of a crime, not convicted of one.

Can anyone give me one good reason that poor people eligible for bail should be forced to stay in jail while people with access to money go free? How is that not inherently unjust to the poor?

---

How is it that all of a sudden typical bail bond process is an unworkable solution for so many?

Rocag said:

---

I posted similarly yesterday but I'll repeat it here: there is no reason to be ashamed of supporting the Minnesota Freedom Fund in the first place.

Their mission is to provide bail money for people who couldn't otherwise afford it. These people are already eligible for bail according to the courts, the only question is can they afford it. And these are people accused of a crime, not convicted of one.

Can anyone give me one good reason that poor people eligible for bail should be forced to stay in jail while people with access to money go free? How is that not inherently unjust to the poor?

---

Let's see. If you don't participate in a riot then you don't need bail money regardless of your income.

It really isn't that hard.

bill maher is a broken clock he is right twice a day. but when he is right i like what he has to say.

Logos Stick said:

---

Lefties are all over the Internet gaslighting that she didn't support it.

Things Kamal did that lefties now claim she did not:

1. Rated most liberal Senator by GovTrack
2. Appointed border "czar" and failed miserably
3. Supported helping criminals get out on no bail

---

This is going to grow. I think the fracking ban statement and Afghanistan debacle are next. It's eventually going to be a list of 20+ things she "didn't say or do".

Rocag said:

---

I posted similarly yesterday but I'll repeat it here: there is no reason to be ashamed of supporting the Minnesota Freedom Fund in the first place.

Their mission is to provide bail money for people who couldn't otherwise afford it. These people are already eligible for bail according to the courts, the only question is can they afford it. And these are people accused of a crime, not convicted of one.

Can anyone give me one good reason that poor people eligible for bail should be forced to stay in jail while people with access to money go free? How is that not inherently unjust to the poor?

---

The intent of bail is to put a bounty of sorts to ensure that you return to court. Generally if you cannot afford the entire balance then you can go to a bondsman that will, for a fee, post the money on your behalf. I've always presumed that those characters have some seedy back-ally type guys that are more than happy to ensure that you show up to court and the boss gets his money back.

Getting out of jail before your trial is a courtesy and a privilege. It is NOT a right. No where in our founding documents is it listed that you have a right to walk as a free man between your arrest/arraignment and your trial. You simply have a right to a speedy and fair trial before a jury of your peers.

Bail is not a charity that is required.

It's not at all sudden. This has long been a criticism of the bail process. Several states have actually changed their laws regarding bail over the past decade or two to try and address this concern. For example, Alaska and New Jersey no longer require cash bail at all. Illinois is also in the process of eliminating it.

This is actually a very common criticism of the criminal justice system. I'm surprised you think it is recent.

BuddysBud said:

---

Rocag said:

---

I posted similarly yesterday but I'll repeat it here: there is no reason to be ashamed of supporting the Minnesota Freedom Fund in the first place.

Their mission is to provide bail money for people who couldn't otherwise afford it. These people are already eligible for bail according to the courts, the only question is can they afford it. And these are people accused of a crime, not convicted of one.

Can anyone give me one good reason that poor people eligible for bail should be forced to stay in jail while people with access to money go free? How is that not inherently unjust to the poor?

---

Let's see. If you don't participate in a riot then you don't need bail money regardless of your income.

It really isn't that hard.

---

Well thank God no one has ever been accused of a crime that they didn't actually commit!

45-70Ag said:

---

Bill Maher just *NUKED* Kamala from orbit 🔥pic.twitter.com/LqCiiIcGvn

— Kyle Becker (@kylenabecker) July 27, 2024

---

Why is it popular to have in your face captions in the middle of short vertical videos?

Rocag said:

---

BuddysBud said:

---

Rocag said:

---

I posted similarly yesterday but I'll repeat it here: there is no reason to be ashamed of supporting the Minnesota Freedom Fund in the first place.

