The Pelosi Tapes: The Video of the October Attack Shows New Details and Refute Sensational Theories

Screen grab from bodycam video following the alleged assault on Paul Pelosi by David DePape in San Francisco on Oct. 28, 2022.

It is a common lament that news today moves at a Nascar pace. With social media, reactions are immediate and can be wrong. It also fuels conspiracy theories on incomplete facts. That was the case with Paul Pelosi. Various sites pushed a theory that Pelosi knew his attacker David DePape and may have actually been in a romantic relationship. Others suggested that there was no danger or emergency when police first arrived at the Pelosi residence. Both claims were shattered by this videotape and offer yet another cautionary tale of the viral claims that can take hold in early coverage.

Newly released bodycam video of the October attack on Paul Pelosi shows a chilling scene when police arrived. Pelosi was not free to move and did not answer the door. The door was opened to reveal Pelosi being held by DePape who is also brandishing a hammer.

In the prior telephone call, Pelosi remains remarkably calm and controlled as he tries to signal to the police operator that he is in danger with DePape listening to the call. The operator appears surprisingly clueless as Pelosi tries to explain that this is the house of a protected person…indeed, the person third in line from the presidency.

Here is the transcript of the 911 call made by Pelosi to San Francisco police at 2:27 a.m. on Oct. 22.

911 dispatcher Heather Grives: San Francisco Police, 74.

Paul Pelosi: Oh I guess … I guess I told them to (unintelligible). What is this?

911: San Francisco Police, do you need help?

PP: Oh, well there’s a gentleman here just waiting for my wife to come back, Nancy Pelosi. He’s just waiting for her to come back, but she’s not going to be here for a day so I guess I’ll have to wait.

911: OK, do you need police, fire or medical for anything?

PP: Uh, I don’t think so. I don’t think so.


Um … Is the Capitol Police around?

911: No this is San Francisco —

PP: They’re usually here at the house, protecting my wife.

911: No this is San Francisco Police —

PP: No I understand … OK well, uh … I don’t know, what do you think? (speaking to David DePape)

DD: (Unintelligible)

PP: He thinks everything’s good. I’ve got a problem but he thinks everything’s good.

911: OK, call us back if you change your mind.

PP: No no, this gentleman just came into the house, and wants to wait here for my wife to come home. And so, anyway, he told me to put the phone down.

911: Do you know who the person is?

PP: No I don’t know who he is. He uh … uh he has (unclear) … he’s telling me … he’s telling me not to uh … he’s telling me not to do anything.

911: What is your address sir?

PP: Uh, 2640 Broadway.

911: What is your name?

PP: My name is Paul Pelosi.


Anyway this gentleman says that uh, he thinks (unintelligible), he’s telling me to put the phone down and just do what he says. OK?

911: OK, what’s the gentlemen’s name?

DD: David DePape

PP: What’s that?

DD: My name’s David.

PP: The name is David.

911: OK, and who is David?

PP: I don’t know.

911: (Unintelligible)

PP: What’s that?

DD: I’m a friend of theirs.

PP: He says he’s a friend.

911: But you don’t know who he is?

PP: No, no ma’am.

911: OK.

PP: He’s telling me I’m being very leading, so I gotta stop talking to you, OK?

911: OK. You sure? I can stay on the phone with you just to make sure everything’s OK?

PP: No, he wants me to get the hell off the phone. OK?

911: OK.

PP: Thank you.

911: OK, bye.

It is chilling to hear DePape’s voice telling Pelosi to hang up. However, Pelosi shows amazing self-control and courage in the situation. When police appear, Pelosi breaks away from DePape who moves with remarkable speed in attacking him with the hammer. It is all over in a matter of seconds as police leaped to Pelosi’s aid.

Warning: this is a violent and disturbing tape.

