« Are Republicans prepared for the aftermath of the 'Red Flood'? | Obama struggles to make a case for the Democrats »
October 31, 2022

Elon Musk challenges the Democrat claims about Pelosi's attack being politically motivated

By Rajan Laad

The day before yesterday, Paul Pelosi, the husband of House speaker Nancy Pelosi, was attacked at the couple's home in San Francisco by a male assailant.

Law enforcement sources that remained unnamed told CNN that the assailant was searching for the speaker of the House.  The source claims that the intruder confronted the speaker's husband in their San Francisco home shouting, "Where is Nancy?  Where is Nancy?"

This was apparently the exact call that January 6 "rioters" made as they "hunted" the House speaker and broke into her office.

How did Paul Pelosi manage to alert the police?

According to another unnamed CNN source, Paul called 911 himself after telling the intruder he had to go use the bathroom.  Yes, the violent intruder was considerate enough to allow Paul to take a bathroom break.

This is very rare, but let's give Paul the benefit of doubt.  Perhaps Paul is one of those rare lucky individuals who arouses compassion even in a psychopathic assailant.

The man who assaulted Paul Pelosi tried to tie him up "until Nancy got home," according to two CNN sources familiar with the situation.  Once again, these two sources were unnamed.

When officers arrived on the scene, police said they saw Paul Pelosi and his assailant with their hands on a hammer.  At that moment, the assailant allegedly pulled the hammer from Pelosi and struck him.

Drew Hammill, a spokesman for Nancy Pelosi, released a statement that Paul was taken to a hospital, where he underwent a "successful surgery to repair a skull fracture and serious injuries to his right arm and hands," and "his doctors expect a full recovery."

It is very rare for a man in his eighties, attacked with a hammer causing a skull fracture, to make a full recovery.  It is also very rare for doctors to be able to make such a declaration without observing the patient for a prolonged period.

But let's give Paul the benefit of doubt, again, perhaps because he is one of those rare lucky individuals.

There are a few open questions about the attack.

Doesn't Nancy Pelosi's residence have security?  She is third in line for the presidency, after all.

The motive behind the attack is unclear.

San Francisco Police chief William Scott said during a news conference on the investigation that authorities are still determining a motive behind the attack, but they intend to book the suspect on felony charges.

"The suspect is still in the hospital, but let me say this: we intend to book the suspect, whether it's in absentia or whether it's in person — he will be booked for felony charges."

But that didn't stop the Democrats and their media messengers from baselessly claiming that the attack was politically motivated and blaming whom else but Republicans and President Donald Trump.

Biden described the attack as "despicable" and denounced a corrosive political climate for contributing to violence and baselessly claimed the attack appeared to be "intended for Nancy."

Barack Obama suggested that the attack was politically motivated.

There were many other liberals reacting.

Failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton blamed the Republican Party and its "mouthpieces" for regularly spreading hate and deranged conspiracy theories, adding that the attack was shocking but not surprising.

Clinton shared a Los Angeles Times article about the suspect, David DePape, claiming he spread QAnon and other far-right conspiracies.  The mainstream media also pushed the narrative that DePape was a "far-right extremist."

There are some who claimed DePape was driven to violence due to drug-induced paranoid psychosis.

He is most likely a mentally unstable individual; this is documented here in a detailed piece by Andrea Widburg.

Elon Musk, fresh off his acquisition of Twitter, responded to Hillary's tweet with a caption: "There is a tiny possibility there might be more to this story than meets the eye."

Musk linked to a site with the headline, "The Awful Truth: Paul Pelosi Was Drunk Again."

The article claimed that Paul Pelosi was drunk and met his alleged attacker, who is a male prostitute, at a gay bar.  The article claimed that Paul was attacked when something went wrong between the two, the implication being that the liaison went overboard.

The media were quick to pounce on Musk, as they are resentful that he took over Twitter, and this was their chance to attack him.

MSN claimed that "Musk tweets anti-LGBTQ conspiracy theories about the Paul Pelosi attack."  Yahoo News, NBC News, Forbes, the NYT, and The Daily Beast called it a conspiracy theory.  The Independent called it a lurid conspiracy theory.

Musk mocked the reaction to the media:

Musk also deleted the Tweet.

So what do we have here?

We do not know what exactly happened that night at the Pelosi residence.  The information available is based on claims of unnamed sources.  When the media want to fabricate, unnamed sources are used usually.  The fact that police body cam footage or security footage wasn't released certainly raises questions.

Yet the Democrats engaged in a dangerous conspiracy theory without any proof, blaming the GOP for the attack on Paul.  They are hoping to scare voters prior to the midterms and secure votes.

The article that Musk tweeted about also makes insinuations and claims without proof, but it asks some valid questions.

It is unlikely that someone as astute as Musk isn't aware of this.

The P.R. wing for the Democrats, which masquerades as the mainstream media, obviously pounced upon Musk, while the Democrats' conspiracy theories were treated as God's truth.

The fact that Musk deleted his tweet proves he didn't entirely believe in the claim about Paul, but he was engaging in an exercise with a purpose.

Musk was revealing the absurdity in the Democrats' claim by engaging in some ludicrousness himself.

However, the claims made in the article that Musk tweeted about are more credible than the Democrats' preposterous claim.

But there is a difference between Musk and the Democrats.

That difference is that the Democrats via Biden have power and access to government agencies.

If history has taught us anything, conspiracy theories that Democrats float are usually weaponized and used against political opponents.

A special counsel was appointed after the Democrats floated and amplified the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy theory.  Trump was impeached twice based on conspiracy theories.  The January 6 committee was founded on the basis of a conspiracy theory of the "insurrection."

The Democrats know that they are likely to lose during the midterms.  They will do all they can to either cling to power or place impediments before the GOP after they retake the House and the Senate.

The question is not if, but when and how their latest conspiracy theory will be used against their political opponents.

Musk himself may also be a target.

We may know in the next few days, or perhaps in the months after the elections.


Image: Steve Jurvetson CC BY 2.0 license.

If you experience technical problems, please write to helpdesk@americanthinker.com