Their mission is to provide bail money for people who couldn't otherwise afford it. These people are already eligible for bail according to the courts, the only question is can they afford it. And these are people accused of a crime, not convicted of one.

Can anyone give me one good reason that poor people eligible for bail should be forced to stay in jail while people with access to money go free? How is that not inherently unjust to the poor?

---

Let's see. If you don't participate in a riot then you don't need bail money regardless of your income.

It really isn't that hard.

---

Well thank God no one has ever been accused of a crime that they didn't actually commit!

---

They were caught in the act.

Rocag said:

---

It's not at all sudden. This has long been a criticism of the bail process. Several states have actually changed their laws regarding bail over the past decade or two to try and address this concern. For example, Alaska and New Jersey no longer require cash bail at all. Illinois is also in the process of eliminating it.

This is actually a very common criticism of the criminal justice system. I'm surprised you think it is recent.

---

And it's completely idiotic.

Rocag said:

---

It's not at all sudden. This has long been a criticism of the bail process. Several states have actually changed their laws regarding bail over the past decade or two to try and address this concern. For example, Alaska and New Jersey no longer require cash bail at all. Illinois is also in the process of eliminating it.

This is actually a very common criticism of the criminal justice system. I'm surprised you think it is recent.

---

Elimination of cash bail is tantamount to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I will agree that bail was never intended to be punitive. However it should be scaled to create a hardship commiserate with both the severity of the crime and to ensure the accused returns to face trial.

I'd argue that the loss of bail money is a minor concern compared to the consequences of violating the conditions of bail for someone who is considering it. And if removing cash bail needs to come with harsher penalties for breaking bail then that's understandable.

Also, I do not care about the protesters or any individual case you might be talking about. If the courts said they are eligible for bail then they are eligible for bail, end of story.

Rocag said:

---

It's not at all sudden. This has long been a criticism of the bail process. Several states have actually changed their laws regarding bail over the past decade or two to try and address this concern. For example, Alaska and New Jersey no longer require cash bail at all. Illinois is also in the process of eliminating it.

This is actually a very common criticism of the criminal justice system. I'm surprised you think it is recent.

---

Ok so it isn't a recent phenomenon...

what is the specific issue that requires crowd funding for posting bail?

The opposition to a two tiered criminal justice system in which the poor are intentionally punished harsher than others.

Kind of like the idea that any law for which the penalty is only a fine functionally doesn't exist for the wealthy.

Rocag said:

---

The opposition to a two tiered criminal justice system in which the poor are intentionally punished harsher than others.

Kind of like the idea that any law for which the penalty is only a fine functionally doesn't exist for the wealthy.

---

Lost me.

Rocag said:

---

The opposition to a two tiered criminal justice system in which the poor are intentionally punished harsher than others.

Kind of like the idea that any law for which the penalty is only a fine functionally doesn't exist for the wealthy.

---

Ok let's go a bit further...

Is there an increase (recent or not) in the up front charges for bail bonds?

Conversely, are total bail amounts increasing?

How bail amounts are determined differ from state to state so there isn't a simple answer to that question. But generally speaking, yes bail amounts are higher now than they were in the past.

And whether bail is a right I think is an arguable point. Remember the 8th Amendment says:

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Maybe I missed it, but was Kamala looking to raise bail money for poor people in general, or just ones charged in the riots? Hmmmmm

Rocag said:

---

How bail amounts are determined differ from state to state so there isn't a simple answer to that question. But generally speaking, yes bail amounts are higher now than they were in the past.

And whether bail is a right I think is an arguable point. Remember the 8th Amendment says:

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

---

It's not an arguable point. Bail is discretionary.

Rocag said:

---

How bail amounts are determined differ from state to state so there isn't a simple answer to that question. But generally speaking, yes bail amounts are higher now than they were in the past.

And whether bail is a right I think is an arguable point. Remember the 8th Amendment says:

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

---

Are bail amounts increasing for first time offenders and/or are they increasing for lower echelon crimes?

