Paul Pelosi got hammered ... again.

[msquared]

Who cares when Pelosi got home? What does that have to do with anything? Same with where he spent the evening? Or if he was drunk? He was at home. You are allowed to be drunk in your own home (not saying he was, but this shift to blaming the victim sure shows up a lot with conservatives).

[yossarian22c]

Who cares when Pelosi got home? What does that have to do with anything? Same with where he spent the evening? Or if he was drunk? He was at home. You are allowed to be drunk in your own home (not saying he was, but this shift to blaming the victim sure shows up a lot with conservatives).

Clearly he should have been out at a gun store. Buying an AR-15 with all the accessories and expanded capacity magazine, then gone home and been standing guard until the right wing nut job broke in his door and then emptied all 100 rounds into his chest. Any other activities would have just been asking for trouble.

[Tom]

Your tears, they sustain me.

Just to be clear: calling you a liar is not actually crying. You do not "pwn" a lib by being so much of an idiot that they disdain you.

[Wayward Son]

Since this thread encourages the asking of questions, I have some.

1.  How much of Crunch's posts are out-and-out lies?  More than half?  Three-quarters?  Practically all?

2.  Of those that aren't out-and-out lies, how much are half-truths?

3.  Of those that are factually correct, how many actually matter?  How many are innuendos?

4.  Of his sources of information, are they bigger liars than him, or simply incompentent boobs?

4.  Of his speculation based on incomplete and inaccurate facts, what are the chances that any of them are true, or even close to being true?

5.  Is his main motivation to impinge the character of Nancy Pelosi's husband, Nancy herself, the entire Democratic party and every member of it, or just to yank our chains?

6.  Considering he is trying to impinge the character of an 80-year-old man who is in intensive care after being attacked by a right-wing assailant who wanted to break Nancy Pelosi's knees, why are we even giving him the time of day?  If someone was asking such stupid questions about our spouses, wouldn't we just flip him off and ask if he no longer has any shame, or worse?

After hearing how Alex Jones emotionally tortured the parents of slaughtered children by asking questions based on lies and innuendo, I think everyone wants to know the answers to these questions.  Because don't they seem to be in the same vein, with the similar intentions?

I'm just asking questions.  Right, Crunch? 

[rightleft22]

I am genuine in my attempt to understand this. It's a fascinating story, just like the Smollett hoax was

The end is in the beginning and your questions seems to suggest a looked for outcome. That what was reported was a hoax.

The speculation to often confused as news and the way many of these questions are asked is obscuring the event not illuminating it IMO

That does not mean that some of your questions shouldn't be answered but that it is unlikely that anyone on the forum has access to the answers. We and the majority of those doing the speculation do not have access we can only guess and show our bias.

We must wait and weed through the mess of information much of which is crap disguised as news and IMO intentionally intended of obscure the truth.
Like the Smollett event I fully expect the truth to be known.

That said like those that can't prove Election fraud but still insist that they KNOW it happened... I expect those that want this to be a hoax will always believe so even if the facts prove that it wasn't.
The 'reasoning' that the lack of proof is proof allowing those to have their cake and eat it to. All they need is the one question that no one could answer create doubt and erase the 100 questions that have been answered.

Interesting that when the truth of Smollett case did come the findings were accepted even by those that wish it had not been so.
The question for you if at the end of the investigations all the facts point to this event not being a hoax will you accept it. Even if you have linger doubt that you can't prove, will you accept it?

[msquared]

Other examples of Trump supporters doing violence against Biden supporters.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/miami-trump-supporter-convicted-shooting-230520098.html

[Crunch]

Since this thread encourages the asking of questions, I have some.

1.  How much of Crunch's posts are out-and-out lies?  More than half?  Three-quarters?  Practically all?

2.  Of those that aren't out-and-out lies, how much are half-truths?

3.  Of those that are factually correct, how many actually matter?  How many are innuendos?

4.  Of his sources of information, are they bigger liars than him, or simply incompentent boobs?

4.  Of his speculation based on incomplete and inaccurate facts, what are the chances that any of them are true, or even close to being true?

