Intruder enters and attacks Pelosi's Husband

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by plague311

Exactly, the days of video evidence being proof for a conspiracy theorist has long, long since gone by. The only reason they want it released is because it would slightly embarrass Paul because he was in his underwear in the middle of the night. That's it.

Hell, I'm still impressed that an 82 yr old man could be woken from sleep in the middle of the night and hold off a prepared, hammer wielding man half his age. I'd need a cup of coffee first at the very least. That man should be damned proud of himself. A lot of people would have froze up. He deserves a big red "S" tattoo on his chest.

[Chris_Halkides]

I was thinking that the 911 call and/or the body cam footage would be part of a trial (and presumably at least viewed by the jury); my understanding is that the alleged attacker is pleading not guilty. But that is well down the road, and there could be a plea deal.

[plague311]

If he's here illegally then I would think it depends on where he would be deported to, if I'm being honest.

I read here that he's from Canada? I'd much rather do any time in Canadian jail\prison than here in the US. I'd make a plea deal to be sent back there.

[Thermal]

Prosecutor: "Nah. No plea. We'll take our chances with the available evidence, including you striking Mr Pelosi with the hammer in front of two officers with bodycam video."

[crescent]

Originally Posted by plague311

Exactly, the days of video evidence being proof for a conspiracy theorist has long, long since gone by. The only reason they want it released is because it would slightly embarrass Paul because he was in his underwear in the middle of the night. That's it.

Wouldn't it be released anyway during discovery for the trial, or during the trial itself as evidence?

I mean if he plea bargains, maybe not then.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by crescent

Wouldn't it be released anyway during discovery for the trial, or during the trial itself as evidence?

I mean if he plea bargains, maybe not then.

Sure, it could be. I'm sure whoever is defending him would have access to it now, but I can't imagine they'd release it to the news or leak it. It definitely wouldn't do their client any favors.

I also don't know if the prosecution would really need it for a conviction. If they were hell bent on not showing it, I don't think their case relies on it. The guy has confessed to everything and given details as to why he did it, what his plan was, and that he was looking for Nancy. The video would almost be overkill at this point.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Prosecutor: "Nah. No plea. We'll take our chances with the available evidence, including you striking Mr Pelosi with the hammer in front of two officers with bodycam video."

I don't see how a case like that even goes to trial. Video from the house cameras, video from the bodycams, Pelosi's testimony, the guy's own confession? What defense could there be? The only question for the courts would be whether he's legally competent, and if not he goes to a hospital for however long a judge sees fit.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Bob001

I don't see how a case like that even goes to trial.

Going to trial is the only way to get a conviction.

Unless you're talking about some sort of plea bargain. You think with a case like this, the victim being a family member of a US congressperson, the DA is going to bargain them down to a lesser charge?

[plague311]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Going to trial is the only way to get a conviction.

Unless you're talking about some sort of plea bargain. You think with a case like this, the victim being a family member of a US congressperson, the DA is going to bargain them down to a lesser charge?

It doesn't always have to be a lesser charge, it can be a bargain for lower prison time, or a facility they'd want to be housed in, or, as I mentioned, to be deported to their country of origin, etc. There are plenty of ways to get someone to plea without giving them a lesser charge.

But yes, I think they would plea down no matter who it was that was attacked. What would they gain by taking him to trial, and having all of this spill out into the media? A bit longer prison time? Nah, he'll plea out.

[The Great Zaganza]

Alex Jones is 98% certain that there will no trial and no conviction, because the Dems want to keep the "lover's tryst" a secret.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Going to trial is the only way to get a conviction.

Unless you're talking about some sort of plea bargain. You think with a case like this, the victim being a family member of a US congressperson, the DA is going to bargain them down to a lesser charge?

*Thermal squirms a little while rereading the cushy plea deals accepted for the J6 attackers*

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by plague311

It doesn't always have to be a lesser charge, it can be a bargain for lower prison time, or a facility they'd want to be housed in, or, as I mentioned, to be deported to their country of origin, etc. There are plenty of ways to get someone to plea without giving them a lesser charge.

But yes, I think they would plea down no matter who it was that was attacked. What would they gain by taking him to trial, and having all of this spill out into the media? A bit longer prison time? Nah, he'll plea out.

Good point. Thanks for the correction. Seems like a bit of a balancing act, but not too difficult a needle to thread.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Going to trial is the only way to get a conviction.

Unless you're talking about some sort of plea bargain. You think with a case like this, the victim being a family member of a US congressperson, the DA is going to bargain them down to a lesser charge?