I need more information before I can buy into this crowd funding for bail thing.

I don't expect you to provide it for me, I can look for myself when priorities align. I appreciate you entertaining the questions.

My overall take--it is unseemly to do crowdfunding for bail. I don't know enough about the specific charges and circumstances. How do I know I'm not bailing out an absolute monster who will commit more and worse crimes?

I guess I wasn't clear on what I meant. The issue is when a court says a person who has no money is eligible for bail how can they set an amount and still be in compliance with the 8th Amendment? Do they not have an equal right to it to a person with money?

Rocag said:

---

BuddysBud said:

---

Rocag said:

---

I posted similarly yesterday but I'll repeat it here: there is no reason to be ashamed of supporting the Minnesota Freedom Fund in the first place.

Their mission is to provide bail money for people who couldn't otherwise afford it. These people are already eligible for bail according to the courts, the only question is can they afford it. And these are people accused of a crime, not convicted of one.

Can anyone give me one good reason that poor people eligible for bail should be forced to stay in jail while people with access to money go free? How is that not inherently unjust to the poor?

---

Let's see. If you don't participate in a riot then you don't need bail money regardless of your income.

It really isn't that hard.

---

Well thank God no one has ever been accused of a crime that they didn't actually commit!

---

You're either at a riot, or not.

This isn't hard.

Her support is incredibly bad, but par for the course. Liberals aren't smart, she exudes that lack of smarts like body odor.

Let's say a person commits a crime while an active participant in a riot. They are arrested and charged and bail is set for them. You're arguing they shouldn't be eligible for bail but that's not the point, the courts have already decided they are. If you disagree with that take it up with the courts. The only question left is whether they can afford it or not. Being poor doesn't make them more guilty.

Rocag said:

---

The opposition to a two tiered criminal justice system in which the poor are intentionally punished harsher than others.

Kind of like the idea that any law for which the penalty is only a fine functionally doesn't exist for the wealthy.

---

I'm not referencing any specific case or person. I never argued for punitive bail or a black and white carte blanche application.

Let's take three hypothetical individuals... All with otherwise clean records, maybe some speeding tickets, charged with negligent homicide. Again purely hypothetical...

One retired and 9 figures wealthy.
No a large cash sim might not move this person's needle. A million bucks is a color days market returns. For this person liens on assets or surrender of a passport world be better.

One blow collar with a start at home wife and kids
Can't wait to have the country and good reasons to stay. Easily tracked through regular credit/debit card use. $1000 bucks gets this person back at work on Monday going that tire on the truck holds out till payday.

Destitute bordering on homeless
Can't afford $10 and isn't sure where their next meal will come from if not at the shelter. Has no ties, might just skip the country and never come back. Or try to stay over under a new identity in a different state.

It doesn't entitle anytime to a charity picking up the tab. Now it's not my place to tell people how to spend their money, but my opinion is thatanyone donating to bail fund are giving it away with no return or societal improvement.

Rocag said:

---

I posted similarly yesterday but I'll repeat it here: there is no reason to be ashamed of supporting the Minnesota Freedom Fund in the first place.

Their mission is to provide bail money for people who couldn't otherwise afford it. These people are already eligible for bail according to the courts, the only question is can they afford it. And these are people accused of a crime, not convicted of one.

Can anyone give me one good reason that poor people eligible for bail should be forced to stay in jail while people with access to money go free? How is that not inherently unjust to the poor?

---

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

Rocag said:

---

Let's say a person commits a crime while an active participant in a riot. They are arrested and charged and bail is set for them. You're arguing they shouldn't be eligible for bail but that's not the point, the courts have already decided they are. If you disagree with that take it up with the courts. The only question left is whether they can afford it or not. Being poor doesn't make them more guilty.

---

If you can't make bail, don't go to jail.

Lots of innocent people are charged with crimes and have to pay bail. What about them?