What is truly surprising is how there appears to be little awareness by the police operator of the fact that this is a high priority home for protection. Moreover, the break in itself was loud and violent. Yet, only Pelosi appears to have immediately responded. He is alone and vulnerable in the house:

DePape has pleaded not guilty to all state charges in the case, including attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon and elder abuse. He also has pleaded not guilty to federal charges of assaulting an immediate family member of a federal official and attempted kidnapping of a federal officer for the alleged home invasion.

The videotape leaves little apparent defense to these charges beyond a lack of capacity defense.

It also shows how bias or dislike for some figures can make you prone to assuming the worst or most sensational interpretation of limited facts. We can all be susceptible to such bias in today’s heated political environment. That is why we often discuss how we need to wait for the evidence and the Pelosi case is an example of why.

130 thoughts on “The Pelosi Tapes: The Video of the October Attack Shows New Details and Refute Sensational Theories”

  1. Turley says: “It also shows how bias or dislike for some figures can make you prone to assuming the worst or most sensational interpretation of limited facts. We can all be susceptible to such bias in today’s heated political environment. That is why we often discuss how we need to wait for the evidence and the Pelosi case is an example of why.” Uh, Turley, you also contribute to the culture of hate, assumption of the worst, and/or outright lies put out by your employer. You ignore political stories that make Republicans look bad and feed into conspiracy theories and unproven allegations all of the time (i.e.–the “Hunter Biden Scandal”), as you get called out frequently by bloggers on this post.

    Below is a list of REPUBLICAN politicians, pundits, pro-Trump celebrities and others who either: 1. mocked Paul Pelosi; 2. claimed the attack was staged; 3. claimed that it was a homosexual liaison that went awry; 4. otherwise fed into misinformation and/or conspiracy theories about this incident: Ted Cruz, Marjorie Taylor Greene; Rep. Clay Higgins, Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson; Mary Williams Benefield; Glenn Beck; Royce White; St. Senator Wendy Rogers; St. Rep. Anthony Sabatini; Claudia Tenney; Megyn Kelly; Tucker Carlson; Di’Nesh D’Sousa; Ryan Fournier; Sebastian Gorka; Pete Hegseth; Elon Musk; Devin Nunes; Michael Savage; Roger Stone, and the fat liar who goes by the name Donald Trump.

    I don’t hear Turley demanding that any of these losers apologize for the things they said–but then again, for those in the list above who are also on the Fox payroll, Turley appears on their programs regularly, so today’s little cautionary piece is just some tame fluff to make it sound like Turley is even-handed. What they did is far worse than “bias in today’s heated political environment”, to which Turley regularly contributes. It’s outright lying and a disgusting example of not just homophobia but the culture of hate propagated by the alt-right media, of which Turley is a part. Oh, and Turley left out the best part: after the tape was published the loser who attacked Paul Pelosi expressed disappointment that he didn’t do more damage and his parting comment was: “you’re welcome”. I’m sure his lawyer appreciated that parting shot.

    1. “mocked Paul Pelosi”
      Questioning a confising narrative is not mocking.
      Regardless politicians and those arround them get mocked all the time.
      By the left and right.
      “claimed the attack was staged;”
      The initial MSNBC report was sufficiently confused as to allow that interpretation.
      “claimed that it was a homosexual liaison that went awry;”
      Again The initial MSNBC report was sufficiently confused as to allow that interpretation.
      “otherwise fed into misinformation and/or conspiracy theories about this incident:”
      Again the initial MSNBC report was full of misinformation.
      That BTW is the norm with News, It is rare that the first version of events is perfect.
      I would note that the Left is still trying to pretend that was some right wing motivated attack.
      When the attacker was clearly a left wing nuts druggy.
      It is possible the attack was politically motivated, but if it was, than it is Blue on Blue violence.

