JDHillFan Posted November 4, 2022 Share Posted November 4, 2022 2 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Skepticism is good. These vague insinuations supported by shoddy reporting I'm seeing all over this thread is not skepticism, it's just being partisan hacks (not saying this is you, but there's a ton of it on this thread). We know that Pelosi was in boxers and a t-shirt, which makes sense since he was sleeping. We also know that DePape was wearing shorts, which makes sense since the police removed a bunch of items from his pockets (I don't think underwear with pockets is a very common thing...). We have two sworn documents attesting to the facts of the case: The DoJ's original criminal complaint The motion to detain DePape pending trial The facts sections of these documents are short and in plain language. Even for people who aren't lawyers, you can just skip all the legal stuff and read the couple of pages of facts. They address basically everything being thrown around in this thread. The media often gets things wrong in the immediate aftermath of these things. They're in a rush to get the info out first, they might not have a good source, the source might have heard something from someone else instead of witnessing it themselves, etc. So when you have a case like this, the best thing you can do is pull the actual complaints and read them. What are your thoughts on NBC news spiking their own reporting about it this morning? Honest mistake? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted November 4, 2022 Share Posted November 4, 2022 Just now, JDHillFan said: What are your thoughts on NBC news spiking their own reporting about it this morning? Honest mistake? The original reporting seems to have been wrong. I'm not going to weigh in on whether it was intentional, honest or otherwise because I hate TV news and I'm not going to go out of my way to defend it. But if we look at the simplest explanation I would wager there was confusion as to what happened the moment the police entered the picture. If you're told that Pelosi opened the door to greet the police, and that *after* that is when he was struck, you might wonder how the hell the assailant hit him if he was already with the police. Hence, the "he went back into the house" narrative. Reading the facts of the case in the DoJ's documents, Pelosi went to the door to open it and that's when the struggle ensued. He was able to open the door with one arm while holding the hammer in DePape's hand with the other. Whatever the original cause of the misreporting, they were right to pull it since it doesn't match the facts of the investigation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDHillFan Posted November 4, 2022 Share Posted November 4, 2022 7 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: The original reporting seems to have been wrong. I'm not going to weigh in on whether it was intentional, honest or otherwise because I hate TV news and I'm not going to go out of my way to defend it. But if we look at the simplest explanation I would wager there was confusion as to what happened the moment the police entered the picture. If you're told that Pelosi opened the door to greet the police, and that *after* that is when he was struck, you might wonder how the hell the assailant hit him if he was already with the police. Hence, the "he went back into the house" narrative. Reading the facts of the case in the DoJ's documents, Pelosi went to the door to open it and that's when the struggle ensued. He was able to open the door with one arm while holding the hammer in DePape's hand with the other. Whatever the original cause of the misreporting, they were right to pull it since it doesn't match the facts of the investigation. Seems odd that NBC would go to air in the last 24 hours with such faulty info when you have such ready access to all the relevant info. I guess they don’t vet what they air nationally. Good on them for memory holing it. Color me SKEPTICAL. I guess that makes me a conspiracy theorist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted November 4, 2022 Share Posted November 4, 2022 6 minutes ago, JDHillFan said: Seems odd that NBC would go to air in the last 24 hours with such faulty info when you have such ready access to all the relevant info. I guess they don’t vet what they air nationally. Good on them for memory holing it. Color me SKEPTICAL. I guess that makes me a conspiracy theorist. At this point, I'm not sure what skepticism offers to this incident. All of the evidence points in one direction. I think continued skepticism is close to wishcasting at this point. That being said, we should all reserve our right to change our minds if the facts change. If there really was some prior relationship between Pelosi and DePape, that's definitely going to come out at trial. Of course, it would contradict DePape's own statements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 4, 2022 Author Share Posted November 4, 2022 Yup 1 hour ago, BillsFanNC said: Jimmy Olson thought he had a scope. Turned out he didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brueggs Posted November 4, 2022 Share Posted November 4, 2022 41 minutes ago, Sundancer said: Maybe you missed the simple question I asked. You said, "Police caught on hot mic stating that they will not correct the perception he is a right winger by stating fact that he is an illegal alien nudist activist. " Do you have a link for this hot mic claim? I think you are confusing me with someone else. I didn't say that, but I did hear a clip of someone saying Pelosi referred to the person as a friend. Anyhow... My point being, how do you explain some random nut job getting past that level of securtiy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted November 4, 2022 Share Posted November 4, 2022 1 minute ago, Brueggs said: I think you are confusing me with someone else. I didn't say that, but I did hear a clip of someone saying Pelosi referred to the person as a friend. Anyhow... My point being, how do you explain some random nut job getting past that level of securtiy? Incompetence. The police are not infallible. The secret service is not infallible. People make mistakes, people are not infallible and any organization of people is therefore not infallible. It is the simplest, most likely explanation given the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted November 4, 2022 Share Posted November 4, 2022 7 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Incompetence. The police are not infallible. The secret service is not infallible. People make mistakes, people are not infallible and any organization of people is therefore not infallible. It is the simplest, most likely explanation given the facts. Sure it is. Issue solved then. No need for anyone to look into this any further. Or….. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted November 4, 2022 Share Posted November 4, 2022 6 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: Sure it is. Issue solved then. No need for anyone to look into this any further. Or….. If anyone is looking for the perfect example of a Strawman argument, look no further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted November 4, 2022 Share Posted November 4, 2022 2 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: If anyone is looking for the perfect example of a Strawman argument, look no further. As I said Goose. Carry on. The rest of the news media will continue to inquire…if that’s okay with the all knowing Goose. 