motive is a mystery

News Media: Bizarre hammer assault on Speaker Pelosi’s husband.
Suspect: I was after Nancy.
News Media: Law enforcement has offered no motive for the attack.
Suspect: I wanted to kill Nancy.
News Media: Police silent on Pelosi attacker’s intentions.
Suspect: Really, I just wanted to kill Nancy. I guess she wasn’t there.
News Media: Did divisive political rhetoric play a part in attack?
Suspect: Everybody on FOX says Nancy is a monster, so I wanted to kill her. You know…with a hammer.
News Media: Pelosi needed brain surgery after hammer attack.
GOP: CA should relax gun laws so Pelosi could have defended himself from hammer-wielding attacker. Dems not tough on crime.
Suspect: I would have used a gun, but this is California and I can’t buy one.
FOX News: Lots of people injured in hammer attacks in CA. Why lib media focused on this one minor assault? Pelosi didn’t even die.
News Media: Unconfirmed report: Pelosi attacker said to be dressed in his underwear.
Suspect: I’m a hammer killer, not a pervert. Fully dressed. In camo.
Elon Musk: An obscure news source that once claimed Hilary Clinton was dead and replaced by a body double says the attack MAY have some kinky gay thing going on.
GOP: After recent DUI arrest, Paul Pelosi engaged in extramarital gay hammer sex party.
News Media: Uh, well, okay, maybe?
Suspect: Look, all I wanted to do was kill Nancy then go monitor voting drop boxes like any other normal patriotic American. I’m a victim of cancel culture.

News Media: Sources say Pelosi lured hammer suspect with offers of twisted gay sex.
Suspect: Wait, what? No.
News Media: GOP claims prosecution of Pelosi hammer attacker is politically motivated.
Suspect: I’m announcing my candidacy for Gov. of Cali, which I’ll win unless the votes are tampered with.
GOP: Vote for us, we’ll hammer Biden and his gay socialist agenda!

EDITORIAL NOTE: Today, 10-31-22, the FBI released an eight page affidavit “for the limited purpose of securing a criminal complaint and arrest warrant” for the asshole who assaulted Paul Pelosi with a hammer. It includes statements made by David DePape outlining his motives for breaking into the Pelosi hom. You can read the affidavit here.

Will this end the wild speculation by Republicans and other conspiracy theory fuckwits?


13 thoughts on “motive is a mystery

  1. I also wonder about journalists who continue to use the old convention of saying “alleged attacker” even when, in some instances, cell phone video of the attack happening has been widely published. Why all the evasiveness and phony deference?

    Liked by 1 person

    • It’s the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ concept. Even with what would seem to be unequivocal video evidence, a person is still not guilty in the law until they have been ruled so by a judge and/or jury. So the media is just protecting itself from being found prejudicial – or sued.


      • I understand why they’re doing it. I have colleagues who are journalists and friends who are lawyers, so I get that. But after a point it feels ungenuine. Like saying “this guy allegedly standing next to me” when said guy is *literally* standing next to me.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oh I agree – it sounds ridiculous in some cases. But I guess I will always defend the presumption of innocence because I’m aware of how scarily manipulative the world can be. Journalists just have to go through the motions I guess.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I don’t think it’s either evasiveness or phony deference; I think it’s an important nod toward impartiality and the concept of reasonable doubt. Having spent seven years as a PI specializing in criminal defense, I appreciate that approach.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. It’s bad that it happened. I know nothing of the media you refer too.

    But the thing that is puzzling me is; why isn’t the Pelosi household guarded with 24/7 security? She’s like the most powerful woman in the world, or almost. An extremely powerful American and divisive. How come her home was free for some lunatic to just get in and hammer her husband?


    • Most members of Congress aren’t routinely provided with a security detail. A few high-ranking members are given security, as are members who’ve been credibly targeted, but the security detail only applies to the Congressperson, not to their families. Several Congresspeople use campaign funds to pay for private security.

      The thing is, this wasn’t really a problem until the last decade or so, when political rhetoric (almost exclusively by Republicans against Democrats) became increasingly personal and hostile.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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.