      Regardless, the Paul Pelosi story has died, mostly because there is no “there there”

      1. Mika Brzyzsky of “Morning Joe” played a tape of the various lies told by the list I provided in the above post. I’ve also seen a tape from some other alt-right media source that continues to lie by claiming that there was no proof of any break-in, even though there’s outside security footage showing DePape smashing a window when he broke into Pelosi’s home. Alt-right media claims that there’s proof that the broken window was smashed from the inside, which the security tape proves is false, but they claim this is proof that the attack was staged. Now, you’re trying to blame MSNBC for the lies told on Fox and other alt-right media about Pelosi’s attack? Where do you think DePape got the lies that fueled his fury? You think that the attack wasn’t politically motivated? Who gave DePape the idea that Nancy Pelosi lied about something?

        1. GiGi very few people here are going to take seriously claims by collusion delusion hoaxsters.

          Despite the FACT that YOU have sold inumberable bogus left wing conspiracies here

          I am prepared to consider SPECIFIC Claims that YOU make – that you are also prepared to defend, in detail if needed.

          Specifically regarding the DePape/Pelosi event – the First reports were from MSNBC and THEY opened the door to all kinds of speculation.

          As with EVERY event like this that occurs – when it first occurs there is a rush to make it fit some political agenda.
          The NORM is that right or left it never does.

          DePape is not some right wing nut. While he clearly has a political axe to grind with Pelosi, it is a LEFT wing nut axe, not a right one.

          Just as far left protestors showed up repeatedly at AOC events recently attacking her support for Ukraine.
          Some issues such as Ukraine do not divide easily on established political lines.

          Did DePape attack Pelosi because she was not sufficiently far left ? Or is he just a drug addled mentally disturbed person from the left ?

          Who knows ?

          Are some right wing claims regarding the Pelosi attack debunked ? Certainly.
          Was there sufficient basis in early reporting for speculation ? absolutely.

          Regardless, the LEFT used the attack shamelessly and successfully in the 2022 Election to portray the Right as violent

          That does not leave much room for honest complaint regarding mistaken claims by the right.

          Further the lies of the LEFT were echo’d by almost the entirety of the media.
          Those of the right only on low traffic new sites.

          Since when is this country the CCP ?

          1. JohnBSay: You just told Gigi that “Despite the FACT that YOU [GiGi] have sold inumberable bogus left wing conspiracies here.”
            Of course, “sold” means that there was a conveyance, from seller to buyer. Methinks no one bought what GiGi was selling…

              1. (1) Yup.
                (2) Yup, you are correct. After I hit send, I realized I made an overly-broad comment in favor of brevity. thanks

                1. No problem – you had a point

                  Regardless, I am not perfect I do not expect perfection from others.

    2. “misinformation and conspiracy theories” are constitutionally protected free speech

      For many reasons – one of which should be slef evident.

      Because what is alleged to be misinformation today sometimes proves to be truth tomorow.

      Because some conspiracy theories turn into conspiracy facts.

      Justice Brandies
      Whitney V California.

      Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppressions of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. To justify suppression of free speech there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the evil to be prevented is a serious one. Every denunciation of existing law tends in some measure to increase the probability that there will be violation of it. Condonation of a breach enhances the probability. Expressions of approval add to the probability. Propagation of the criminal state of mind by teaching syndicalism increases it. Advocacy of lawbreaking heightens it still further. But even advocacy of violation, however reprehensible morally, is not a justification for denying free speech where the advocacy falls short of incitement and there is nothing to indicate that the advocacy would be immediately acted on. The wide difference between advocacy and incitement, between preparation and attempt, between assembling and conspiracy, must be borne in mind. In order to support a finding of clear and present danger it must be shown either that immediate serious violence was to be expected or was advocated, or that the past conduct furnished reason to believe that such advocacy was then contemplated. Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. Only an emergency can justify repression. Such must be the rule if authority is to be reconciled with freedom. Such, in my opinion, is the command of the Constitution . . .

    3. Gigi: Thank you for providing such effective counter-balance to “the culture of hate propagated by the alt-right media” with your own forceful, albeit vehement, vitriolic, hateful, crude, vengeful, odious, nasty, verbose, repetitive, and sometimes unintelligible attacks thereupon. Without considering your views/opinions, I would be so narrow-minded and naive, especially about that “fat pig” Trump. Appreciate you for educating us about such dangers.