😉 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted November 4, 2022 Share Posted November 4, 2022 7 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: As I said Goose. Carry on. The rest of the news media will continue to inquire…if that’s okay with the all knowing Goose. 😉 Again, a strawman. I never said not to question the security. I actually said the opposite of that. I never said not to inquire, I merely stated that the facts overwhelming support the prevailing conclusion. I also said that we should be open to changing our minds if the facts change. But here you are, pretending I am advocating for things I am not advocating for because it fits your narrative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted November 4, 2022 Share Posted November 4, 2022 Just now, ChiGoose said: Again, a strawman. I never said not to question the security. I actually said the opposite of that. I never said not to inquire, I merely stated that the facts overwhelming support the prevailing conclusion. I also said that we should be open to changing our minds if the facts change. But here you are, pretending I am advocating for things I am not advocating for because it fits your narrative. Relax Goose. Keep your sense of humor. It’ll serve you well. And remember, inquiring minds want to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted November 4, 2022 Share Posted November 4, 2022 Just now, SoCal Deek said: Relax Goose. Keep your sense of humor. It’ll serve you well. And remember, inquiring minds want to know. Inquiring minds should try reading some time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted November 4, 2022 Share Posted November 4, 2022 Just now, ChiGoose said: Inquiring minds should try reading some time. So here we go again. You apparently have seen all you want to see and all you want to READ. Can you please call ALL of the major news networks and let them know you’ve solved the case. 😉 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted November 4, 2022 Share Posted November 4, 2022 1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said: So here we go again. You apparently have seen all you want to see and all you want to READ. Can you please call ALL of the major news networks and let them know you’ve solved the case. 😉 Strawman arguments and sarcasm. It would be nice if you actually added anything to the conversation but I suppose that’s too much to expect. The media sucks. I’m not going to defend it. I’m not here for media criticism. Read the sworn documents filed by the DoJ. They clear things up pretty well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orlando Tim Posted November 4, 2022 Share Posted November 4, 2022 1 hour ago, Sundancer said: Maybe you missed the simple question I asked. You said, "Police caught on hot mic stating that they will not correct the perception he is a right winger by stating fact that he is an illegal alien nudist activist. " Do you have a link for this hot mic claim? Still hanging on to the underwear-wearing aspect of the attacker? This is why people like you have no credibility. There are very few houses I could not break into if I was willing to break a window. Maybe he took 3 steps back inside to show the cops where the guy was. Guy then rushes Pelosi and hits him with the hammer. It doesn't take a lot of hammer blows to send someone to the hospital. 1 in fact would do the trick. Just because you don't understand doesn't make it fishy. But man, you all can spin tales out of nothing. Stating facts about the situation make me not have credibility? Interesting take. Your speculation is though the only one I have heard that is impossible. I also praise you for sticking by your guns that the media does not lie, it is a bold stance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted November 4, 2022 Share Posted November 4, 2022 2 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Strawman arguments and sarcasm. It would be nice if you actually added anything to the conversation but I suppose that’s too much to expect. The media sucks. I’m not going to defend it. I’m not here for media criticism. Read the sworn documents filed by the DoJ. They clear things up pretty well. Ugh! I have to guess you’re a lawyer…right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brueggs Posted November 4, 2022 Share Posted November 4, 2022 49 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Incompetence. The police are not infallible. The secret service is not infallible. People make mistakes, people are not infallible and any organization of people is therefore not infallible. It is the simplest, most likely explanation given the facts. In a normal household situation, maybe. At a high level politicians mansion, with state of the art security, and likely a security detail, that seems like a bit to much to be the simplest, most likely explanation. Also, the facts we have been given can't even really be considered facts when you take into account that they have been changed, altered, omitted, etc... which ones do you choose at this point? Considering the high security standards in place, the simplest, most likely scenario would be that this person did not force entry into the mansion... Is that really far fetched? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted November 4, 2022 Share Posted November 4, 2022 4 minutes ago, Brueggs said: In a normal household situation, maybe. At a high level politicians mansion, with state of the art security, and likely a security detail, that seems like a bit to much to be the simplest, most likely explanation. Also, the facts we have been given can't even really be considered facts when you take into account that they have been changed, altered, omitted, etc... which ones do you choose at this point? Considering the high security standards in place, the simplest, most likely scenario would be that this person did not force entry into the mansion... Is that really far fetched? Read. The. Sworn. Documents. Filed. To. The. Court. For. This. Case. It’s not hard people! The media sucks at this stuff! Read the filings! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted November 4, 2022 Share Posted November 4, 2022 3 minutes ago, Brueggs said: In a normal household situation, maybe. At a high level politicians mansion, with state of the art security, and likely a security detail, that seems like a bit to much to be the simplest, most likely explanation. Also, the facts we have been given can't even really be considered facts when you take into account that they have been changed, altered, omitted, etc... which ones do you choose at this point? Considering the high security standards in place, the simplest, most likely scenario would be that this person did not force entry into the mansion... Is that really far fetched? Goose wants to say that the facts are determined by what the victim told the police. Okie dokie. Sure…nobody EVER makes up a story when they’re pulled over by a policeman or when explaining a domestic dispute. Never! 😉 The odd part is I think Goose is a lawyer. If he is, I’m not sure why he would ever go to court. Nobody ever changes their story upon cross examination….never! 😉 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts