You must log in or register to comment.

N8CCRG t1_iujbe4o wrote

Emphasis mine:

>The FBI affidavit filed with the complaint said: “DePape stated that he was going to hold Nancy hostage and talk to her. If Nancy were to tell DePape the ‘truth,’ he would let her go, and if she ‘lied,’ he was going to break ‘her kneecaps.’”

>“DePape was certain that Nancy would not have told the ‘truth,’” the FBI affidavit said.

>The affidavit further stated DePape told police that Nancy Pelosi was the “leader of the pack” of lies promoted by the Democratic Party. DePape told police that other members of Congress would see that there are consequences to their actions when Pelosi, with broken kneecaps, would get “wheeled into” the House chamber, according to the affidavit.

Top google result for the definition of "terrorism" is: the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

Other than the "especially against civilians" portion, the rest of that sounds exactly like what DePape's own words are describing.


aristidedn t1_iujh9ro wrote

Pelosi (and her husband) are both civilians. DePape literally engaged in the unlawful use of violence and intimidation against civilians in the pursuit of political aims.

He's a terrorist.


MuchConversation5076 t1_iujieji wrote

What is he aiming for, what is his goal or motive.


aristidedn t1_iujj9iv wrote

Your answer is right there in the article:

> DePape told police that other members of Congress would see that there are consequences to their actions when Pelosi, with broken kneecaps, would get “wheeled into” the House chamber

He wants to alter the political behavior of Congressional representatives through violence and intimidation.


arghabargle t1_iujjxmi wrote

>DePape told police that other members of Congress would see that there are consequences to their actions when Pelosi, with broken kneecaps, would get “wheeled into” the House chamber, according to the affidavit.

There's an entire article there, linked at the top, that you could read that answers your question pretty succinctly.


N8CCRG t1_iujp333 wrote

Given DePape is a QAnon believer and promoter, his specific goals could be anything up to and including QAnon's ultimate goals: Trump and his supporters performing a coordinated US-centric (but worldwide) takeover of political and military power, rounding up and executing all that he feels oppose him, and installing him as the ultimate despot/autocrat/dictator. Presumably the answers DePape would have demanded "the truth" of from Pelosi involved the Q beliefs that she is part of a secret cabal that tortures children and extracts their "adrenochrome" to be consumed in their satanic orgies.


acox199318 t1_iujjgzl wrote

Feeling powerful and in control.

It’s not about logic. It’s about wanting to be in charge.


mces97 t1_iujgfch wrote

Tell the truth= back up my conspiracy theories.


fbtcu1998 t1_iujoq60 wrote

what I was thinking as well. Not surprised he didn't believe she'd tell the 'truth' because who the hell knows what he even believes is true


bubblegumdrops t1_iuk33z8 wrote

It’s such a bizarre plan because how tf was he going to verify anything?

I’m aware that he’d only accept his beliefs as facts but the lack of logic is confusing for someone not in the qult.


Chippopotanuse t1_iujl1fn wrote

I can’t stand Republicans.

But anyone who breaks into McConnell or Trump’s house, beats up their spouse with a hammer, and then threatens to break kneecaps deserves a SHIT TON of prison time.

It is insane and absurd that folks on the right are advocating for violence against political enemies, knowing that mentally ill folks like this guy will respond with violence.

All the GOP “stand back and stand by”, “fight like hell”, “take our country back”, and “will be wild” crap needs to end.


Sanpaku t1_iujq2av wrote

Stochastic terrorism

>Since 2018, the term "stochastic terrorism" has become a popular term used when discussing lone wolf attacks. While the exact definition has morphed over time, it has commonly come to refer to a concept whereby consistently demonizing or dehumanizing a targeted group or individual results in violence that is statistically likely, but cannot be easily accurately predicted.
>A variation of this stochastic terrorism model was later adapted to describe public speech that can be expected to incite terrorism without a direct organizational link between the inciter and the perpetrator. The term "stochastic" is used in this instance to describe the random, probabilistic nature of its effect; whether or not an attack actually takes place. The stochastic terrorist in this context does not direct the actions of any particular individual or members of a group. Rather, the stochastic terrorist gives voice to a specific ideology via mass media with the aim of optimizing its dissemination.
>It is in this manner that the stochastic terrorist is thought to randomly incite individuals predisposed to acts of violence. Because stochastic terrorists do not target and incite individual perpetrators of terror with their message, the perpetrator may be labeled a lone wolf by law enforcement, while the inciters avoid legal culpability and public scrutiny.


jigokubi t1_iujo65y wrote

Agreed. The average Republican is appalled by this event. But the message of people like Trump speaks straight to unstable people like this, or the goons that wanted to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer, or—how much time have you got, it's a long list.