5.  Is his main motivation to impinge the character of Nancy Pelosi's husband, Nancy herself, the entire Democratic party and every member of it, or just to yank our chains?

6.  Considering he is trying to impinge the character of an 80-year-old man who is in intensive care after being attacked by a right-wing assailant who wanted to break Nancy Pelosi's knees, why are we even giving him the time of day?  If someone was asking such stupid questions about our spouses, wouldn't we just flip him off and ask if he no longer has any shame, or worse?

After hearing how Alex Jones emotionally tortured the parents of slaughtered children by asking questions based on lies and innuendo, I think everyone wants to know the answers to these questions.  Because don't they seem to be in the same vein, with the similar intentions?

I'm just asking questions.  Right, Crunch? 

Ahh, the personal attack. I know, you think this was a very smart and erudite post. It's actually just whining. You know that, right?

[Crunch]

Who cares when Pelosi got home? What does that have to do with anything? Same with where he spent the evening? Or if he was drunk? He was at home. You are allowed to be drunk in your own home (not saying he was, but this shift to blaming the victim sure shows up a lot with conservatives).

He was at home all evening? You have that proof? Please share. I'd love to see your source for this claim as I've not seen anyone claim he was at home the entire evening.

[Crunch]

Your tears, they sustain me.

Just to be clear: calling you a liar is not actually crying. You do not "pwn" a lib by being so much of an idiot that they disdain you.

Just keep crying for me... LOL

[msquared]

Again who cares where he was earlier? What does that have to do with what happened? He was at home when the attack happened.  How will that change how you view what happened?

[Tom]

Crunch, what form of criticism of your posts would not be interpreted -- disingenuously, I know, but for you that's pretty much a given -- as "crying?" I'm very curious to learn how I could point out to you that you're being a liar and an idiot without having you assume that I'm sad about it.

[Crunch]

Anyway, making fun of your insanely weak posts is all well and good but let's look at reality for a bit shall we?

The DA has confirmed that they will not release any footage of the incident. FOIA requests, and any applicable laws, will be ignored.

Also, NBC News aired a segment over the weekend and informed us that Paul was the one that answered the door when the cops showed up. Paul let them in and then walked back to DePape to stand beside him. This segment was quickly memory-holed and removed from the site but, alert people did grab the recording before it could be fully erased. They will not say why it was removed.

Also, there are virtually no news stories about this any more beyond the caterwauling (similar to this forum) about people asking questions.  As I predicted, this is disappearing faster than a Nashville bomber. By the end of the week, it'll be fully swept under the rug.

Now, why am I interested in this story? Because it's being used as "proof" of the violent right wing attacks that are so common today. But like so many pieces of "proof" the left likes to use, it's flimsy at best and may end up being another hoax a la Smollett and so, so many others. Have no fear, I will update the forum as the story evolves. I have a Google alert set up for it and get daily notifications. If anything develops, I will let you all know.  ;-)

[Crunch]

Crunch, what form of criticism of your posts would not be interpreted -- disingenuously, I know, but for you that's pretty much a given -- as "crying?" I'm very curious to learn how I could point out to you that you're being a liar and an idiot without having you assume that I'm sad about it.

This right here. 

[Crunch]

Again who cares where he was earlier? What does that have to do with what happened? He was at home when the attack happened.  How will that change how you view what happened?

So how a crime occurred is absolutely irrelevant to you? We know the very end of this story, nothing else. You want to pretend the ending is all that ever happened, that's fine. Delusional, but fine.

Let me give you one idea of why it may be important to know Paul's whereabouts that evening. Was he out at a bar until near closing time? Was Depape also at that bar? It's relevant, no matter how much you pretend it's not.

[Tom]

Serious question, though. How can I point out that your constant dissembling is shameful without that coming off as "liberal tears?" How would a conservative call you out in an acceptable way?

