Speaker Pelosi's Home Has Been Attacked

[JDHillFan]

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?

[ChiGoose]

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.

[JDHillFan]

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. 

[ChiGoose]

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.

[Tiberius]

Yup

 

 

1 hour ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

Jimmy Olson thought he had a scope. Turned out he didn't. 

[Brueggs]

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?

[ChiGoose]

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.

[SoCal Deek]

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…..

[ChiGoose]

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. 

[SoCal Deek]

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.  😉

[ChiGoose]

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.

[SoCal Deek]

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. 

[ChiGoose]

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.

[SoCal Deek]

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. 😉

[ChiGoose]

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. 

[Orlando Tim]

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.

[SoCal Deek]

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? 

[Brueggs]

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?

[ChiGoose]

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!

[SoCal Deek]

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! 😉

[ChiGoose]

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

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! 😉

Let me know when you make an argument that isn’t a strawman. I won’t hold my breath. 
 

Facts attested to under the penalty of perjury are certainly not 100% guaranteed to be correct, but they absolutely carry more weight than things said in a forum in which there is no penalty for lying. 

[SoCal Deek]

Just now, ChiGoose said:

Let me know when you make an argument that isn’t a strawman. I won’t hold my breath. 
 

Facts attested to under the penalty of perjury are certainly not 100% guaranteed to be correct, but they absolutely carry more weight than things said in a forum in which there is no penalty for lying. 

People are just asking questions on a Bills related message board Goose. Lighten up. Breathe! It’s Friday…and we’re only playing the Jets on Sunday. 😉
 

[ChiGoose]

2 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

People are just asking questions on a Bills related message board Goose. Lighten up. Breathe! It’s Friday…and we’re only playing the Jets on Sunday. 😉
 

I honestly hate the “just asking questions” BS. Either state your position or don’t. 
 

Does Josh Allen murder puppies?

Is Brandon Beane a lizard person?

Does Sean McDermott secretly run a cult of pedophiles?

Is TreDavious White’s injury just a cover for the fact that he’s about to be sent to Guantanamo Bay for super duper crimes?

Does Dion Dawkins use the term “shnow” as a way to hint at the bodies he’s buried in Buffalo winters?

Was Zach Moss capable of running out of a paper bag?

 

Just asking questions!

[SoCal Deek]

12 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

I honestly hate the “just asking questions” BS. Either state your position or don’t. 
 

Does Josh Allen murder puppies?

Is Brandon Beane a lizard person?

Does Sean McDermott secretly run a cult of pedophiles?

Is TreDavious White’s injury just a cover for the fact that he’s about to be sent to Guantanamo Bay for super duper crimes?

Does Dion Dawkins use the term “shnow” as a way to hint at the bodies he’s buried in Buffalo winters?

Was Zach Moss capable of running out of a paper bag?

 

Just asking questions!

Never mind Goose

You’re clearly not in the mood for some harmless banter on a Friday. 
Have a great weekend. 

[ChiGoose]

7 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Never mind Goose

You’re clearly not in the mood for some harmless banter on a Friday. 
Have a great weekend. 

I just don’t think it’s harmless. There are people who actually believe that Pelosi and DePape were in a sexual relationship and there is some big cover up. These things may start as seemingly harmless joking or asking questions, but they evolve into the same crazy theories that led DePape to take this action in the first place. 
 

I hope you have a good weekend as well. Go Bills! I hope they just dominate the Jests. 

[Chef Jim]

2 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

I honestly hate the “just asking questions” BS. Either state your position or don’t. 
 

Does Josh Allen murder puppies?

Is Brandon Beane a lizard person?

Does Sean McDermott secretly run a cult of pedophiles?

Is TreDavious White’s injury just a cover for the fact that he’s about to be sent to Guantanamo Bay for super duper crimes?

Does Dion Dawkins use the term “shnow” as a way to hint at the bodies he’s buried in Buffalo winters?

Was Zach Moss capable of running out of a paper bag?

 

Just asking questions!

So we have another poster allergic to questions.   Debate…..a long lost art. 

2 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

I just don’t think it’s harmless. There are people who actually believe that Pelosi and DePape were in a sexual relationship and there is some big cover up. These things may start as seemingly harmless joking or asking questions, but they evolve into the same crazy theories that led DePape to take this action in the first place. 
 

I hope you have a good weekend as well. Go Bills! I hope they just dominate the Jests. 

Who gives a flip what people believe.  Their beliefs are harmless. People believe in God.  People believe in aliens.  People believe the earth is flat.  I believe I’ll have another beer.  Oh wait…..I don’t drink.  That belief is far from harmless.  😬

[Doc]

5 hours 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.

 

True, police aren't infallible.  Perhaps (because they're not infallible) they were covering up what really happened?  Or in your mind is "incompetence" the only acceptable explanation for what happened?  It's just as plausible that the security detail said "hey, Paul's having one of his trysts again, better shut off the system for awhile."  I mean, it's been a week and no one's been fired for the "incompetence," have they?

 

Sorry but when your side started getting conspiratorial with the "see, all Repubs want to kill Dems" crap, you're going to get conspiracy theories right back given the odd bits of information being released and then suddenly ghosted.  Which is why I say release the security and body cam footage.

[Chef Jim]

5 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

True, police aren't infallible.  Perhaps (because they're not infallible) they were covering up what really happened?  Or in your mind is "incompetence" the only acceptable explanation for what happened?  It's just as plausible that the security detail said "hey, Paul's having one of his trysts again, better shut off the system for awhile."  I mean, it's been a week and no one's been fired for the "incompetence," have they?

 

Sorry but when your side started getting conspiratorial with the "see, all Repubs want to kill Dems" crap, you're going to get conspiracy theories right back given the odd bits of information being released and then suddenly ghosted.  Which is why I say release the security and body cam footage.