No that is wrong. While it is correct that there cannot be a conviction without at least court hearing before a judge, a court hearing is a not a trial.

https://www.justice.gov/enrd/criminal-justice-process

Plea Agreements

The Government may offer the defendant a plea agreement to avoid trial and perhaps avoid a longer sentence. A plea bargain can happen before or after the defendant is indicted.

A defendant may plead guilty only if they actually committed the crime and admit to doing so in open court before the judge. Through a guilty plea, a defendant admits guilt and consents to be sentenced by the judge presiding over the case without a trial. Sometimes the Government will agree, as part of a plea agreement, not to recommend a particular sentence, but it is up to the judge to determine how the defendant will be punished.

If a defendant pleads guilty, there is no trial, and the next step is to prepare for a sentencing hearing.

[crescent]

Originally Posted by Bob001

I don't see how a case like that even goes to trial. Video from the house cameras, video from the bodycams, Pelosi's testimony, the guy's own confession? What defense could there be? The only question for the courts would be whether he's legally competent, and if not he goes to a hospital for however long a judge sees fit.

It could go to trial not based upon the facts of what happened, but based upon precisely which offenses were committed.

I can't really explain it without knowing the precise laws in question, but it seems pretty common to see trails where they're not arguing whether or not Mr. Criminal murdered Mr. Victim or not, but are instead using the trial to parse the difference between First Degree Murder, Second Degree Murder, or Manslaughter. That sort of thing.

If I were his lawyer, I would go for a trial and hope to seat a few Trumpies or Conspiracy Theory nutheads on the jury. It only takes one to get him off and hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent, for over a decade, in demonizing the victim's wife. Much effort is now going in to an effort to demonize the victim. Just get one juror who lies well enough to get seated on the jury and is susceptible to all that propaganda.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by crescent

If I were his lawyer, I would go for a trial and hope to seat a few Trumpies or Conspiracy Theory nutheads on the jury. It only takes one to get him off and hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent, for over a decade, in demonizing the victim's wife.

Doesn't that just lead to a mistrial?

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Alex Jones is 98% certain that there will no trial and no conviction, because the Dems want to keep the "lover's tryst" a secret.

Looks like someone has not learned his lesson. Disgusting POS.

[crescent]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

Doesn't that just lead to a mistrial?

I don't know. I get the impression that it sometimes leads to a mistrial but sometimes leads to an acquittal. Maybe it varies by jurisdiction.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by crescent

....
I can't really explain it without knowing the precise laws in question, but it seems pretty common to see trails where they're not arguing whether or not Mr. Criminal murdered Mr. Victim or not, but are instead using the trial to parse the difference between First Degree Murder, Second Degree Murder, or Manslaughter. That sort of thing.
....

Sure. But they convict the guy of something. They don't let him walk. And typically the lesser charges are "lesser included offenses" from which the jury can choose. In this case, whether smashing someone in the head with a hammer is attempted murder or assault with intent to kill or assault with a deadly weapon, the penalties are severe. And the federal charge of assaulting a federal official's family member alone is punishable by 30 years. I suspect he will ultimately get some kind of package deal that will wrap all the federal and state charges together and leave him some chance for parole way down the road -- if he's not found insane.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by crescent

I don't know. I get the impression that it sometimes leads to a mistrial but sometimes leads to an acquittal. Maybe it varies by jurisdiction.

A verdict either way requires unanimity (in one or two states an 11-1 or 10-2 vote could convict until a 2020 Supreme Court decision). A hung jury can result in a retrial, at the option of the prosecutor, not an acquittal.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

No that is wrong. <snip>

Already addressed. Sorry for the wasted effort!

[Trebuchet]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Looks like someone has not learned his lesson. Disgusting POS.

He has learned his lesson very well. The more he tells idiots what they want to here, the more money they send him But your second sentence is correct.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

He has learned his lesson very well. The more he tells idiots what they want to here, the more money they send him But your second sentence is correct.

He's not learned his lesson that telling lies about people by promoting conspiracy theories can end up in a defamation trial and having to pay out big bucks. As Paul Pelosi is a private citizen and not a politician or other public figure, the bar to prove libel/slander is not has high.

[marting]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

He's not learned his lesson that telling lies about people by promoting conspiracy theories can end up in a defamation trial and having to pay out big bucks. As Paul Pelosi is a private citizen and not a politician or other public figure, the bar to prove libel/slander is not has high.