ButtMilkyCereal t1_iujq7h7 wrote

Bullshit. This is what the average republican wants, as evidenced that they keep voting for lunatics through the primaries and then into office. They won't hold themselves accountable, and are egging themselves into a civil war.


jigokubi t1_iujsajl wrote

>they keep voting for lunatics through the primaries and then into office

This is the core of the problem.

This is why I get so irritated when the only response people have to Jan 6th is "But, BLM looting!"

They never own up to what voting for Donald Trump lead to. Instead they make the false assertion that Democrats support violent protests.

I stand by my assertion that the average Republican doesn't like this. The problem is they keep voting Republican even when party has been taken over by lunatics.

To be fair, the party was already a terrible choice to begin with. There's a reason why Trump was appealing to Republican voters.


ButtMilkyCereal t1_iujvw0d wrote

To repeat a phrase, it's a distinction without a difference. It doesn't matter if they're actually terrible people themselves, or just supporting terrible people while they do terrible things to the rest of us.


CrashB111 t1_iuk9ep7 wrote

If they keep voting for the inmates to run the asylum, they support it. Full stop. Tacit approval is approval nonetheless.

You can't vote for insanity, then just wring your hands afterwards and claim, "But I HAAAD to do it! The other option was a Democrat!"


fight_your_friends t1_iukaxsp wrote

> The average Republican is appalled by this event

As indicated by what, exactly? The fact that they've been spreading conspiracy theories about the situation and the motivation of the terrorist?


Chary-Ka t1_iujje35 wrote

Good thing CPAC had the giant words stating "We Are All Domestic Terrorist"


shinobi7 t1_iujuyto wrote

When they tell us who they are, believe them.


lowdownfool t1_iujvxpf wrote

Yep. We thought it was "funny" when they said "Better Russian Than Democrat" way back when. Look where we're at now.


shinobi7 t1_iuk77yw wrote

Yeah, those two old guys were probably harmless, but after January 6, the Buffalo supermarket massacre, and now Paul Pelosi being attacked, there is now a sizable portion of this country that has been radicalized and would take up arms against us, if the conditions were right.


thefunivehad t1_iujesyf wrote

To these yokels “might makes right.”

They have no brain so the only thing they have going for them is terrorism. Strong arm everyone into their way of thinking…and the irony is that about 99% of them are cowards.


TifCreates t1_iujpdt7 wrote

And all of the idiots who incited this should be arrested too! This is the result of LIES!


mahabraja t1_iujpqwt wrote

The problem is that this terrorism is inspired directly by republican members sitting in government currently. This does not end until the big mouths receive their charges as well.


supagirl277 t1_iujxnpd wrote

He also wanted to lure in other congress people once he had her. It also took Nancy too long to come home, so he told her husband that he’d be taking the beating instead


Chippopotanuse t1_iujl8rv wrote

These are only FEDERAL charges. They will be on top of state charges which still haven’t been announced.

This guy won’t see daylight for 20-40 years minimum.


verrius t1_iujouga wrote

I'll admit, I was confused by the headline, and the article doesn't go out of its way to clarify, that that's why he's not being prosecuted at least for attempted murder, given the hammer to the head. Though I'm also a little surprised (attempted) assassination is not a Federal crime at all.


Chippopotanuse t1_iujqtme wrote

I think the “attempted assassination” is captured by this charge:

> DePape also was charged with one count of assault of an immediate family member of a US official with the intent to retaliate against the official. That charge relates to a crime allegedly committed against Paul Pelosi and carries a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison.


verrius t1_iujuvyo wrote

That covers the attempt on her husband, but it doesn't cover that this was an attempt on the Speaker. Not a particularly effective one, but its a brazenly admitted one. Though its a pleasant surprise to hear that there is a Federal crime for going after family of officials.


LoneRonin t1_iuk4c20 wrote

Rule of thumb is a regular-type crime like murder, theft or assault in a single spot, you get thrown into the state courts. If it's something that takes place across multiple states or is specifically against the state, such as a big criminal conspiracy or terrorism, then that's under federal court.


verrius t1_iuk71w1 wrote

That's why I'm surprised. Murder I know is state, but "assassination of sitting federal officials" I'd think would be covered by federal law; there's a bunch of things you can do that are "covered" by a state crime that have a federal equivalent when either something crosses a state line, or federal officials are involved. It's especially surprising considering they apparently have made going after the family members of federal officials a crime, when going after the elected federal officials themselves in general isn't. Especially frustrating because I'm sure its against federal law to go after federal judges or FBI agents. But looking it up, even going after the sitting President isn't a particular federal crime...or at least wasn't until 1965, I'm not sure. Aaaaand now I'm on a list.


11B4OF7 t1_iuk2koj wrote

there can be federal or there can be state, there can’t be both.


Chippopotanuse t1_iuk38ku wrote

There can be both. What are you talking about? It doesn’t violate any double jeopardy clause if that’s what you are trying to get at.


morosco t1_iuk6y9z wrote

SCOTUS just reaffirmed a few years ago that this doesn't violate double jeopardy. It just doesn't happen very often because the feds prosecute so few cases, and when there's concurrent jurisdiction, states are happy to conserve the resources.


mikey-likes_it t1_iujdndn wrote

Oh so the wacky homophobic gay lover quarrel theory is a bunch of bullshit?



weed_fart t1_iujflcf wrote

Not that that'll stop them from spreading it around.


mikey-likes_it t1_iujfvgm wrote

Yep, it’s already a fact for the right that they will repeat for years despite no evidence


[deleted] t1_iujli0d wrote



mikey-likes_it t1_iujmb21 wrote

Where is your evidence?

All I’ve heard is baseless conjecture from the crazed right


DoubleBaconQi t1_iuk1usi wrote

And pull the line about “sleeping in boxers and a pajama top” as evidence, “who doesn’t wear the complete pajama ensemble!? Who just wears the top, obviously they were having sex” /s


TechyDad t1_iujkonb wrote

Greene is already mad that the media is spreading the truth and not her little conspiracy theory.


mymar101 t1_iujgtsz wrote

Fact checking is not their strong suit


sanash t1_iuji20i wrote

None of that matters it's all about the firehose of falsehoods that the right wing uses.

Throw out a bunch of bullshit and eventually creates so much confusion among those who may not be paying attention that they either tune out or accept one of those falsehoods.


MikeLowrey305 t1_iujj2cr wrote

FYI They hate fact checkers & being proven wrong as well and will not admit they are wrong, just change the subject or try to cover their lies with more lies! SMH! LOL!


rdxxx t1_iuk3tp8 wrote

These people will believe anything said by 'their side', they were conditioned to. If i were to entertain the conspiracy theories - why would rich person hire such ugly male prostitute.


qtx t1_iujz0fb wrote

Lesson number one when it comes to conservatives/republicans; it's always projection.

There is a reason why most people who get caught in some hush hush gay lovers quarrel are republicans. It's their thing so they assume others are the same as well.


midevilman2020 t1_iujv65o wrote

Is it really what they are saying”? Or is it just being spread around Reddit?


Bobbyperu1 t1_iuk15oq wrote

They are really saying it. To the extent that, and I'm choking back rage vomit here, Don Jr. Posted a pic of his 'costume' and it is a pair of men's underwear. The story they are pushing was they were in their underwear which the police have denied, and a hammer. They're laughing about it.


itsajaguar t1_iuk88aq wrote

It'd take you one google search to confirm this is a widespread republican lie. What's the purpose of your comment but to deflect and obfuscate when you're casting doubt on something you could've easily confirmed yourself?


1Sluggo t1_iujba30 wrote

It’ll never happen but republicans should admit their rhetoric caused this attack. Their timid ‘outrage’ over the event is, to me, proof of their responsibility.


Scoutster13 t1_iujdddo wrote

They won't even admit there was an attack. They think it's either a false flag or a gay hookup. They are disgusting.


