Further Observations On The Paul Pelosi Attack And Aftermath [Updated]

The ultimate take-away from the madness surrounding the attack on Nancy Pelosi’s husband is this: if Democrats and their media allies are devoting this much spin and energy into making it into an “October surprise,” they have reached peak desperation. To repeat myself from yesterday, who otherwise inclined to vote for a Republican would change his or her vote based on the “The evil, fascist Republicans who want to destroy democracy caused the violent attack by a whack-job on Nancy Pelosi’s husband with their hateful rhetoric and must be stopped by any means necessary” narrative? I can’t believe there is anyone in that category. I can easily believe, however, that some independent on the metaphorical fence might be prompted to conclude, “Wow, these people have lost their friggin’ minds. I don’t want to have anything to do with them.” Or, as King Arthur would say,

And yet they are going with it. Amazing.

Other notes:

She then neatly vivisects the narrative, beginning with the Times characterization of Musk’s referencing one reporter’s theory about what might explain the weird loose ends in what we have been told as “baseless allegations”:

First, I have a problem with the phrase “baseless allegations.” You shouldn’t add the word “baseless” to “allegations” unless you have determined that the allegations are based on nothing. Has the NYT done that? Or is it simply showing its bias?


On Saturday, Hillary Clinton, the former first lady and 2016 Democratic presidential nominee, posted a tweet assailing Republicans for spreading “hate and deranged conspiracy theories” that she said had emboldened the man who attacked Ms. Pelosi’s husband, Paul, inside the couple’s home in San Francisco early Friday.


Why not call that a “baseless allegation”? Hillary was only speculating about what motivated DePape.

Indeed, the theory that Pelosi picked up the wrong gay guy at a bar somewhere isn’t baseless; it’s based on facts that lead the reporter to a particular guess. It is exactly as “baseless” the narrative (endorsed by Hillary Clinton) that DePape was motivated by GOP anti-Pelosi rhetoric, but the news media likes that theory, so it is suddenly “based.”

Later, Ann catalogues some of the mysteries in the incident that the Times glosses over:

By the way, in the NYT story itself, I see some evidence that would support the Santa Monica Observer narrative and not the Hillary Clinton narrative:

The police have said that Mr. Pelosi, 82, was attacked with a hammer inside his home by a man, David DePape, who had entered through the back door.

That does not say DePape broke in. Why would you write “had entered through the back door” rather than broke in through the back door? It suggests the man was allowed in. And “attacked with a hammer inside his home” places the man inside the home without addressing why he is there. We begin in medias res. What was going on? I suspect the NYT knows more than it’s putting in writing…

The police have said that when they arrived at the home, they found the two men wrestling for control of a hammer. The authorities have said that Mr. DePape, 42, would probably face several charges, including attempted homicide and assault with a deadly weapon.

So he hasn’t been charged yet? Why not? And the charges you’re picturing are attempted homicide and assault with a deadly weapon. Why not breaking and entering?

How did DePape get into the house? At least say it’s unknown how he got into the house… unless it’s not unknown. Something seems to be missing here.

The NYT story stirs up doubts, even as it demands that we see the drunk-fight-with-a-male-prostitute story as baseless. There’s at least the report that both men were in their underpants! And that DePape allowed Mr. Pelosi to go into the bathroom by himself….

Read it all. Spot on, Ann.

  • On yesterday’s edition of CBS’s “Face the Nation,” anchor Margaret Brennan gave a clinical display of how bias makes one not just stupid but unprofessional and silly. She accused Republican Congressman Tom Emmer of encouraging political violence and being partially responsible for the  attack on Paul Pelosi’s husband because he posted a video on Twitter promoting his support of the Second Amendment by firing a rifle and then urging voters to protect their rights by firing Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. Fire a gun, fire Pelosi… Brennan concluded that this was a call to fire guns at Pelosi. “Why is there a gun in a political ad at all?” Brennan said. Oh, I don’t know, maybe because Pelosi’s Democrats want to make it difficult for law abiding citizens to arm themselves while law-breaking criminals are running amuck? Brennan was re-cycling the Gabby Giffords freak-out when the media accused Sarah Palin of prompting that attack by using little cross-hairs to designate Congressional  Democrats the GOP needed to defeat. “Wouldn’t a pink slip be more fitting if it’s about firing her?” Brennan persisted. Hey, you make your own campaign ads, Emmer will make his.  Emmer was quick enough to highlight Brennan’s double standards and those of her colleagues, saying,

