Nancy Pelosi's husband, Paul, 'violently assaulted' in home invasion, spokesman says

[oze]

EXCLUSIVE: Two Far-Right Websites Attributed to David DePape to Smear Conservatives Were Scraped Friday and Deleted Saturday | The Gateway Pundit | by Joe Hoft

The mainstream media attributed two websites to the man arrested with Paul Pelosi on early Friday morning, David DePape. However, this all appears to be another far-left farce.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Sez here DePape "entered from the rear".

 

[Ingomike]

I did ask a question. Do you trust single sourced stories?

I did not say that because you found multiple sources for a story that the story was true. I did imply it is more likely to be true, however I did not say you had to believe it.

I only asked do you trust single sourced stories?

The answer is one must look at the totality of the evidence whether single sourced or multiple sources alike, both can be right or wrong. As for trust, I don’t trust any of them, and have said that several times in this thread.

And originally the Hunter Bidet laptop was single sourced, seemed true and was true

 

[foszoe]

This Republican governor just showed how not to respond to Paul Pelosi's assault | CNN Politics

Just hours removed from the news that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's husband had been attacked at the couple's San Francisco home, Gov. Glenn Youngkin was on the stump for fellow Virginia Republican Yesli Vega, who is running for a House seat.

www.cnn.com

I thought they were cleaning that place up. Saw the article title in one of my news feeds.....

And Youngkin said this: “Speaker Pelosi’s husband had a break-in last night in their house, and he was assaulted. There’s no room for violence anywhere, but we’re gonna send her back to be with him in California. That’s what we’re going to go do.”

I wouldn't feel a twinge of guilt about saying that.

 

[jamil]

This is what I find disingenuous, you do not say it like this or about any other news source

Now hold the F on here. You have someone reporting something. Is it true or is it not true? What's the reputation? I say it like I do because I want to believe the thing, but because GWP can stretch the truth dramatically, how do I know they're not this time? CNN or any of the others, I just assume they're lying because they're all activists.

I've gone off on media, besides GWP, and you say nothing about that. Even give it a thumbs up here and there. Why is it that when I express doubt about GWP you get all defensive? If GWP is the only news outlet reporting something, they don't have a reputation worthy of just believing it must be true.

, it only seems relevant for GWP to you. You have some need to say it specifically about GWP, do you feel betrayed by them because they got something wrong you believed and possibly felt embarrassed you believed it?

I said it about Tim Pool above. I like and respect Pool. I listen to the podcast whenever I have the time. On rarer occasions, I've found him to report things that turn out to be false. Same thing with Ben Shapiro. Or Steven Crowder. They have a perspective which is biased, and that can influence how they report facts. And just like with everyone else, I don't want to believe someone just because they report some things I want to believe. I can't help it sometimes. I get caught up as much as the next guy.

I don’t trust any source to be 100%, it was foolish that we lived through an era that folks actually believed that BS. I do like some of what I learn from GWP though you seem to want to paint them with the broad brush in a way you just do not other sources.

I like stories I read from GWP. They're nearly always favorable to my biases. But I hate believing things that aren't true even worse. I'm not painting them with any brush they haven't earned.

Back to the relevance, the story and it's source make the relevance. If the thing we were talking about were reported by Trunews, I'd have been even more unbearable. I'd probably have mocked whoever was using that as a source of truth. You won't see me react like that as much with CNN because no one here seriously uses CNN as a reliable source.

 

[jamil]

I don't listen to anybody who regularly shades the truth to push an agenda

Not everything is just about you

I'm not sure he has an agenda, per se. Or at least no more of an agenda than any of us have. I suspect he just has a perspective and reacts to other perspectives that clash with his.

 

[foszoe]

I've gone off on media, besides GWP, and you say nothing about that. Even give it a thumbs up here and there. Why is it that when I express doubt about GWP you get all defensive? If GWP is the only news outlet reporting something, they don't have a reputation worthy of just believing it must be true.

I have noticed the same thing. I wonder if INGOMike writes/works for the GWP.

 

[jamil]

the solution is simple. Don't post anything without 2-3 collaborating sources. Most of us don't trust the MSM. I don't see why any of us should trust one source on anything. The harder one works to find 2-3 other sources the more likely one should be to consider the single source suspect.

If a newsworthy story is published by one source, it should be published by another.

Do you trust single sourced stories? I don't.

Like I've said, I want to believe the version where the guy who claw-hammered the Speaker's husband was his disgruntled gay lover and not a right wingnut. I want to believe that the right wingnut website was not his. I'm not gonna take GWP's word for it--it's an extraordinary claim. So we need commensurate evidence. Maybe some police body cam video.

 

[Ingomike]

Why is it that when I express doubt about GWP you get all defensive?

I like stories I read from GWP. They're nearly always favorable to my biases. But I hate believing things that aren't true even worse.

And there I got my answer; you like what they say but are afraid to believe it. As for why I get defensive, you point them out every time with a fervor that seems stronger than you do for others…

And yes, Trunews is anything but most of the time.