The sad thing is that his audience hasn't learned to completely ignore the miscreant.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by crescent

It could go to trial not based upon the facts of what happened, but based upon precisely which offenses were committed.

I can't really explain it without knowing the precise laws in question, but it seems pretty common to see trails where they're not arguing whether or not Mr. Criminal murdered Mr. Victim or not, but are instead using the trial to parse the difference between First Degree Murder, Second Degree Murder, or Manslaughter. That sort of thing.

If I were his lawyer, I would go for a trial and hope to seat a few Trumpies or Conspiracy Theory nutheads on the jury. It only takes one to get him off and hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent, for over a decade, in demonizing the victim's wife. Much effort is now going in to an effort to demonize the victim. Just get one juror who lies well enough to get seated on the jury and is susceptible to all that propaganda.

These days, just being able to lie well is unlikely to get you past voir dire, especially in trials that might involve politics. The backgrounds of members of any jury pool are investigated by professional investigators such as these guys.

https://ethosrisk.com/services/jury-...nvestigations/

"Using social media to prescreen jurors can reveal potential biases, political leanings, personal relationships relative to the case, hobbies, interests, opinions on current news, relevant digital subscriptions, group memberships and affiliations. A Jury Pool Investigation can determine biases to significantly improve the effectiveness of jury selection and allow for selection of a fair, impartial jury."

If a potential juror lies about his political bias, claiming to be politically neutral, but an investigation of his social media shows him to be a MAGA moron, he will be challenged for cause on two counts.

1. The fact that his social media activity shows that he is politically biased

2. For lying about this on his jury questionnaire.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by marting

The sad thing is that his audience hasn't learned to completely ignore the miscreant.

I don't think his audience has learned to tie their shoes.

[newyorkguy]

The Gateway Pundit, which is a popular fake news website (consistently ranked in the top 10% of websites by popularity, according to Hatewatch), has been 'reporting' a third person was in the Pelosi home when the attack happened. As a source they cite NBC News reporter Tom Winter. Winter thought a statement made by San Francisco police indicated a third person was present, but has since retracted that, stating there was NOT a third person present. Gateway Pundit, of course, is not reporting that.



I was also interested to read on CNN that the Department of Homeland Security said Wednesday that DePape really was in the U. S. illegally and may face deportation after his criminal case is resolved. If convicted and sentenced to prison he would serve the prison sentence and THEN be deported.

From CNN:

Quote:

According to federal records, DePape, a Canadian citizen, entered the country on March 8, 2008, at the San Ysidro port of entry, which is along the California-Mexico border, as a temporary visitor. Generally, Canadians who are visiting for business or pleasure don’t require a visa and are allowed to stay in the US for six months. CNN news link]

Canadians who have overstayed their allowed time -- without having a visa -- as long as DePape has (fourteen years) are normally barred from reentry for ten years.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

These days, just being able to lie well is unlikely to get you past voir dire, especially in trials that might involve politics. The backgrounds of members of any jury pool are investigated by professional investigators such as these guys.

https://ethosrisk.com/services/jury-...nvestigations/

"Using social media to prescreen jurors can reveal potential biases, political leanings, personal relationships relative to the case, hobbies, interests, opinions on current news, relevant digital subscriptions, group memberships and affiliations. A Jury Pool Investigation can determine biases to significantly improve the effectiveness of jury selection and allow for selection of a fair, impartial jury."

If a potential juror lies about his political bias, claiming to be politically neutral, but an investigation of his social media shows him to be a MAGA moron, he will be challenged for cause on two counts.

1. The fact that his social media activity shows that he is politically biased

2. For lying about this on his jury questionnaire.

Nah - wouldn't need all that, simply pass a card to a potential juror and ask them to read it out loud "Biden won the 2020 election".

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

These days, just being able to lie well is unlikely to get you past voir dire, especially in trials that might involve politics. The backgrounds of members of any jury pool are investigated by professional investigators such as these guys.
https://ethosrisk.com/services/jury-...nvestigations/
....

I doubt it was very realistic, but I always enjoyed the now-canceled TV show "Bull." Investigating jurors' backgrounds was a big part of what the star's company did.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Darat

Nah - wouldn't need all that, simply pass a card to a potential juror and ask them to read it out loud "Biden won the 2020 election".

Good Call!

Whenever MAGA Morons are asked "Did Biden win the 2020 election", they always answer "Biden is the president" (or a variation) which is not a valid answer to the question asked.

I suspect the phrase "Biden won the 2020 election" would stick in their craw!