[msquared]

The NBC story you are referring to has been retracted.

https://news.yahoo.com/story-spurred-conspiracy-theories-attack-035935059.html?fr=yhssrp_catchall

You seem to think this was some sort of gay lover quarrel, even though the statements of the attacker says otherwise? Why do you keep asking the same questions when answers, which do not go with your narrative, have been given?

so the "Facts" you have are shown to not be true. The facts we have, as reported by sworn statement, look to be true.

[yossarian22c]

Again who cares where he was earlier? What does that have to do with what happened? He was at home when the attack happened.  How will that change how you view what happened?

...
Let me give you one idea of why it may be important to know Paul's whereabouts that evening. Was he out at a bar until near closing time? Was Depape also at that bar? It's relevant, no matter how much you pretend it's not.

And Depape then decided to follow him home with a hammer and zip ties? Not seeing how this is relevant to what happened. Depape broke in the back door assaulted Pelosi asking "where's Nancy" and police luckily arrived before he was killed. You have Depape's statement for why he did it? He's going to prison a long freaking time for this. Kind of rules out the false flag angles.

[Grant]

How would a conservative call you out in an acceptable way?

Ignoring the stupid and not engaging it or associating themselves in any way with the thought process. 

You have to treat it like a fart during Mass.  A very flatulent individual.  A lactose intolerant individual who drinks a whole gallon of milk for breakfast and eats a plate full of beans.  I mean, feel free to tell everyone else the way you feel, just don't engage directly.  It's like Global Thermonuclear War.  There is only one way to win. 

[msquared]

And why not release video from inside the house? Maybe for security reasons?  Let's not show everyone where the cameras are and the internal lay out of the living quarters of the Speaker of the House. I am sure the Oathkeepers would love that info.

[Tom]

Ignoring the stupid...

I cannot imagine a scenario in which any modern conservative would pass up any opportunity to insult a political enemy. Perhaps it's not "tears" if you just outright accuse someone of treasonously hating America.

[Grant]

Ignoring the stupid...

I cannot imagine a scenario in which any modern conservative would pass up any opportunity to insult a political enemy.

Who's saying I'm not? 

"I will inflict the greatest insult an enemy can suffer.  To be ignored."  -Warlord Okeer

[Wayward Son]

Since this thread encourages the asking of questions, I have some.

1.  How much of Crunch's posts are out-and-out lies?  More than half?  Three-quarters?  Practically all?

2.  Of those that aren't out-and-out lies, how much are half-truths?

3.  Of those that are factually correct, how many actually matter?  How many are innuendos?

4.  Of his sources of information, are they bigger liars than him, or simply incompentent boobs?

4.  Of his speculation based on incomplete and inaccurate facts, what are the chances that any of them are true, or even close to being true?

5.  Is his main motivation to impinge the character of Nancy Pelosi's husband, Nancy herself, the entire Democratic party and every member of it, or just to yank our chains?

6.  Considering he is trying to impinge the character of an 80-year-old man who is in intensive care after being attacked by a right-wing assailant who wanted to break Nancy Pelosi's knees, why are we even giving him the time of day?  If someone was asking such stupid questions about our spouses, wouldn't we just flip him off and ask if he no longer has any shame, or worse?

After hearing how Alex Jones emotionally tortured the parents of slaughtered children by asking questions based on lies and innuendo, I think everyone wants to know the answers to these questions.  Because don't they seem to be in the same vein, with the similar intentions?

I'm just asking questions.  Right, Crunch? 

Ahh, the personal attack. I know, you think this was a very smart and erudite post. It's actually just whining. You know that, right?

It's called satire, Crunch.  It's using your own rules and words to show how fatuous your arguments are.

But I didn't expect you to understand that. 

[Wayward Son]

How would a conservative call you out in an acceptable way?

Ignoring the stupid and not engaging it or associating themselves in any way with the thought process. 