1Sluggo t1_iujf0q3 wrote

They are disgusting; if a republican was attacked they’d be hell to pay.


NBAWhoCares t1_iujhti7 wrote

>They are disgusting; if a republican was attacked they’d be hell to pay.

These miserable losers screeched for weeks about the "assassination" attempt on Kavanaugh, where a guy paced outside his house and then called the cops on himself.


GriffinQ t1_iujrl9y wrote

“When officers arrived on the scene, they exchanged fire with the suspect, running towards him while dodging the spray of bullets, and eventually killing him.”

The guy was shot to death, my brother. What more “hell to pay” would you like for him?


Scoutster13 t1_iujyt0k wrote

No one on the left made a mockery of that crime, we called it what it was.


redlinebanned t1_iujgv26 wrote

generalizes thousands, if not millions of people


Scoutster13 t1_iujhago wrote

Yeah, it's scary isn't it that so many are so fucked.


AlleyCatStoner t1_iujq2rj wrote

Kind of hard not to when a large and outspoken portion of their cohorts believe and parrot grandiose lies and straight up false narratives…


Currymvp2 t1_iujbjli wrote

They won't. So many of them on twitter and social media are still running with the deranged debunked conspiracy theory "He and Paul Pelosi were friends, and Pelosi let him in". "Objective" Elon Musk also shamelessly promoted the theory on twitter as well. A Fox reporter incorrectly stated that the assailant was only wearing his "underwear" and quietly corrected it, but the damage has been done.

Some of them are so delusional and think he's a "progressive" because there aren't Trump supporters in San Francisco (not true, 19% of San Francisco voted for Trump) and because his ex-girlfriend said he had some left leaning views 20 years ago when they first met. Even though his own daughter has stated that he wrote violent, right leaning stuff on his blog. They're of course ignoring all the crazy shit he posted about the election being stolen and his criticism of the January 6th committee over the past couple of years.

Edit: Since some guy responded to this comment with disinformation, here's the link that debunks his disinformation. ( Also the assailant's own daughter says the websites are real and written by him.


[deleted] t1_iujdsrb wrote



CaptainNoBoat t1_iujl7zx wrote

I'm sure you have a great source to back up that claim.


itsajaguar t1_iujpl75 wrote

It's The Gateway Pundit. One of the most insane and deranged conspiracy websites on the internet.


SwingingDickKnutsack t1_iujjwgy wrote

> The posts that appeared on a website that was created the day before, and deleted the day after?

Apparently not.

>No need to answer.

But then how would you know you were wrong?


BadCompany090909 t1_iujkfaj wrote

There was an interview with his neighbour that was posted yesterday. She says she’s unsure of his political leanings because she didn’t know him, but if she had to guess he would definitely be left leaning. Something to do with LGBT & BLM flags flying out the front of their hippie commune.


CaptainNoBoat t1_iujl0gd wrote

>The affidavit further stated DePape told police that Nancy Pelosi was the “leader of the pack” of lies promoted by the Democratic Party. DePape told police that other members of Congress would see that there are consequences to their actions when Pelosi, with broken kneecaps, would get “wheeled into” the House chamber, according to the affidavit.

Uh, I have a guess what his "political leanings" are. I don't need any neighbors to speculate.


BadCompany090909 t1_iujllzw wrote

How convenient, he just writes the feds an affidavit confessing to everything and confirming that he is indeed a hardcore MAGA supporting QAnon believer! Would love to see some genuine testimony. Honestly you couldn’t make this shit up


CaptainNoBoat t1_iujlxhn wrote

What's going to stop you from saying the exact same thing when he takes the stand at a trial?

It seems you've already made up your mind and nothing will change it.


BadCompany090909 t1_iujmd1r wrote

If all of this is true, release the undoctored security & body cam footage. That will put an end to all this. It’s telling in itself that they haven’t already 👍


CaptainNoBoat t1_iujn139 wrote

There's nothing remotely suspicious about the circumstances - this premise of yours that shady things "need to be cleared up" is completely fabricated and a bunch of right wing conspiratorial nonsense.

The police aren't going to release the security & body cam footage of the Speaker of the House's residence a couple of days after a political attack. Are you actually serious?


