>

He should have the right to privacy as the victim
Why do i know CPAC is going to be playing this on repeat to excite their crowd at the 2023 convention? >

As a substitute for lotion, they'll be using a melted bowl of green M&Ms. >

Is… is that a thing? >

Only if they have sexy shoes on. >

"Stop. I can only get so erect" -Republicans >

Yep, we all just have to see a man beat an 82 year old with a hammer because the public has a right to know. A man who never ran for office nearly gave his life for this country because of loud mouths with access to social media. >

It seems like a huge security threat. No one needs to know the layout of their home. >

And he was wearing his underwear to bed. Which I also do. Hate to think that me being beaten in my underwear would get released because sicko conservatives want to see it. >

Ummm....did you read the article to see who requested the release?

The news agencies who sought the release of the footage includes The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, The Press Democrat, CNN, Fox News, CBS, ABC, NBC and KQED, an NPR-member radio station in San Francisco. >

Media outlets seeking indelicate footage of a major news story is SOP. The decision by the judge that “there’s no reason not to” is a bit dubious. >

Actually there is a very strong legal presumption that all court proceedings must be public unless there’s compelling interests weighing against it, so if there’s really “no reason not to” it would be reversible error to decide otherwise. >

Mr. Pelosi being beaten in his home is not a court proceeding. >

The prosecutors played the video in open court.  So yes, it’s part of the court proceeding. >

That makes sense. Thanks. So, it’s more of the judge saying there is insufficient reason not to