You have to treat it like a fart during Mass.  A very flatulent individual.  A lactose intolerant individual who drinks a whole gallon of milk for breakfast and eats a plate full of beans.  I mean, feel free to tell everyone else the way you feel, just don't engage directly.  It's like Global Thermonuclear War.  There is only one way to win.

And when the farter stands up and tells the congregation, "You all hate that, don't you?  Makes me laugh at you!" then what do you do? 

Even Liberals have pride and demand respect.

And there is a certain amount of satisfaction when you call an a-hole an a-hole to his face.   Yeah, he'll laugh it off, but at least you've called his hand.

Kinda like this comic.  It won't change a single MAGA mind, but  it's good to remind ourselves that people still believe in truth, especially in these times.

[rightleft22]

Ahh, the personal attack. I know, you think this was a very smart and erudite post. It's actually just whining. You know that, right?

LMAO

Glad you agree that when someone 'is just asking questions' that could be taken as a attack its just a form or whining and not very smart. I'm glad we have standards and will no longer see you ask such  questions.

Maybe time to start asking your self some questions like, is this post going to make me sound like a hypocrite, could I be projecting, what is the underlining fear? 

[Crunch]

If I had to put money on it, this story will get breathless coverage for a few more days, perhaps until the election next week if the media thinks they can get away with portraying DePape as a conservative. After that, it will be memory-holed. This story will disappear as quickly as a Las Vegas shooter or a Nashville bomber.

And that's pretty much the case. You can google up some news - but you have to actively search for it and what you do find is largely the same story pushed into 3 or 4 outlets. Most of the stories about those mean conservatives and how dare they question the approved narrative.

Speaking of questioning the narrative, Miguel Almaguer. He worked for NBC for 11 years and was a great reporter by all accounts. But he said something that questioned the narrative and now he's suspended. No doubt, he's undergoing some form of re-education at this very moment.

NBC says “The piece should not have aired because it did not meet NBC News reporting standards.” Those standards? Contradicting the official state narrative.

New prediction, this falls further and further off the radar until it becomes a "local" story, largely limited to SF local outlets and off the national spotlight.

[msquared]

Or it falls off the national radar because it is exactly what it seems. A right wing nut job tried to kidnap and possible kill the Speaker of the House in her own house but since she was not there he basically attacked her husband. What other facts do you have that contradict the official story? And I don't mean no name sources quoting suspicions.

[rightleft22]

NBC says “The piece should not have aired because it did not meet NBC News reporting standards.” Those standards? Contradicting the official state narrative.

I'm not familure with the piece NBC aired, was is a news story, editorial,  straight up speculation or this new thing of 'just asking leading questions'
The standards are different in each case. The leading questions story type having none.

Are you advocating the Standard should be reporting 'facts not in evidence' as the 'truth', reporting things you can't verify as verfied?
Investigative journalism has to have standards. The truth will come out, but it requires work, not shortcuts.

The story dropped from the headlines because few people really cared it happened beyond the political capital spinning it could create, which is now none. In a way, that that happened means those intent on conspiracy won.

[Crunch]

NBC says “The piece should not have aired because it did not meet NBC News reporting standards.” Those standards? Contradicting the official state narrative.

I'm not familure with the piece NBC aired, was is a news story, editorial,  straight up speculation or this new thing of 'just asking leading questions'
The standards are different in each case. The leading questions story type having none.

Are you advocating the Standard should be reporting 'facts not in evidence' as the 'truth'? Investigative journalism has to have standards. The truth will come out, but it requires work, not shortcuts.

It was a straight news story based on sources Almaguer had. There was no speculation, no questions asked. It was a standard news story for Almaguer. You can easily google it up I think.

I'm advocating to have the same standard for this story as any other "news" story. You object to that? I'd also like to see the body cam footage ... weird it's not released yet but should be soon. We'll see if Almaguer had it right.