Has_hog t1_iuju6yk wrote

“We demand to see the tape of Paul Pelosi being the subject to a violence, I can’t believe it otherwise! The police are lieing, this is why we need to defund the cia and fbi!”.

No but seriously, rw’ers, including the bizarro comment demanding full video, want to meme this. It would br a grand slam for them if they got full vid so they could copy pasta and laugh about their guy doing a terrorism. When this sicko got booked, a TON of conservatives started a gofund me for him!


skkITer t1_iujovrt wrote

Lmao please. Video footage doesn’t put an end to anything. Hell the Maricopa election was live-streamed 24/7 every step of the way and MAGA still sent the ninjas over to investigate.

It’s also not telling at all that no footage has been released. It’s an active investigation.


Has_hog t1_iujud6a wrote

The trump conservative refuses to accept anything that disagrees with his convoluted brain worms. How surprising


aristidedn t1_iukb71u wrote

> That will put an end to all this.

No, it won’t. Nothing will. Evidence doesn’t end conspiracy theories. It just causes the people who hold the conspiracy theories to become increasingly detached from reality as they try to justify why the evidence must be fake.


InterlocutorX t1_iujwvrr wrote

It's only suspicious if you have the brain the size of a pea and don't know how anything in the whole world works. So thanks for letting us know who you are.


MooPig48 t1_iujtxt7 wrote

It’s telling that they haven’t yet released video of an ongoing investigation? How entitled can you possibly be?


emperor1978 t1_iujmoqk wrote

No, you literally can't without risking perjury charges.

Get a life, asswipe.


[deleted] t1_iujn3qr wrote



1Sluggo t1_iujqit3 wrote

They guy’s from Canada and came here more than 20 years ago.


redlinebanned t1_iujgoz2 wrote

What did republicans say to cause this attack?


acox199318 t1_iujk1ye wrote

I’ll refer you to every politician that instigated Jan 6. Not to mention the mob that was he noting specifically for Nancy then too.

Nancy has been the target of GOP hatred for years.


AlleyCatStoner t1_iujq9tp wrote

MTG straight up called her a ‘traitor’ on Twitter, pretty sure anyway. She said in a few words that traitors should be killed, and that nancy was a traitor.


shim_sham_shimmy t1_iujq452 wrote

I understand there are strict definitions of what charges are acceptable to file but hitting an 82 year old man in the head with a hammer sure feels like attempted murder. Hitting a healthy 22 year old in the head with a hammer feels like attempted murder.


QuestionableNotion t1_iujfh6i wrote

I will never vote for any candidate from the terrorist party (GOP).


[deleted] t1_iuk0rei wrote



bizzum t1_iuk5r5o wrote

Neat, where's the Democratic party tacitly supporting that kind of thing, poking fun at it, or turning the other cheek on shit as egregious as January 6th?


[deleted] t1_iuk69m5 wrote



QuestionableNotion t1_iuk9d15 wrote

Given the lies I've heard the right wing tell over the years you'll forgive me for automatically assuming that you're full of stuffing.

>You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.

Precisely where, in that statement, was Schumer encouraging violence? Was your hand firmly pressed to your forehead when you posted that?

You really missed your opportunity with your "both party" nonsense. Remember the guy who shot up the Congressional baseball teams a few years back? Steve Scalise? The guy who shot him was a Bernie supporter. It's pretty black and white if you're trying to disingenuously show that both parties, both supporters of both philosophies, are the same.

Let's look at the history of violence in our political system - 2016 through the present.

Democratic side (? - if that's how one wants to frame it)

  • BLM protests - although one has to admit that the protests seemed to mainly become violent when the police (largely right wing trash) showed up and decided violence was necessary to "restore order".

  • The asshole who shot Stephen Scalise.

  • The asshole who stated he wanted to assassinate Brent Kavanaugh.


GOP's side

  • Unite The Right Rally - the event was rife with violence, culminating in the murder of one and the maiming of many more.

  • Several mass shooters. I'm not going to go looking for links to articles and social media, but face it - most of the people responsible for mass shootings turn out to be avid fans of red caps.

  • The plot to kidnap the sitting (Democratic) governor of the state of Michigan.

  • The coup attempt of Jan 6, 2021.

  • Various mosque burnings.

  • This asshole.

