One of the Beatles songs played backwards, "Revolution No. 9," says, "Turn me on, dead man."

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/reverse-speech-revolution_n_5288920

Changing a burglary to a murder does help to remove it from the news. It actually has the opposite effect. They know it.

Or they say he's ok for now

so he wasn't ever involved in any of the shady criminal behavior? XD

There was also an unnamed 3rd person in the Pelosi house that night. This third person opened the front door and let LEOs inside.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/10/mystery-third-person-open-door-police-pelosi-house/

we've been suspicious of them keeping high-profile deaths under their hats for use as distraction. killing off Paul gets rid of a witness and paints Nancy as a sympathetic figure as a crying widow?

"Is Paul dead"? Seems like I remember hearing the same story a few decades ago. :)

There were anons back then too.

Nice to have an alibi?

P. Pelosi: But, I'm not dead yet!

N. Pelosi: You soon will be...

With apologies to Monty Python.

Exactly. Same with the DUI with a minor in the car.

...what's her maiden name and family history .../?

We don't always have to see the skunk to know it's there

This 👆

Are you referring to the "Zero Bark Thirty" post? If so, it's also on Truth Social.

I’ve been watching The Drudge Report, too. Its been fun watching the overall narrative there slip from “Republicans are bad” to “Democrats are going to kill you”.

The cult doesn't like old fart for sacrifice. The Seoul stampede was probably it.

very very juicy!

Excellent point!

Ok doomer….

***Mods, y’all need to kick this clown out.

Haven’t checked the clown under this out, but I’m betting their shacked up at the Motel 6 sipping soy lattes and running a two man elephant circle.

Yeah, I looked around and couldn't find it either.

One of the crimes he is being charged with is Elder Abuse, in order for that to be applied in this is that he was a Trusted Friend and or Caregiver who Took Advantage of Mr Pelosi.

Goddamn it! Fucking quit spreading this misinformation!!!!!!!!!

California Penal Code 368 PC defines elder abuse as the physical or emotional abuse, neglect, or financial exploitation of a victim 65 years of age or older.

THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT FOR A FAMILIAL OR OTHER RELATIONSHIP!

FUCK!

THIS ENTIRE FUCKING SITE IS COMPLETE MISINFO AND YOU PEOPLE SPREAD IT AND CONSUME IT LIKE IT'S A FUCKING DRUG!

Do you know there is this WHOLE FUCKING THING called THE INTERNET where you can look shit up and use reasonable intelligence to figure things out????

California Penal Code 368 PC defines elder abuse as the physical or emotional abuse, neglect, or financial exploitation of a victim 65 years of age or older. The offense can be prosecuted as a misdemeanor or a felony, and is punishable by up to 4 years of jail or prison.

We will quote the full text of the code section and then provide a detailed analysis below:

368. (a) The Legislature finds and declares that elders, adults whose physical or mental disabilities or other limitations restrict their ability to carry out normal activities or to protect their rights, and adults admitted as inpatients to a 24-hour health facility deserve special consideration and protection.

(b) (1) A person who knows or reasonably should know that a person is an elder or dependent adult and who, under circumstances or conditions likely to produce great bodily harm or death, willfully causes or permits any elder or dependent adult to suffer, or inflicts thereon unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, or having the care or custody of any elder or dependent adult, willfully causes or permits the person or health of the elder or dependent adult to be injured, or willfully causes or permits the elder or dependent adult to be placed in a situation in which his or her person or health is endangered, is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by a fine not to exceed six thousand dollars ($6,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years.

(2) If, in the commission of an offense described in paragraph (1), the victim suffers great bodily injury, as defined in Section 12022.7, the defendant shall receive an additional term in the state prison as follows:

(A) Three years if the victim is under 70 years of age.

(B) Five years if the victim is 70 years of age or older.

(3) If, in the commission of an offense described in paragraph (1), the defendant proximately causes the death of the victim, the defendant shall receive an additional term in the state prison as follows:

(A) Five years if the victim is under 70 years of age.

(B) Seven years if the victim is 70 years of age or older.

(c) A person who knows or reasonably should know that a person is an elder or dependent adult and who, under circumstances or conditions other than those likely to produce great bodily harm or death, willfully causes or permits any elder or dependent adult to suffer, or inflicts thereon unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, or having the care or custody of any elder or dependent adult, willfully causes or permits the person or health of the elder or dependent adult to be injured or willfully causes or permits the elder or dependent adult to be placed in a situation in which his or her person or health may be endangered, is guilty of a misdemeanor. A second or subsequent violation of this subdivision is punishable by a fine not to exceed two thousand dollars ($2,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

(d) A person who is not a caretaker who violates any provision of law proscribing theft, embezzlement, forgery, or fraud, or who violates Section 530.5 proscribing identity theft, with respect to the property or personal identifying information of an elder or a dependent adult, and who knows or reasonably should know that the victim is an elder or a dependent adult, is punishable as follows:

(1) By a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 for two, three, or four years, or by both that fine and imprisonment, when the moneys, labor, goods, services, or real or personal property taken or obtained is of a value exceeding nine hundred fifty dollars ($950).