Why release the footage?  Who cares?  

[ChiGoose]

3 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

True, police aren't infallible.  Perhaps (because they're not infallible) they were covering up what really happened?  Or in your mind is "incompetence" the only acceptable explanation for what happened?  It's just as plausible that the security detail said "hey, Paul's having one of his trysts again, better shut off the system for awhile."  I mean, it's been a week and no one's been fired for the "incompetence," have they?

 

Sorry but when your side started getting conspiratorial with the "see, all Repubs want to kill Dems" crap, you're going to get conspiracy theories right back given the odd bits of information being released and then suddenly ghosted.  Which is why I say release the security and body cam footage.

Your theory requires US attorneys to lie under oath about the facts of the case.

 

So, what is the simplest explanation:

1. A guy broke into a lightly guarded house that basically sits on the public street and assaulted someone because he was crazy; or

2. Paul Pelosi was having a secret gay love affair that went bad and as part of it going bad, they smashed open a window and called the police. And then every single person involved lied about it, even under the penalty of perjury.

If the secret lover theory is actually true, it’ll come out at trial. But by the time it doesn’t (because it strains any kind of rational thought to believe it) all the people on this board hinting at it will have moved on to something else like how Twitter actually failed because the CDC teamed up with (((Soros))) to implant microchips in everyone that turns them vegan to prevent global warming. 

[SCBills]

4 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

Why release the footage?  Who cares?  

Dems invited this when they immediately politicized it.

 

Seems like there is a lot more to the story and R’s won’t stop until the story is blown up…. That happens when the footage is released. 
 

It didn’t have to be this way…

[Doc]

6 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

Why release the footage?  Who cares?  

 

LOL!  A lot of people care.

 

3 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

Your theory requires US attorneys to lie under oath about the facts of the case.

 

So, what is the simplest explanation:

1. A guy broke into a lightly guarded house that basically sits on the public street and assaulted someone because he was crazy; or

2. Paul Pelosi was having a secret gay love affair that went bad and as part of it going bad, they smashed open a window and called the police. And then every single person involved lied about it, even under the penalty of perjury.

If the secret lover theory is actually true, it’ll come out at trial. But by the time it doesn’t (because it strains any kind of rational thought to believe it) all the people on this board hinting at it will have moved on to something else like how Twitter actually failed because the CDC teamed up with (((Soros))) to implant microchips in everyone that turns them vegan to prevent global warming. 

 

Yeah you're right.  Lawyers never lie...

[ChiGoose]

2 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Yeah you're right.  Lawyers never lie...

So you’re saying that a lawyer just jeopardized their entire career and potentially their freedom in accordance with a broader plot that involved cops, lawyers, and other people lying, all to cover up for a secret love affair for which there is absolutely zero evidence?

 

That is more believable to you than a crazy person doing crazy person things?

Edited November 5, 2022 by ChiGoose

[Doc]

13 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

So you’re saying that a lawyer just jeopardized their entire career and potentially their freedom in accordance with a broader plot that involved cops, lawyers, and other people lying, all to cover up for a secret love affair for which there is absolutely zero evidence?

 

That is more believably to you than a crazy person doing crazy person things?

 

And who is going to hold him/them accountable?  Hunter did worse things and there were hundreds if not thousands of people willing to lie about and/or cover it up...coincidentally right before an election.

 

I'm just trying to figure out why a guy who had the chance to lock himself in his bathroom and later rush into the arms of the cops (sorry, I don't buy that they were wrestling right at the front door at the exact moment the cops showed up and that they had no idea it was the Pelosi's residence) chose not to do so?  And again, if it had been incompetence, why didn't anyone get fired? 

Edited November 5, 2022 by Doc

[Wacka]

16 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

Your theory requires US attorneys to lie under oath about the facts of the case.

 

So, what is the simplest explanation:

1. A guy broke into a lightly guarded house that basically sits on the public street and assaulted someone because he was crazy; or

2. Paul Pelosi was having a secret gay love affair that went bad and as part of it going bad, they smashed open a window and called the police. And then every single person involved lied about it, even under the penalty of perjury.

If the secret lover theory is actually true, it’ll come out at trial. But by the time it doesn’t (because it strains any kind of rational thought to believe it) all the people on this board hinting at it will have moved on to something else like how Twitter actually failed because the CDC teamed up with (((Soros))) to implant microchips in everyone that turns them vegan to prevent global warming. 

Why not both?

[Chef Jim]

17 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

LOL!  A lot of people care.

 

I’m not surprised. Lots of dumb people in the world.  Affects me not one bit and them neither.  All to score some sort of political points I guess.  Sad….

[Doc]

2 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

I’m not surprised. Lots of dumb people in the world.  Affects me not one bit and them neither.  All to score some sort of political points I guess.  Sad….

 

This is a political issue. 

[ChiGoose]

7 minutes ago, Wacka said:

Why not both?

Because there is evidence for one and no evidence for the other.

 

If I said that the Buffalo Bills and the Detroit Lions were the best teams in the league, would your response be “sure, why not both?” Or would it be “what the hell are you smoking?”

[Wacka]

lighten up Francis. i was having fun. As  i said before, either there was something weird going on in the house or the the ops screwed up. Eiither way, someone screwed up and/or the press is covering up for someone.

[ChiGoose]

2 minutes ago, Wacka said:

lighten up Francis. i was having fun. As  i said before, either there was something weird going on in the house or the the ops screwed up. Eiither way, someone screwed up and/or the press is covering up for someone.

Either the earth is flat or it isn’t. In any case, there’s something weird going on in the planet or the ops screwed up. Either way, someone screwed up or the press is covering up for someone. 

[Chef Jim]

12 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

This is a political issue. 

How?