This event is utterly bizarre: I cannot yet speculate as to what exactly happened, but I can point out the inconsistencies in this story that make me think something else is going on. What does seem likely is that Nancy Pelosi, the clever political operator that she is, took something embarrassing and decided to twist it into something advantageous to her side. Of course, a political stunt meant to remind people of January 6th cannot be ruled out, but seems less likely than finding a way to take lemons and turn them into lemonade.
Let’s consider just some of the inconsistencies:
1) The 9-11 dispatcher got the name of the assailant from, ostensibly, Paul. If the man was a deranged political actor, why would he give his name to the person he was attacking? This suggests some form of pre-existing relationship that would have involved an exchange of names.
2) The two men were in their underwear. No one does a break-in in their underwear, kind of brings suspicion onto you. No one would strip if they were planning to attack another person as it makes escape harder and is, well, generally weird. Even from a committed nudist, this seems strange.
3) The fact that the hammer was brought into the situation by Paul Pelosi; it was not the weapon of the assailant (Who would plan to attack someone with a hammer; clearly the hammer was a last ditch defensive effort on the part of Paul). If the assailant had been planning an attack, he would have brought a proper weapon, not a freaking hammer. The assailant appears to have been unarmed---which is very odd if you are planning to attack someone. But even if the hammer was his, it is beyond bizarre to bring a mere hammer to an attempted kidnapping or political assassination.
4) The broken glass by which DePape supposedly entered the home appears to have been broken from the inside.
5) Odd incidents in Paul's recent past suggesting he may be having a 90% life crisis.
6) Why didn't Paul stay in the bathroom? Even if I got access to a hammer, if I had successfully escaped and made a call to 9-11, I am not going to confront the person breaking in---I am going to stay where I am or find somewhere else to hide even if I am armed. The only way that I would confront the intruder is if I have friends and family I think need protecting. Otherwise, I would barricade myself in and hide with my weapon while I waited for the calvary to arrive. And this is true of me as a nearly 300 pound, 6' ''2 man at 42: If I were 82, this logic would hold even more firmly. Of course, if he knew the man and knew he didn't really represent a threat to his life, then things change.
7) Gay pride and BLM signs at Gypsy Taub's house---his former residence. This increases the probability, though it certainly is not a necessity, that David DePape is gay or bisexual and was involved in a consensual liaison with Paul before the altercation occurred.
8) Some third person at the scene opened the door for the officers, someone who was not hiding from the perpetrator or actively helping Paul subdue him. Wouldn’t an employee of the Pelosi’s have been too frightened to open the door? Why did this person stick around and not run? And what non-security employee would be at the Pelosi’s home between 2AM and 3AM? (And wouldn’t security people have called the police or intervened in the confrontation?)
9) The police witnessed the beating, and did not shoot the assailant. This was possibly done because they had concerns about their aim, but it seems odd that DePape got enough blows off to harm Paul given that police were already there.
10) The absence of any security measures is also odd---and suggests that perhaps DePape was allowed in. How do multimillionaires not have a working ADT subscription?
11) How exactly was a mostly naked man able to make his way to the Pelosi home unnoticed, even that early in the morning?
12) DePape’s online footprint has been wiped away rather suddenly, leaving us no ability to verify whether or not he was actually a “Q-anon conspiracy theorist.” If his online activity really justifies this narrative, why not leave the evidence up?
13) At least one news report says the police know the motive, but that they cannot share it publicly. This is odd, why not share what you know about the motive unless that motive is personally embarrassing to Pelosi. SFPD arrests Paul Pelosi attacker, probes break-in motive | Crime | sfexaminer.com (article link below).
The incident is just strange: Imagine you are planning to do something terrible, a kidnapping or an attack on a political figure (this is called a hypothetical, which means what I am talking about is "make believe" to use a term censors might understand). Would you bring a hammer? Some zip ties instead of actual handcuffs? And why didn't David use the zip ties on Paul before letting him go to the bathroom? Also, wouldn't you escort your hostage to the bathroom or simply make him hold it? I mean, doesn't a lot of this not add up to you? If I am conducting a kidnapping, I am certainly not letting anyone use the bathroom that early on in the process.
This just gives me "this does not totally add up" vibes like those I got around the Jessie Smollett scandal.
Where is the police bodycam footage? Where is the surveillance camera footage? Should we really believe that a famous political figure, worth millions of dollars, does not have the equivalent of a Ring security system?
The fact that David DePape did not bring a weapon, however, is the thing that makes me most suspicious: And that no weapon apart from this hammer has been mentioned. It is to this incident what the "This is Maga country" and the -20 degrees weather was to the Smollett affair.
https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/crime/sfpd-arrests-paul-pelosi-attacker-probes-break-in-motive/article_09614bee-56e8-11ed-bcd5-d3ffed12f7dc.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJMArWSi8kU