>

But why? No body wants to see that. And if they do, that's sick. Poor old man.
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 >

He should have the right to privacy as the victim >

It's evidence submitted via discovery. Unless the judge files it under seal, it's public information. >

A judge can seal it. >

Yeah, but did you know a judge can seal it? >

That’s what I just said >

And so did they before you replied to them, probably why everyone is busting your chops lol >

I see no benefit to the public by releasing this video. It is victimizing the man all over again. A private citizen. It is of no value but cheap and exploitative. >

Unless he's ok with it, I agree. No reason for anyone have to see that happen to him. It's pretty embarrassing and dehumanizing. >

Getting a DUI at age 82 when you have a personal net worth of $100M ad can afford personal chauffers is also embarrassing. >


Getting a DUI at age 82 when you have a personal net worth of $100M ad can afford personal chauffers is also embarrassing.

The man was literally beaten in his own home with a hammer, and people (right wingers) tried to say "oh it was a casual gay hookup gone wrong", and will likely get their jollies off on this video. But no. Had to get in a dig in regards to a DUI, huh? Because his DUI is at all relevant that he's the victim of a violent crime.
I dislike the rich as much as the next guy. But this has no relevance to his DUI and being rich letting him not really face consequences. Rethink your priorities. >

*Judge denies special request to seal the video
This headline is suggesting foul play, when it's standard practice.
Asking for sealing it is also kinda common, and sometimes it happens.
That said, knowing what the assholes are going to do with this video is sickening. Hopefully some idiot crosses a line and Pelosi sues someone poorer than him and bankrupts them. And I don't like his rich ass at all. >

So crazy people were wishing death on him just because he’s pelosis husband. Like people are freaking nuts.. >

Republicans are freaking nuts.  The rest of us are normal, sane , law-abiding,  not hammer -beating lunatics. >

I'll just put this hammer away then... >

What is the public interest here? We know what happened, we know the stupid conspiracy, why force release of the footage? >


We know what happened

do we really though? >

An old man was attacked with a hammer when he was going to sleep. What more exactly would you like to know? >

I've been banned from r/conspiracy for like 2 years bro
edit: maybe it's been a year, but definitely feels longer. Also, snooping through a user's post history because he questioned the MSM narrative is pretty cringe. >

I'm still stunned that some random drug addict was able to get into the speakers home? She's 3rd in line to the presidency. What the fuck kind of security is that? >

She's got personal security, but she wasn't home at the time.
Probably had the crazy thought that no one gives a shit about the spouses of Congressmen. >

Surely conservatives won't do disgusting things with the footage. >

Based on the latest news about Breanna Taylor's recorded last moments, I am extremely doubtful they will show any respect >

Oh no :( I didn’t know there was more news… >

There was a conservative group that did a public viewing of the murder footage at a restaurant.
Pretty typical from that side nowadays, expect the same with this footage. >

Shouldn't that be up to the victim?? >

If the video is entered into evidence it is public record. >

Not if there is a protective order >

No matter what is in the video, it will be twisted by alt-righters ‘See? SEE? It’s clearly his boyfriend the way he’s screaming at him with such passion!’ >

They'll say he deserved it, say it was a gay romp gone wrong, say the video was faked and probably have public viewings of it to their great delight while making all these claims simultaneously.
And they'll be very upset at anyone pointing out their behavior. >

Elon is salivating over this harder than the failed Twitter files. >

How were they failed? >

Blown away out of proportion to be some giant crazy conspiracy and turned out to be pretty basic requests from the government to not dox people - which they weren't even required to follow