Nancy Pelosi's husband attacked in home (1 Viewer)

[GrandAdmiral]

This could go in several threads but deserves one of its own. Apparently, the suspect got into the home and was looking for the Speaker. The police saw some of the attack and the spouse is in surgery. Social media accounts point to him being an election denier. This is pretty forked up.

Live updates: Paul Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi's husband, attacked at couple's home

Paul Pelosi, the husband of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, was attacked at the couple's San Francisco home with a hammer, according to law enforcement sources. Follow live news updates here.

www.cnn.com

Suspect shouted "Where is Nancy?" before assaulting Pelosi's husband at home, source says

Two sources tell CBS News a hammer was used by the assailant to break into Pelosi's home. The House speaker was not there at the time, according to her office.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[SaintForLife]

That’s what Alex Jones says about Sandy Hook also. Oh, he also went farther, but when cornered he reverts to this exact argument. You should be ashamed.

And yet as horrible as a person as Alex Jones is, even he didn't fall for the Russia collusion narrative like you guys did.

 

[UriUT]

And yet as horrible as a person as Alex Jones is, even he didn't fall for the Russia collusion narrative like you guys did.

I think Durham is on the other line for you

 

[SamAndreas]

And yet as horrible as a person as Alex Jones is, even he didn't fall for the Russia collusion narrative like you guys did.

You throw out that "Russian collusion narrative" line in passing as if it were something which has been debunked by God, when in fact there's not been a debunking of it that's actually anything more than a Fox fiction narrative.

So what you're doing is a projection, telling us that we're doing something which you're actually doing.

After all it was you who fell for that Fox fiction narrative.

Here's your stars projectionist award:

 

[bdb13]

You throw out that "Russian collusion narrative" line in passing as if it were something which has been debunked by God, when in fact there's not been a debunking of it that's actually anything more than a Fox fiction narrative.

So what you're doing is a projection, telling us that we're doing something which you're actually doing.

After all it was you who fell for that Fox fiction narrative.

Here's your stars projectionist award:

It's similar in nature to how the Hunter Biden thing's probably going to play in that there will be elements that are mostly true and elements that are mostly false and elements undetermined while the partisans yell "see!" and "nothing to see!" past one another.

Same basic shirt same basic players.

 

[SaintForLife]

It's similar in nature to how the Hunter Biden thing's probably going to play in that there will be elements that are mostly true and elements that are mostly false and elements undetermined while the partisans yell "see!" and "nothing to see!" past one another.

Same basic shirt same basic players.

The last thing that the Russiagate truthers have left that they still hang on to as proof of Russian collusion is the polling data that Manafort gave Konstantin Kilimnik. The same Kilimnik that has been a State Department source for years and that worked for John McCain's Republican Institute.

Mueller never claimed that Kilimnik was a Russian intelligence officer and the Senate Intelligence Committee claimed he was without offering any proof.

 

[FullMonte]

The last thing that the Russiagate truthers have left that they still hang on to as proof of Russian collusion is the polling data that Manafort gave Konstantin Kilimnik. The same Kilimnik that has been a State Department source for years and that worked for John McCain's Republican Institute.

Mueller never claimed that Kilimnik was a Russian intelligence officer and the Senate Intelligence Committee claimed he was without offering any proof.

really? What about the Trump tower meeting? Trump's son, son-in-law, and campaign manager met with someone who they thought was a russian government lawyer offering dirt on Hillary Clinton. During the meeting, according to Trump's son, they discussed lessening sanctions on Russian adoptions by americans.

So, high ranking members of Trump's campaign met with a member of the Russian government to get dirt on Hillary and offered to give them lesser sanctions in return. That's a literal example of "collusion." Mueller's report made it clear that the only reason no one was charged with a crime there was because they couldn't prove intent.

It's funny that when Comey said that he wouldn't charge Hillary because he couldn't prove intent, those on the right lost their minds because "ignorance of the law is no excuse." But, when Mueller didn't charge Trump's son and other members of his campaign because he couldn't prove intent, that's proof that it didn't happen.

 

[bdb13]

The last thing that the Russiagate truthers have left that they still hang on to as proof of Russian collusion is the polling data that Manafort gave Konstantin Kilimnik. The same Kilimnik that has been a State Department source for years and that worked for John McCain's Republican Institute.

Mueller never claimed that Kilimnik was a Russian intelligence officer and the Senate Intelligence Committee claimed he was without offering any proof.

There's a framework based in reality where its safe to say Putin preferred Trump and was willing to put forth some level of effort in helping him and that the Trump campaign was almost certainly aware of this generally and more receptive than not to the idea. Trump leaned into it and gave the whole thing a weird appearance.

There are varying degrees of truths, half-truths, and bullshirt all within that framework, but that's basically how I've always framed "Russiagate" in my head and so that's sort of to the point of what I was saying.