[msquared]

Again

Here is why the story was pulled.

https://news.yahoo.com/story-spurred-conspiracy-theories-attack-035935059.html?fr=yhssrp_catchall

From the article

The report by NBC News National Correspondent Miguel Almaguer, which relied on anonymous sourcing, erroneously indicated Paul Pelosi answered the door to police officers prior to being attacked and gave no signal to law enforcement that he was in danger, instead walking back toward his assailant and away from police.

"The decision was made to remove the segment after it was determined, shortly after it aired, that the main source for the information was unreliable regarding the question of the circumstances that the police encountered when they arrived at the house," a person with knowledge of the situation, who asked not to be named in order to discuss the reporting, told Insider.

NBC specifically called into question "what the police saw and how far the attacker was from the door," they added.

[Crunch]

Yeah, as I said, contradicting official state narratives.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[msquared]

Anonymous sources.

[NobleHunter]

These are the good anonymous sources.

[Crunch]

Yeah, just refuse to believe anything that contradicts. Of course. Anonymous is only good when it confirms your views. Classic.

New prediction, this falls further and further off the radar until it becomes a "local" story, largely limited to SF local outlets and off the national spotlight.

You guys might think I'm psychic but .... from NBC Bay Area: Body Cam Video Shows Paul Pelosi Opened Door for Police, Despite DOJ Saying Otherwise:

Police body camera video that captured the attack on Paul Pelosi, and the moments leading up to it, contradict one of the details included in the Department of Justice's account of what happened that evening, according to a source familiar with the Pelosi investigation who personally viewed the body camera footage and spoke to the NBC Bay Area Investigative Unit.

You won't see that at the national level except maybe on page A31, maybe.  No way they want you knowing that Almaguer and his story have been corroborated.

[rightleft22]

Yeah, just refuse to believe anything that contradicts. Of course. Anonymous is only good when it confirms your views. Classic.

The standard is that a reporter must vet the anonymous source before they can report what the source said as the real story. 
If I were a reporter I would have wanted to see the Police body camera video from this anonymous source and at least verify if the source had access to it themselves.

Were to quick to jump to conclusion before we can even know what happened. To easy when "doing your research" means as you hinted at finding a report that confirms your views.  Of which you also appear to be doing.

Wait for the video to be released and then we can talk...  don't worry you will be able to find your stories were someone who new someone knows the video was manipulated so you can continue to tell yourself that all this hateful political rhetoric wasn't a factor in the crime and definitely not anything you or your tribe needs to take a look at, so you can project it onto your enemies and sleep well.   

[TheDrake]

Ap follows these rules among others for anonymous sources. I've always heard that a second source is required by most news organizations. That's why you often see, "people who are familiar with the matter". As opposed to person. Now, recognize also that even if the information turns out true, that doesn't retroactively vindicate the report and it's standards.

.  The AP routinely seeks and requires more than one source when sourcing is anonymous. Stories should be held while attempts are made to reach additional sources for confirmation or elaboration. In rare cases, one source will be sufficient – when material comes from an authoritative figure who provides information so detailed that there is no question of its accuracy.

[msquared]

So they have released the body cam footage.  I wonder how the RINO MAGA Trumpist are going to spin this.

[Mynnion]

They'll ignore it.  The event is old news and why bring up something that reflects poorly on them.

[wmLambert]

So they have released the body cam footage.  I wonder how the RINO MAGA Trumpist are going to spin this.

They'll ignore it.  The event is old news and why bring up something that reflects poorly on them.

On the contrary. Nancy Pelosi brought in an exorcist to cleanse her house. The question is why she thought things were so bad that she needed Heavenly intervention to help make things right. Things must be pretty upside-down for someone like her to do this.

There are many unanswered questions about what happened during hammer time. Some have pointed out that it does look as if Paul Pelosi did lie in his official police report. The missing parts is all about why. Perhaps we will learn more from the body cams. There are no conspiracies at this time - just unanswered questions that really need to be explained.

[msquared]

Link to the fact she brought in an excorcist?  She is Catholic and that is very rarely used.

[Lloyd Perna]

Link to the fact she brought in an excorcist?  She is Catholic and that is very rarely used.