(2) By a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment, when the moneys, labor, goods, services, or real or personal property taken or obtained is of a value not exceeding nine hundred fifty dollars ($950).

(e) A caretaker of an elder or a dependent adult who violates any provision of law proscribing theft, embezzlement, forgery, or fraud, or who violates Section 530.5 proscribing identity theft, with respect to the property or personal identifying information of that elder or dependent adult, is punishable as follows:

(1) By a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 for two, three, or four years, or by both that fine and imprisonment, when the moneys, labor, goods, services, or real or personal property taken or obtained is of a value exceeding nine hundred fifty dollars ($950).

(2) By a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment, when the moneys, labor, goods, services, or real or personal property taken or obtained is of a value not exceeding nine hundred fifty dollars ($950).

(f) A person who commits the false imprisonment of an elder or a dependent adult by the use of violence, menace, fraud, or deceit is punishable by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 for two, three, or four years.

(g) As used in this section, “elder” means a person who is 65 years of age or older.

(h) As used in this section, “dependent adult” means a person, regardless of whether the person lives independently, who is between the ages of 18 and 64, who has physical or mental limitations which restrict his or her ability to carry out normal activities or to protect his or her rights, including, but not limited to, persons who have physical or developmental disabilities or whose physical or mental abilities have diminished because of age. “Dependent adult” includes a person between the ages of 18 and 64 who is admitted as an inpatient to a 24-hour health facility, as defined in Sections 1250, 1250.2, and 1250.3 of the Health and Safety Code.

(i) As used in this section, “caretaker” means a person who has the care, custody, or control of, or who stands in a position of trust with, an elder or a dependent adult.

(j) Nothing in this section shall preclude prosecution under both this section and Section 187 or 12022.7 or any other provision of law. However, a person shall not receive an additional term of imprisonment under both paragraphs (2) and (3) of subdivision (b) for a single offense, nor shall a person receive an additional term of imprisonment under both Section 12022.7 and paragraph (2) or (3) of subdivision (b) for a single offense.

(k) In any case in which a person is convicted of violating these provisions, the court may require him or her to receive appropriate counseling as a condition of probation. A defendant ordered to be placed in a counseling program shall be responsible for paying the expense of his or her participation in the counseling program as determined by the court. The court shall take into consideration the ability of the defendant to pay, and no defendant shall be denied probation because of his or her inability to pay.

(l) Upon conviction for a violation of subdivision (b), (c), (d), (e), or (f), the sentencing court shall also consider issuing an order restraining the defendant from any contact with the victim, which may be valid for up to 10 years, as determined by the court. It is the intent of the Legislature that the length of any restraining order be based upon the seriousness of the facts before the court, the probability of future violations, and the safety of the victim and his or her immediate family. This protective order may be issued by the court whether the defendant is sentenced to state prison or county jail, or if imposition of sentence is suspended and the defendant is placed on probation.

1. How does California law define elder abuse? A prosecutor has to prove different things under 368 PC:

depending on whether he wants to convict a defendant of, misdemeanor elder abuse or felony abuse. Note also that questions often arise under this statute on the meaning of:

“abuse,” and “willfully” and “criminal negligence.” 1.1. Misdemeanor elder abuse A prosecutor has to prove the following to convict a person of misdemeanor elder abuse:

the defendant willfully or with criminal negligence subjected an elderly person to unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, the conduct could have endangered the life or health of the elderly person, and the accused knew or should have known that the victim was 65 years old or older.1 “Unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering” means:

pain or suffering that, is not necessary or that is excessive under the circumstances.2 1.2. Felony elder abuse A prosecutor must prove the following to convict a person of felony elder abuse:

the defendant willfully or with criminal negligence subjected an elderly person to unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, the conduct was likely to produce great bodily injury or death, and the accused knew or should have known the victim was 65 years old or older.3 “Unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering” means the same as with misdemeanor abuse.