 

[FullMonte]

There's a framework based in reality where its safe to say Putin preferred Trump and was willing to put forth some level of effort in helping him and that the Trump campaign was almost certainly aware of this generally and more receptive than not to the idea. Trump leaned into it and gave the whole thing a weird appearance.

There are varying degrees of truths, half-truths, and bullshirt all within that framework, but that's basically how I've always framed "Russiagate" in my head and so that's sort of to the point of what I was saying.

The Mueller report made that pretty clear. It stated, directly, that Russian wanted Trump to win and was offering assistance. Members of Trump's campaign reached out to Russia for assistance. The reason no one was charged with conspiracy was because the investigators could not prove an actual agreement between the two to work together was reached, in part because witnesses destroyed evidence and lied to investigators.

 

[bdb13]

The Mueller report made that pretty clear. It stated, directly, that Russian wanted Trump to win and was offering assistance. Members of Trump's campaign reached out to Russia for assistance. The reason no one was charged with conspiracy was because the investigators could not prove an actual agreement between the two to work together was reached, in part because witnesses destroyed evidence and lied to investigators.

I was never thoroughly familiar enough with everything in there to be able to cite it without having to do a bunch of research and don't remember it all so well now but yeah not surprising.

 

[UriUT]

really? What about the Trump tower meeting? Trump's son, son-in-law, and campaign manager met with someone who they thought was a russian government lawyer offering dirt on Hillary Clinton. During the meeting, according to Trump's son, they discussed lessening sanctions on Russian adoptions by americans.

So, high ranking members of Trump's campaign met with a member of the Russian government to get dirt on Hillary and offered to give them lesser sanctions in return. That's a literal example of "collusion." Mueller's report made it clear that the only reason no one was charged with a crime there was because they couldn't prove intent.

It's funny that when Comey said that he wouldn't charge Hillary because he couldn't prove intent, those on the right lost their minds because "ignorance of the law is no excuse." But, when Mueller didn't charge Trump's son and other members of his campaign because he couldn't prove intent, that's proof that it didn't happen.

I remembered reading a few articles in 2016 that asserted that had Comey not announced any investigation, the NYC FBI branch would introduce their evidence. This was the pressure campaign, and I remembered then that I thought this must be the work of Giuliani, and his old contacts. Now this is speculation at this point but the recent indictment opens that possibility that Russian had influence there. And based on the exit polls that I can remember, a significant number of voters changed/decided their votes in October, remarkably around the Comey announcement.

 

[MT15]

And yet as horrible as a person as Alex Jones is, even he didn't fall for the Russia collusion narrative like you guys did.

And a terrible attempt to change the subject. Anything to divert from what you did in this thread.

 

[MT15]

So nobody forgets how just horrible all these people were to Paul Pelosi.

 

[coldseat]

And yet as horrible as a person as Alex Jones is, even he didn't fall for the Russia collusion narrative like you guys did.

Every time you repeat this, I laugh because of how stupid it sounds.

 

[FullMonte]

I remembered reading a few articles in 2016 that asserted that had Comey not announced any investigation, the NYC FBI branch would introduce their evidence. This was the pressure campaign, and I remembered then that I thought this must be the work of Giuliani, and his old contacts. Now this is speculation at this point but the recent indictment opens that possibility that Russian had influence there. And based on the exit polls that I can remember, a significant number of voters changed/decided their votes in October, remarkably around the Comey announcement.

Exactly. Democrats nationwide screwed the pooch in 2016. They selected a very unlikable person as their nominee, and that person ran against someone who was just as unlikable, but who offered something in return....difference. The chance to get rid of politicians, and put someone in the White House who wasn't a career politician. For him to win, all he needed to do was convince a few hundred thousand (for some reason I seem to recall the number being closer to 70,000) voters in a few swing states to vote for him instead of her. There were more than enough people who were in the middle, who didn't like Hillary, who were willing to roll the dice on Trump.

As vocal as his die hard supporters are, they aren't really that large of a voting block. Trump won because of the republican voters who will hold their nose and vote for the person with the R after their name, regardless of who it is and the middle of the road folks who didn't like Hillary. If the republican and democratic parties had both put decent candidates up in 2016, and Trump ran as a 3rd party candidate, we would have seen just how small his die hard group was.

 

[UriUT]

Exactly. Democrats nationwide screwed the pooch in 2016. They selected a very unlikable person as their nominee, and that person ran against someone who was just as unlikable, but who offered something in return....difference. The chance to get rid of politicians, and put someone in the White House who wasn't a career politician. For him to win, all he needed to do was convince a few hundred thousand (for some reason I seem to recall the number being closer to 70,000) voters in a few swing states to vote for him instead of her. There were more than enough people who were in the middle, who didn't like Hillary, who were willing to roll the dice on Trump.