“It’s interesting Margaret that we’re talking about this this morning when a couple years back when a Bernie Sanders supporter shot Steve Scalise… I never heard you or anyone else in the media trying to blame Democrats for what happened…Nobody tried to equate Democrats’ rhetoric…”

Brennan had no answer because there isn’t one other than “We weren’t trying to win an election for Republicans by demonizing Democrats then,” and she certainly would never say that.

Now there’s an unethical headline, beginning with the hoary post hoc egro propter hoc fallacy. The 2022 World Series and my recent bruising fall also followed years of GOP criticism of Nancy, but that doesn’t mean the Republicans caused them. And Republicans haven’t “demonized” Pelosi; they have appropriately condemned her for destructive hyper-partisan abuse of her office. She pushed through two false impeachments. She showed unprecedented disrespect for the President by tearing up his State of the Union message on live TV. She set up a rigged House inquiry on the January 6 riot in breach of regular House practices. Arguing that she should be fired isn’t demonizing, but the only way Pelosi could be more of a threat to the political system would be if her head spun around and she vomited green slime.

  • Right-wing fire-breather Kurt Schlicter, meanwhile, seems to correctly assesses the matter in his own unique way, writing in part,

There’s only one possible explanation, according to experts, licensed journalists, and our betters – an underwear-clad MAGA assassin from a hippie commune in Berkeley who is best known for his nudist activism broke into the oddly unguarded mansion of the Speaker of the House, a wealthy woman who has her police force and has not been shy about expounding on the perilous peril she faces from murderous insurrectionists, carrying a hammer and encountered the wide-awake Paul Pelosi, also in his skivvies, who the intruder then let go off and call the cops wherein Mr. Pelosi referred to the guy as his friend.

Sans the sarcasm, chief political correspondent for the Washington Examiner Byron York has a simple request:

Ya think? But avoiding and burying and obscuring facts are vital to manipulating public opinion.

ADDED: The Washington Post does include what York asked for, but did add a lot of information in a late afternoon article, here.

The most obvious conclusion from this report is that David Wayne DePape is nuts, but we knew that. He allegedly says he wanted to kidnap Nancy Pelosi because she’s a “liar,” then the Post goes on to try to pretend that is a delusion created by GOP critics. Pelosi is, in fact, a liar. That doesn’t make DePape’s actions rational or appropriate, but neither are those who have pointed out that fact responsible in any way for DePape’s conduct.

16 thoughts on “Further Observations On The Paul Pelosi Attack And Aftermath [Updated]

  1. I think this “The Republicans Did It!” thing is simply an orchestrated smoke screen operation. “He’s a friend but I don’t know his name.” Hmmm. Okay Paul, whatever you say. Of course, the talking point that appeared was “Pelosi was ‘talking in code.'” Okay then. That explains it. And are this guy’s Facebook posts still available? Or did the DNC have Mark Zuckerberg “curate’ them? Are the Dems just going to rope-a-dope this until next Tuesday night? Will this guy be arraigned any time soon or is he being held in Guantanamo as a terrorist foreign national by Merrick Garland’s crack G-Men? The guy is Canadian, eh? And he made terroristic threats.

  2. They didn’t waste much time: “Federal prosecutors charged David DePape, 42, with assault on the immediate family member of a federal official and attempted kidnapping of a federal official.”. per Forbes.

    Curious that there seemed to be no equivalent level of concern and urgency from Garland & Co. as leftist loons attacked and harassed Republican judges and officials over the past couple of years.