10 seconds on google will find many.

[Tom]

There are no conspiracies at this time - just unanswered questions that really need to be explained.

Sincere question: why do they need to be explained?

[msquared]

I did not make the claim.  Wm did. He should supply the support.

[msquared]

Ok so I did search and it looks like she did have an exorcism.

So what?

[rightleft22]

I know a lot of people who after a traumatic event perform a ritual of some sort to help move forward. Its actually a healthy thing a person can do after such incidences in which they had no control over.

So how is this pertinent to 'needing answers'. Silly me, its about the questions, answers arn't wanted. Hay we can't know what this person is thinking or why they did what they did, they must be up to something.  So many questions.

[Tom]

I think Lambert is asserting that an exorcism would only be performed if the Pelosis were concerned about driving out lingering sin or demonic influence, and insinuating that this "demonic influence" might affected her husband's sexual habits. This betrays a certain lack of familiarity with Catholic exorcism following violent crime; I know a couple Catholics who've had services performed after a murder on their property, and it certainly wasn't because they were afraid that anyone in the house was having gay sex.

I find the whole thing rather ridiculous, but then I find most religious ritual to be pointless and embarrassing at best. Implying that the Pelosis owe the general public an explanation for, among other things, why Nancy Pelosi might have been comforted by a rite intended to purify her home after her husband was nearly killed in it frankly strikes me as more than a bit presumptuous.

[msquared]

Of course many of the far right religous nuts do not consider Catholics Christians.

[TheDrake]

Exorcism. Snopes true. Source NYTimes quoting Pelosi daughter. She used the wrong term, but it is a valid quote. This sounds more like a house blessing and something performed by many maga Republicans I would assume. Non Christians do similar with sage and other procedures to remove negative energy.

[Fenring]

Link to the fact she brought in an excorcist?  She is Catholic and that is very rarely used.

Just to clarify this point (and granting that I'm not willing to deep dive into what Pelosi did or didn't do) having your home cleansed is not the same thing as bringing in an exorcist. The latter is a rarely seen sub-branch of the clergy who specialize in dealing with demonic possession, whereas 'exorcising' one's house in this context probably means having it blessed and cleansed, which is a normal thing to do. Traditionally this is done at the start of each year, and involves prayers and holy water sprinkled all over the place. I won't verify whether Pelosi had something more than this done, but the Church would only send in an actual exorcist if it was to investigate an active demonic presence. If that was so, I think I'd have heard about that through the grapevine. Fun fact about blessing a house, it does require holy water and holy salt, and one time a priest coming to do so at my place lacked these and had to create holy water from my tap and holy salt from the kosher salt in my cupboard. These procedures, aside from greatly prolonging to entire ritual, also are technically referred to as exorcisms, since that is what you're doing to purify them. But I've never heard of doing an exorcism on a location in this manner. Maybe such a thing exists, but it would be a Ghostbusters type scenario if it does.

Here's a brief description of exorcism from the USCCB for anyone interested:

Are there different kinds of exorcisms?

Exorcisms are divided into two kinds (or forms). Simple or minor forms of exorcism are found in two places: first, for those preparing for Baptism, the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (RCIA) and the Rite of Baptism for Children both call for minor exorcisms; secondly, the appendix of Exorcisms and Related Supplications includes a series of prayers which may be used by the faithful.

The second kind is the solemn or "major exorcism," which is a rite that can only be performed by a bishop or a by priest, with the special and express permission of the local ordinary (cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 1172). This form is directed "at the expulsion of demons or to the liberation [of a person] from demonic possession"

[rightleft22]

When I heard the word exorcist I suspected the person being quoted wasn't using the correct word.  But I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt.

[msquared]

So are Crunch and Wm going to walk back the "questions" they asked?  I mean now that the videos have been released, clearly showing the guy breaking in and later attacking Pelosi.

I mean this Tucker Carlson method of questioning is nothing short of dispiciable.