As vocal as his die hard supporters are, they aren't really that large of a voting block. Trump won because of the republican voters who will hold their nose and vote for the person with the R after their name, regardless of who it is and the middle of the road folks who didn't like Hillary. If the republican and democratic parties had both put decent candidates up in 2016, and Trump ran as a 3rd party candidate, we would have seen just how small his die hard group was.

Ive forgotten a lot of details from the 2016 exit polls. A few things stood out. That October one and the low black turnout from the detroit area. I believe the attack from the blm and that crime bill under bill really hurt Hillary. The one I never did look at in detail but I remember that it was a narrative was the depressed bernie vote.

Voter Trends in 2016

CAP’s comprehensive new analysis of 2016 turnout and voting patterns reveals important and surprising results about what happened in the election.

www.americanprogress.org

This one seems to dive into it. A bit more detail than I care to examine now tbh.

Edit. That post mortem when I stared at that line where people decided or changed their minds in October was a traumatic moment I suppose. Lol.

Also, as despicable as Trump is, we have to give him credit. He worked the media...often with an open line to shows like morning joe for example. He seemingly has mass rallies weekly. He was such an attention magnet that he needn't spend $ on ads. Of course Russia.

 

[J-DONK]

Ive forgotten a lot of details from the 2016 exit polls. A few things stood out. That October one and the low black turnout from the detroit area. I believe the attack from the blm and that crime bill under bill really hurt Hillary. The one I never did look at in detail but I remember that it was a narrative was the depressed bernie vote.

Voter Trends in 2016

CAP’s comprehensive new analysis of 2016 turnout and voting patterns reveals important and surprising results about what happened in the election.

www.americanprogress.org

This one seems to dive into it. A bit more detail than I care to examine now tbh.

Edit. That post mortem when I stared at that line where people decided or changed their minds in October was a traumatic moment I suppose. Lol.

Also, as despicable as Trump is, we have to give him credit. He worked the media...often with an open line to shows like morning joe for example. He seemingly has mass rallies weekly. He was such an attention magnet that he needn't spend $ on ads. Of course Russia.

It was a bunch of stuff, but the general take away from the Midwest was NAFTA, and Neoliberal policies of Bill. You saw a massive decline in manufacturing with the outsourcing of jobs via NAFTA. Also, a resistance to protect those jobs via tariffs. Why would those people vote for HRC?

You won't hear the obvious reason why repeated often, because it's points towards something extremely problematic for the vast neoliberal wing of the party.

You will always have competing narratives about these things, and neoliberals really try to blame shift. It's kind of joke to now that you will hear why progressives lost you the election every cycle. If you win, it's the moderate middle that carried you to victory.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Conservative commentators were forced to backtrack over conspiracy theories and jokes about the hammer attack on Paul Pelosi, after the release of police video and audio last week.

One Fox News commentator had to retreat from his claim there was no “evidence of a breaking and entering” when his host pointed out that footage of the attacker breaking into Pelosi’s home was playing on screen at the time.

“Got it,” Brian Claypool said. “Yeah. OK. Can’t we talk more about what is the DoJ doing?”…..

Last week, a judge in San Francisco ordered the release of police and surveillance footage. On Friday, the footage played widely on TV and online.

Musk said sorry – in answer to a tweet in which Juanita Broaddrick, an author who accuses Bill Clinton of rape, said the Pelosi footage showed what was “still a questionable and bizarre situation between two men in their underwear”. Other users pointed out that the footage showed neither man was wearing only underwear.

Perhaps the most awkward reaction, however, came from Claypool, who according to his own website is “a nationally regarded trial attorney, trusted media personality, and a genuine ally to those who have endured sexual abuse and faced civil injustice”.

Referring to a conspiracy theory which holds that Pelosi let DePape into his home, Claypool said: “The question they’ve not talked about is, and nobody wants to talk about, but let’s do it, is did Paul Pelosi know this guy?”

Claypool pointed to the fact the footage shows Pelosi with a drink in his hand. The commentator also claimed a 911 call also released showed Pelosi to be “kind of passively in fear, it didn’t sound like he was in fear for his life”.

Things started to go wrong for Claypool when his Fox News host, Sandra Smith, said: “Wasn’t that an effort to keep the attacker calm, potentially?…..

Paul Pelosi attack: rightwing pundits backtrack after release of police video

Several top conservative commentators promoted conspiracy theories after news of attack at San Francisco home broke in October

www.theguardian.com

 

[MT15]

None of these people have acknowledged that they were wrong, not really. Musk said he had apologized, but he didn’t do it publicly and he didn’t seem at all sincere. That Claypool dude just trying to change the subject when confronted with his error was also not really even backtracking.

This is people parroting the terrible model of Trump - refuse to admit an error, ever. Just double down and plow ahead. We even see it among posters here. It’s really frustrating.