Just once I wish the media could write a story and get the facts right...
The Fox article had eight paragraphs and no fewer than seven glaring errors.
Today's appearance was NOT because of claimed bond violations. It was a previously scheduled hearing that was calendared during the initial appearance on June 2nd. Today was to have been the arraignment on the still-unindicted charge...
Oh, and there was no prohibition on the consumption of alcohol until TODAY'S hearing. The original condition was not to enter establishments where the PRIMARY business was the service of alcohol. Given that I know not only WHEN but WHERE the picture Fox is using was taken, I can safely say that the original condition WAS NOT violated. Had the judge believed violations had, in fact, occurred, then an alcohol monitor known as SCRAM would have been added as a requirement.