 

[jamil]

This does not work either, if it did Trump would be in prison for Russian collusion because the entire MSM reported it, literally hundreds of sources all reported it. So all the BS is a fail…

It's not just that many sources print it. The way it works is one site prints it, then other media print it citing that site. And then more media cite all those other's. It's like a media circle jerk.

Present some solid evidence that can be independently corroborated. Corroboration isn't simply citing the original source.

 

[Ingomike]

I have noticed the same thing. I wonder if INGOMike writes/works for the GWP.

Says an FBI operative… LOL

 

[Ingomike]

It's not just that many sources print it. The way it works is one site prints it, then other media print it citing that site. And then more media cite all those other's. It's like a media circle jerk.

Present some solid evidence that can be independently corroborated. Corroboration isn't simply citing the original source.

You do realize that little news today is based on evidence that can be corroborated? It is almost all based on leaks and off the record secrets shared. That is why they all get so much wrong. I suspect that at one point the NYT truly believed the Russia collusion story because they trusted their source, but when they suspected the truth they continued the narrative they established.

Todays”news” is based on the reliability of sources of the publisher…

 

[jamil]

And there I got my answer; you like what they say but are afraid to believe it. As for why I get defensive, you point them out every time with a fervor that seems stronger than you do for others…

And yes, Trunews is anything but most of the time.

WHAT? WTF are you talking about? Afraid to believe it? More like weary of believing it because they're not above making **** up. Where are your standards, man? Fool me once, shame on me for believing it. Fool me twice, you're the **** out of my trust zone. That's where GWP sits. Maybe they have a nice story. But I'm gonna need more than them simply claiming something.

And I'm pretty sure I've laid into some others way harder than GWP on INGO. Often that's when fact checking the fact-checkers. But that's almost always in a different context because INGO doesn't typically cite sources like Snopes in support their beliefs. I think this overbearing defense of GWP is not rational.

 

[jamil]

Says an FBI operative… LOL

FBI operative? Dude. Please tell me this is just hyperbolic banter and you're not serious. C'mon man. I'm just looking for some good reasons to think the best. And if you are serious, can you please supply some hard evidence other than that he says things you don't like? It's a hella claim.

 

[foszoe]

Says an FBI operative… LOL

As reported in the GWP!

 

[Ingomike]

FBI operative? Dude. Please tell me this is just hyperbolic banter and you're not serious. C'mon man. I'm just looking for some good reasons to think the best. And if you are serious, can you please supply some hard evidence other than that he says things you don't like? It's a hella claim.

Just bustin on Foz…

 

[foszoe]

Just bustin on Foz…

About time for me to head to the Colts game.

Have gotten several reports of MAGA hat wearers with Commander's Jerseys. I can personally guarantee none of them will see their seats in the stadium.

In an unrelated note, I will be selling some tickets to the game near the Southwest stadium entrance.

 

[jamil]

You do realize that little news today is based on evidence that can be corroborated? It is almost all based on leaks and off the record secrets shared. That is why they all get so much wrong. I suspect that at one point the NYT truly believed the Russia collusion story because they trusted their source, but when they suspected the truth they continued the narrative they established.

Todays”news” is based on the reliability of sources of the publisher…

Then don't believe it. If that's all they're doing, why incline yourself towards believing the stuff you want to hear? That's when you're at your weakest in terms of discernment.

There is still news based on evidence and actual journalism. I think, regardless of whatever you think of James O'Keefe, what he's doing is closer to journalism than what the MSM does. Show me the tape. What did they say? It's fine if they edit it to cut out irrelevant stuff. I don't want to watch a 1 hour vid of some undercover dude pretending to be gay to get info out of the target. But I think the videos I've seen from PV, pretty much show what's up.

I don't see a reason to think NYT actually believed the Russia hoax story. Maybe some lower level reporters did. I think the evidence favors that the NYT helped promote the lie.

 

[jamil]

Just bustin on Foz…

Whew. Okay. Was thinking we had to do an intervention. lol.

 

[jamil]

About time for me to head to the Colts game.

Have gotten several reports of MAGA hat wearers with Commander's Jerseys. I can personally guarantee none of them will see their seats in the stadium.

In an unrelated note, I will be selling some tickets to the game near the Southwest stadium entrance.

I never went to a colts game. I'd rather not trust my imagination as to why this might be. Care to enlighten me on that? What's wrong with maga hats and what's wrong with Commander's Jerseys, other than the obvious, who the **** is a Commanders fan, and why would they admit to that by wearing it in public?

 

[BigRed]

This Republican governor just showed how not to respond to Paul Pelosi's assault | CNN Politics

Just hours removed from the news that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's husband had been attacked at the couple's San Francisco home, Gov. Glenn Youngkin was on the stump for fellow Virginia Republican Yesli Vega, who is running for a House seat.

www.cnn.com

I thought they were cleaning that place up. Saw the article title in one of my news feeds.....



I wouldn't feel a twinge of guilt about saying that.

Sounds like media getting their panties in a wad because their chosen one has been criticized.

The real question is whose panties are more bunched up...CNN's or Paul's?