I'm even sure I'm forgetting a few. If you want to go further back than 2016 there was the guy who bombed the Atlanta Olympics, various freaks shooting OB/GYNs in the 1990s, and Timothy McVeigh.

And let's not forget to give a special shoutout to bastards showing up outside polling places with rifles and tactical gear. Fuck them especially.

But, yeah, sure. Schumer said something that makes right wingers wet their pants and wave around handkerchiefs in consternation and dismay. OK.

Edit: Downvotes? Fuck you, Republicans.

The rise of domestic extremism in America

The Escalating Terrorism Problem in the United States

Assessing the right-wing terror threat in the United States a year after the January 6 insurrection

Sooooo many other examples. You people are terrorists. A quick google search proves that.


MikeLowrey305 t1_iujjpyv wrote

Just vote GOP if they are gonna stay local don't send any of them to Washington! LOL!


QuestionableNotion t1_iujnhna wrote

Nope. I don't see the point in voting for the party of domestic terrorism.

I will never in my life vote for a Republican. I made it this far without ever voting for one. I am much closer to the end of my life than the beginning.


InterlocutorX t1_iujxe04 wrote

Fuck no. If you join the party of domestic terrorism, yoi=u don't get to pretend you aren't a part of it.


acox199318 t1_iujj63g wrote

At what point does the GOP step back and ask themselves if they are the bad guys?


ramennoodle t1_iujmus6 wrote

Well, if your bogeyman is antifa(cists) and you're not wondering already...


thehoot79 t1_iuk9j6l wrote

I’d say hitting someone in the head with a hammer to the point where they need surgery should be considered attempted murder


windigo3 t1_iujm60n wrote

Good. Now charge the right wing propagandists and politicians who incited him


LoveAndProse t1_iuk5cox wrote

where's the charge for conspiring to assassinate the speaker?

the only reason this was an attack on family is because the speaker wasn't present.


FiendishHawk t1_iujv44j wrote

I wonder how the police manage to focus enough to charge the culprit when all the conservative media they follow is going crazy with conspiracy theories about the event.


[deleted] t1_iujjufm wrote



CaptainNoBoat t1_iujle6h wrote

Have you heard all of these things from credible sources? The police reports don't match a lot of what you just said.

Perhaps those are the questions you should be asking.


GG_is_life t1_iujls3e wrote

> Why did the police claim he was in his underwear originally?

My question is...why does this matter? Why does this need to be explicitly confirmed or denied? Should a person at home in their own bed in the middle of the night NOT be in their underwear?


[deleted] t1_iujm19d wrote



Bai_Cha t1_iujwzu7 wrote

Do you believe that this is what happened?


CanstThouNotSee t1_iujya4d wrote

Misperceiving Bullshit as Profound Is Associated with Favorable Views of Cruz, Rubio, Trump and Conservatism (Stefan Pfattheicher, 2016)

Results confirm that conservatives have lower sensitivity than liberals, performing worse at distinguishing truths and falsehoods. This is partially explained by the fact that the most widely shared falsehoods tend to promote conservative positions, while corresponding truths typically favor liberals (Garret and Bond, 2021)


Buck-Nasty t1_iujcin4 wrote

The FBI needs to speak with Elon Musk, he knows the truth.


[deleted] t1_iujpa81 wrote



Sanpaku t1_iujr38c wrote

It's almost a universal that the moral 'values' MAGA republicans would impose apply only to others. Roger Stone isn't going to give up his wife-swapping, DJT Jr his blow, Fallwell Jr. his pool boy, or any of the well off ones legal and safe abortion for their own daughters.


[deleted] t1_iujfsiu wrote



yhwhx t1_iujjn3n wrote

Weird that Dear Leader Donnie didn't push to build a wall on the US/Canada boarder, huh?


itsajaguar t1_iujpr4r wrote

Yeah if only the DEMONRATS didn't stop Trump from building his wall. Would've stopped this guy from overstaying his visa.


asstyrant t1_iujkbo6 wrote

Sorry 'boot that, eh?

We seem to have a problem with our Timbit Taliban... buncha hosers.


AlleyCatStoner t1_iujvwe2 wrote

Taking a wild guess here, but the Canadian ‘boot is definitely not your most favored type of boot to salivate on, is it?