1.3. Abuse “Elder abuse” can mean any of the following:

physical abuse (which is infliction of unjustifiable pain or injury on a senior victim), emotional abuse (which can take the form of isolation or ridicule), neglect and endangerment (which means placing the senior in a situation that endangers his health and safety), an financial exploitation (which is also known as senior fraud or elder financial abuse).4 Note that a prosecutor must prove the following to convict a person of financial abuse:

the defendant committed a financial crime (e.g., theft, fraud, or embezzlement), the property stolen belonged to a person who is 65 or older, and the defendant was a caretaker for this person or knew that the victim was elderly.5 Example: Roman works in a nursing home where all the residents are over the age of 65. Roman occasionally takes loose money that he finds in the drawers of the residents.

Here, Roman is guilty of financial elder abuse. He unlawfully took money from seniors when he knew that all the victims were 65 or older. And it does not matter that this theft did not involve bank accounts or financial institutions. Simply taking small amounts of cash is financial abuse.

1.4. Willfully and criminal negligence For purposes of this statue, “willfully” means to do something:

deliberately, or on purpose.6 “Criminal negligence” means that:

a person acts so unreasonably that, his actions reflect a disregard for human life.

"Officer, that is David, but I do not know who he is or why he is naked in my home, or how he got in, and he tried to steal my hammer."

I find it interesting this event happened the same day Twatter stopped throttling. Which supports your theory.

Same with Fox affiliate publishing Lake/Hobbs results. Not only are we (continuing) to dissect “news” in real time, but now we’re able to disseminate to normies.

…this would not have been possible without Twatter and TS.

Crazy Days and Nights just posted this:

Some questions that should be asked. Why were the A-lister's spouse and the assailant both in their underwear? Why is there a paper trail showing the A-lister's spouse had given him money in the past? It would not take much digging to find other young men the A-lister's spouse had given money to in exchange for services.

https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2022/10/blind-item-5-reader-blind.html

There is some info being posted in the CDAN comments. Someone there also posted screenshot of the 'Paul Pelosi died' video.

Both DePape and Oxane 'Gypsy' Taub are likely pedos. Oxane was a "Homeless Youth Director" with access to vulnerable underage kids. DePape and Taub live together:

https://heavy.com/news/gypsy-taub/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11368629/Nudist-ex-lover-Paul-Pelosi-attacker-PEDOPHILE-molested-boy-14.html

In 2013, a 40yr old Oxane Taub married 20yr old actor Jaymz Smith. DePape was their best man:

https://www.mercurynews.com/2013/12/20/berkeley-activist-wed-in-naked-ceremony-near-san-francisco-city-hall/

Heres the Jaymz Smith IMDB page: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm9460842/

Dinesh D'Souza might be onto it. Hes correlating this whole thing with watching a movie:

Were Paul Pelosi and his attacker BOTH in their underwear? BOTH holding hammers? And the attacker didn’t strike until AFTER police were on the scene? As a movie-maker, I gotta say this script must be rejected. Nothing about the public account so far makes any sense.

https://twitter.com/DineshDSouza/status/1586431650048593921?cxt=HHwWgsCqmcbLkYQsAAAA

IMO - whole charade is to cover the fact that Paul Pelosi in being held - for life - in GITMO.

That is unbearably inconvenient for Nancy and the dems so she had him iced. No big deal if it blows up for a few days. The sympathy ploy kinda failed. But msm will now ignore it and the whole nasty murder-for-hire will be forgotten in a week.

Least that's their plan.

We'll see how it works out.

As always, wait until see it official from multiple sources, but would they arrange for Paul to die now? Damn right they would. These people are evil. They are taking the type of L's lately that they simply cannot handle. When they realize that they truly are losing power, they will also lose their shit. If they "allowed" Paul to die in the hospital, it will bring a certain amount of sympathy, no matter how he actually died, and change the discussion, and there sure could use a discussion change right now. The way things are now, the story, unravels more by the hour, and they need a way to stop it, and they need to find it quick.

Many people are well-aware they are fucked, Paul's situation may have even been planned for him ahead of time as a sacrifice in hopes of sympathy. Evil as they are, Paul may have even been told and knew it was coming....but at the last minute, decided he didn't want to die this way. Either way, this is fascinating. The narrative the way it is currently going is not something they can deal with.

I wonder if they were using twitter to coordinate their stories... and now Elon is giving them the bird...

I don't know if you caught my earlier post:

https://greatawakening.win/p/15K6qFPNNV/check-out-the-photo-of-paul-pelo/c/

I found a photo of Pelosi's son going to the hospital to visit his father and he was holding two oranges in his hands, a la "The Godfather" movie.

Same here. The New York Post is the only place I've seen it.

How is she gonna make those sweet insider trades without him? He was the one who would make the trades for her

I don't know what to say. What I posted is what I saw online from the source I posted above. I don't see Paul Pelosi's death reported anywhere else. Perhaps it's a case of another disgruntled employee pulling a prank?? I can't say beyond that.