  3. The guy just walked into Pelosi’s bedroom after breaking a pane in a French door? No burglar alarm? No staff in residence? No security on site? I thought Nancy was scared stiff ever since January 6.

  4. How ironic is it that Paul Pelosi was attacked by an illegal alien? David DePape legally entered the US and obtained a visa to stay longer. But he never renewed and was ordered deported back to Canada.

  5. For those not familiar with the site, realclearpolitics.com not only aggregates polling information for a gazillion different races, but also has links to a number of stories every day from newspapers, websites, substack, Fox, CNN, MSNBC, Politico, The Hill, and many more.

    I use that to get an idea of what people are writing about. Oft times, just the headline will tell you a lot of what you need to know, without needing to click on the story (which, of course, a lot of the time is trash anyways).

    Here are some current examples, mostly from Democrats as you can tell:

    >No, Trans people are not coming to eat your children.
    >Biden’s transgender agenda put girls at risk.
    >Herschel Walker is the anti-Obama
    >Dems have a great economic story to tell.
    Democracy hangs in the balance in the midterms
    >Obama just gave Dems the perfect closing message.
    >Dems insist Biden’s low profile is smart strategy
    >Pelosi attack is culmination of years of GOP hate mongering
    >Biden, Dems spin attack on Pelosi to smear Trump, GOP
    >Only the GOP celebrates political violence.
    >Biden on economy: “Things are looking good”
    >Dems, media demand GOP call off campaign.

    If nothing else, it’s useful to see what the other side is thinking (or struggling to think, as the case may be).

    One last observation — that last headline, that the GOP should stop campaigning because of the Pelosi attack — No. I think McCain tried that in 2008, Romney tried not fighting back when he was smeared by the Obama campaign. Didn’t work out for those guys, and it helped swing voters to Trump, I think. If he had nothing else, he was at least willing to fight back.

  6. As no doubt many have noticed, the accounts of this Pelosi incident are in a rapid state of flux, with the story changing daily. It certainly appears to be an attempt to both sanitize the true happenings and blame republicans. Some have even speculated this was a tryst gone bad, which astoundingly makes more sense than the ever changing and contradictory story we’re being fed.

  7. We’re spending too much time on this.

    We’re pretending we care about the details.

    Previous to this, a man with a gun was arrested trying to find the home of Brett Kavanaugh. Rand Paul was hospitalized with broken ribs after his neighbor attacked him, Lee Zeldin (the GOP cadidate for NJ governor) was attacked on stage during a campaign rally, Steve Scalise was shot by a Bernie bro during a congressional baseball game.

    That’s all in the last five years.

    Democrats don’t dig in to these. They don’t ask about motivation. They don’t tie the attacks to rhetoric. They don’t care. And I’m just going to put it out there… Unless challenged in a partisan setting, I truly believe that they’re more likely to just straight up say the quiet part out loud and get straight to victim blaming.

    And frankly, on the investigation, motivation, and rhetoric, they shouldn’t. National politics should not be held hostage to the actions of individual lunatics. If these incidents had happened in almost any other context, they might not make the front page of a local newspaper. Treating this as serious political discourse is trying to find meaning in the meaningless, political haruspicy… I can’t possibly treat it seriously.

    The correct response isn’t to put on the detective hat and sleuth out that Paul Pelosi was on another bender, playing strip poker with his hippie commune friend after their monthly basement child sacrifice to try to eke out another month of life. It’s to point out that they have no principles, they don’t actually care, the police will sort it out, we’ll know more in a month, and the midterms are in seven days.

    • “Previous to this, a man with a gun was arrested trying to find the home of Brett Kavanaugh. Rand Paul was hospitalized with broken ribs after his neighbor attacked him, Lee Zeldin (the GOP cadidate for NJ governor) was attacked on stage during a campaign rally, Steve Scalise was shot by a Bernie bro during a congressional baseball game.”

      Yesterday I had a conversation with my brother almost verbatim of what you say. So, I understand where you are coming from but forgive us for having a little fun here and sleuthing a little.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.