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Darat

Nah - wouldn't need all that, simply pass a card to a potential juror and ask them to read it out loud "Biden won the 2020 election".

I'd amend that to "Biden fairly and honestly won the 2020 election".

[theprestige]

Biden won the 2020 election the same way Trump won the 2016 election: Fair and square. Don't let anyone tell you different, not Hillary, not Qanon.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Biden won the 2020 election the same way Trump won the 2016 election: Fair and square. Don't let anyone tell you different, not Hillary, not Qanon.

100% correct.

Of course the debate in 2016, and earlier presidential elections, centres on how it is possible for a candidate with a lower popular vote total can defeat a candidate with a higher popular vote total, but that is a debate over the fairness of the election system and not over election fraud.

AFAICS, no Democrats, not even Hillary Clinton, claimed widespread voter fraud such as hacking into voting machines, secret suitcases full of votes, long-deceased foreign leaders and other assorted spurious rubbish as the reasons why Trump won in 2016.

(For removal of doubt, I consider any election system that allows a minority candidate to win an election, to be fundamentally flawed... but that is a discussion for a different thread)

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Going to trial is the only way to get a conviction.

Unless you're talking about some sort of plea bargain. You think with a case like this, the victim being a family member of a US congressperson, the DA is going to bargain them down to a lesser charge?

And, frankly, DA only plea bargain is they are not 100% sure of a conviction. THis is a open and shut case unless you get some insane juror..or maybe a MAGARAT who thinks the suspect was inthe right...

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

100% correct.

Of course the debate in 2016, and earlier presidential elections, centres on how it is possible for a candidate with a lower popular vote total can defeat a candidate with a higher popular vote total, but that is a debate over the fairness of the election system and not over election fraud.

AFAICS, no Democrats, not even Hillary Clinton, claimed widespread voter fraud such as hacking into voting machines, secret suitcases full of votes, long-deceased foreign leaders and other assorted spurious rubbish as the reasons why Trump won in 2016.

(For removal of doubt, I consider any election system that allows a minority candidate to win an election, to be fundamentally flawed... but that is a discussion for a different thread)

True, and I think the electorial college should be abolished..but at times you have something similiar in a parliamentary system where a small fringe group holds the balance of power as to who become PM..like what we are seeing in Israel right now.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Bob001

I doubt it was very realistic, but I always enjoyed the now-canceled TV show "Bull." Investigating jurors' backgrounds was a big part of what the star's company did.

That is SOP for any attorney if their client is willing to pay the expenses.

[dudalb]

I am still disturbved that with a few exceptions, most GOP candidates are dodging out and out condemning the attack.
ANother reason I think liberals should serous consider arming up.

[Chris_Halkides]

Originally Posted by Bob001

But in this case the facts haven't changed. An intruder broke into the Pelosi home and assaulted Paul Pelosi. That's what the intruder himself says. The only things that keep changing are the crazy right-wing lies that continue to become more and more elaborate and bizarre.

Miguel Almaguer provided an erroneous story, which WaPo reported that NBC retracted: "In many ways, Almaguer’s now-withdrawn story conflicted with the timeline presented by prosecutors days earlier...When officers ordered DePape to drop the hammer, he tore it from Pelosi’s grasp and struck him on the head, fracturing his skull, before police rushed into the house and subdued him." I am not certain that other false details have been formally corrected. I might excuse initial confusion because of a few false reports, but the time that one could have been honestly mistaken about the facts of this incident has long since passed.

[varwoche]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Biden won the 2020 election the same way Trump won the 2016 election: Fair and square. Don't let anyone tell you different, not Hillary, not Qanon.

I'm dubious, but I'll leave it at that so as not to derail.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by varwoche

I'm dubious, but I'll leave it at that so as not to derail.

It looks like a handy way to equate Hillary with Qanon without liability.

[Crossbow]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Biden won the 2020 election the same way Trump won the 2016 election: Fair and square. Don't let anyone tell you different, not Hillary, not Qanon.

Sorry, but I do not believe that you know what you are talking about.

So just in case you missed some important details, here goes:

Trump actually lost the 2016 Popular Vote while Clinton won the 2016 Popular Vote. However, Trump was able to become the President due to his higher vote count in the 2016 Electoral College.

Whereas in 2020, Biden won the election both in terms of the Popular Vote and in terms of the Electoral College vote, while in 2020 Trump lost both the Popular Vote and the Electoral College vote.

Also, Trump had help from Russian during the 2016 election.