The Paul Pelosi Video

Why was it released to the public?

A screenshot from a police body camera video shows David DePape holding onto Paul Pelosi, the husband of then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in the couple’s house on October 28, 2022, in San Francisco District Attorney/Handout via REUTERS

Earlier in the week, I noted the WaPo story “Paul Pelosi attack video shows break-in, assault with hammer” and immediately concluded that, not only did I not want to watch Paul Pelosi, or anyone else for that matter, being attacked with a hammer, I saw no public interest in making such a video public.

Apparently, I wasn’t the only one and the story actually deals with the issue pretty well.

The video clip, which runs just over 1 ½ minutes, was part of a batch of evidence released Friday in the case against the suspect, David DePape, giving an up-close view of what happened during the stunning attack at the house of one of the nation’s highest-ranking politicians.

The tranche also includes audio from Paul Pelosi’s call to 911, part of a police interview with DePape and security camera video of the break-in. It was made public after The Washington Post and other news organizations pressed for copies and San Francisco Superior Court Judge Stephen M. Murphy ruled in favor of releasing them.

Why?

Wild rumors, amplified by conservative activists and bloggers, had surged after the 2 a.m. attack 11 days before the 2022 midterm elections, and the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office argued that unsealing video and audio could fuel more misinformation while risking DePape’s right to a fair trial. Someone, for instance, could edit the clips to manipulate audiences on social media.

But Murphy ruled that footage playing in a public courtroom should be handed to the media.

“These are open facts. They are known facts,” said Thomas Burke, a lawyer representing the coalition of news organizations that pushed for access to the evidence, including The Post. “The public’s right of access should not be dependent on conspiracy theories.”

But why does the public have a “right of access” that overrides the Pelosi family’s privacy and the perpetrator’s* right to a fair trial?

The internet gossip had spread rapidly to Capitol Hill, where Republican officials groundlessly cast doubt on 82-year-old Paul Pelosi’s account of the violence and referenced baseless homophobic conspiracy theories.

Prosecutors, however, have said that what happened was clear — and that DePape himself outlined his actions in tapes like those just released.

“The most stark evidence of planning and motive in this case were the statements of the defendant himself,” San Francisco Assistant District Attorney Phoebe Maffei said at the December hearing.

In the now-public interview with police, DePape told an investigator: “I’m not trying to get away with this. I know exactly what I did.”

The audio and videos, part of a larger cache of evidence authorities have gathered against DePape, further debunk the claims made by far-right actors, mainstream politicians and Twitter owner Elon Musk, who used his platform to spread misinformation before backpedaling hours later.

Some claimed that DePape, whose descent into extremism is laid out in a long online trail, was not animated by radical right-wing politics; others said, without evidence, that DePape hadn’t actually broken into the house.

But in his interview with police, DePape says he was trying to punish Nancy Pelosi for what he called the Democratic Party’s “lies” and “crimes.” Also included in the released evidence was a six-minute video capturing the moment DePape broke in through a back door.

I do agree that debunking ugly conspiracy theories is important. And the video in question very much achieves that. Still, I don’t know that the public should see the video over the objections of the defense attorneys and the victim’s family.

Speaking to reporters on Capitol Hill on Friday afternoon, Nancy Pelosi said she has not reviewed any of the newly released evidence and will not do so.

“I have not heard the 911 call. I have not heard the confession,” she said. “I have not seen the break-in, and I have absolutely no intention of seeing the deadly assault on my husband’s life.”

That’s perfectly understandable. Why compound the trauma?

DePape’s public defender, Adam Lipson, said the decision to release the tapes was “a terrible mistake.”

“Releasing this footage is disrespectful to Mr. Pelosi, and serves no purpose except to feed the public desire for spectacle and violence,” Lipson said in a statement. “The footage is inflammatory and could feed unfounded theories about this case, and we are extremely concerned about Mr. DePape’s ability to get a fair trial.”

DePape was 42 at the time of his arrest, and he told police that he showed up at the Pelosis’ home in San Francisco’s upscale Pacific Heights neighborhood because Nancy Pelosi was “the ‘leader of the pack’ of lies told by the Democratic Party.”

He said he planned to hold her hostage and break her kneecaps if she lied to him in order to “show other members of Congress there were consequences to actions.”

But Pelosi was in Washington that day. It was her husband who woke to the intruder carrying a hammer, zip ties, rope and a roll of tape. Paul Pelosi talked to DePape before managing to go to the bathroom and call 911, authorities said. DePape was nearby, watching him dial.

Granting that DePape has boasted about his crimes and no reasonable juror could acquit him, his attorney’s wishes should nonetheless carry considerable weight here. I honestly see little to no value in the release.

________________

*I’m as big a stickler for the preemption of innocence as it gets but, in this case, there’s not only a videotape of the crime but the accused makes no bones about the crime and his intent.

FILED UNDER: Crime, Media, , , , , , , , ,
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm veteran. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. Sleeping Dog says:

    Broadly, if society chooses to live in a surveillance state, then the individual’s right to privacy has already been breached. Video for door bell camera’s, security cameras, and sex tapes will no longer belong to their producers when knowledge of there existence is known.

    While I don’t agree with that, it is our new reality, get used to it.

  2. Kurtz says:

    I do agree that debunking ugly conspiracy theories is important. And the video in question very much achieves that.

    It’s unlikely to do that.

    16
  3. CSK says:

    This is weird. Who opened the door? And why is Paul Pelosi holding a glass (I think) in his left hand?

    1
  4. Gustopher says:

    Video has power in a way that words don’t.

    Most people are opposed to political violence and police violence, but they are opposed to it the same way they are opposed to raisins — all things being equal they would rather not have it.

    It’s a soft, weak opposition that gets nothing done, and can be overcome with the well produced Tucker Carlson 60 Minutes of Hate or the California Raisins dancing to “I Heard It Through The Grape Vine.”

    We don’t need people to be vaguely opposed to political violence or police violence, we need people radicalized against it and the rhetoric that leads to it.

    For that we need video.

    (And to do something with that video, which is another spot where we are failing as a country — where are our propagandists? The far right has them, but you don’t see them anywhere else)

    I think we are moving in the right direction on police violence. A good chunk of white America now sees it as uglier than what the police try and fail to prevent — not enough to make real change yet, but we are getting there. (Here too I wonder where our propagandists are — why is no one juxtaposing the latest police snuff film with the police standing around outside Uvalde letting kids get shot)

    The video — Pelosi video, the many police brutality videos — needs to be public to have even the possibility of change.

    I do wish this video was delayed by a week so it wasn’t buried by the other video. American carnage is moving at too fast a clip for that, I guess.

    7
  5. walt moffett says:

    If the video was used at the preliminary hearing, it is public record and so public can see it. Don’t think we want a world where secret evidence is routine in our courts. On the other hand, editorial discretion is possible factoring in the wishes of the family, defense attorney and desire to let the wheels of justice grind.

    My druthers, is a article saying it has been released and citing a desire to not try the case in the press not link to it along with a reminder innocent until proven guilty by due process is a good thing.

    1
  6. Michael Reynolds says:

    @Gustopher:
    What Gus wrote.

    1
  7. Ken_L says:

    The unhinged right has already decided the video is a fake. They cackle about Pelosi’s fight with his gay date too much to admit they might be wrong.

    5
  8. Mister Bluster says:

    security

    All decent, law abiding citizens need to protect themselves from the goons who support your boyfriend Trump.

    1
  9. CSK says:

    You can read the criminal complaint against DePape here. It’s quite detailed:

    http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/united-states-vs-david-wayne-depape/

  10. Pylon says:

    @CSK: I’ve only watched it once, but it was enough. That said, the phsyics of who opened the door are pretty unimportant. Either the cop opened it or one of the two on the inside. Pelosi may have done it and then grabbed the hammer right after. Or Depape did it because he’s a nut.

    As for the drink, I suspect Pelosi asked to have a drink of water. He was obviously trying to be friendly towards the guy and defuse tensions. He’d been allowed to put a robe on.