  2. Having watched the video in slow mo several times, I still can’t tell who opened the door. It seems likely Pelosi opened the door as DD seems too far back. I can’t understand why Pelosi didn’t release the hammer and run forward once he saw the cops, but I understand he was in a challenging situation. It still all seems very strange to me, although I can understand PPs call and actions presuming DD was a random intruder.

    1. I also want to wish Mr. Pelosi well, recognize the cops work, and hope DD is able to work out his mental challenges.

    2. There’s a 16 hour window between ye breaking and the police arriving. What was going on during that entire time?

  3. I would say Pelosi:
    1 opened the door
    2 is in distress
    3 is still a drunken creepy old man
    4 made millions of his wife’s “insider trading.”

    1. LOL. You speak of critical thinking, and cite Gateway Pundit?! That’s a contradiction in terms. Nobody capable of critical thinking will waste 20 seconds on anything emanating from the lying Hoft brothers’ garbage site. You can’t trust the Hofts to tell you the time of day, let alone anything serious. Any genuine news can be found on more reliable sites, and anything not found on more reliable sites is not genuine news and not worth considering.

      1. Its easy to call a news site names, but without any specifics it will change no minds. Compare CNNs coverage of the veracity of the Steele Dossier, repeated false claims Rittenhouse brought a gun across state lines, and Russia-gate, among many other examples.

        1. While I welcome the calling out of the use of ad hominems, name calling, and insults and do not find their use persuasive, I note that it goes on around here constantly without any negative response. Also, the original comment was pretty harsh on JT — suspension of critical thinking.

      2. I do not care who someone cites. I care whether the information provided is true.

        TGP has been more accurate than CNN. I still view CNN on occasion.

        Like a typical left wing nut, you care more about who is reporting than what the truth is.

        I will take the truth wherever I can get it.

  4. I resent Pres Biden immediately, within 24 hours of the attack, linking it to J6, exploiting it, politicizing it, and using it to falsely smear MAGA Trump supporters. Joe Biden is despicable.

  5. The emergency dispatchers need some additional training to understand that a ‘calm, cool, collected, measured voice’ calling 911 for help at 2:30am does NOT EQUATE to NOT AN EMERGENCY SITUATION. Pelosi was clearly in a hostage situation.

    Maybe dispatchers need to start asking, as many medical professsional do, on a scale of 1 to 10, what level is your emergency? Pelosi was calmly trying to communicate a level 10 emergency. Some people are calm when their pain level is a 9 or 10. Some people are hysterical when their pain level is a 3 or 4. A calm voice describing a level 10 emergency does not always compute – at first. A calm voice giving the name Nancy Pelosi and asking about Capitol Police did not compute! Astounding ignorance.

  6. Okay. My first question is why weren’t these videos and the 911 audio immediately released to the public? Presuming they are not faked, they definitively prove Paul Pelosi was an innocent victim, make a basically airtight case against his assailant. Almost all speculation damaging to the Pelosi’s, that something more nefarious had been going on would have been immediately put to rest.

    The odd details of the situation – such as what’s up with Paul not putting down his drink? wouldn’t you want two hands free to wrestle with a hammer wielding intruder? Why did the Capitol Police, SFPD, the dispatch and security system all fail to varying degrees? Why hasn’t there been a public accounting of what went wrong? Have any heads rolled at the Capitol Police over what has to be one of the grossest failures to protect a major federal official since the Kennedy assassination?

    What is going on here? Something stinks.This doesn’t add up. There is definitely more to this story than meets the eye, the only question is what exactly is it?

  7. “OK, call us back if you change your mind”???!!!

    Lives can hinge on the capability of the 911 operator who answers. It must be a very stressful job, but critical.

    As for the salacious theories, if a nudist insane person breaks into your house in the middle of the night, it’s likely both of you will be in a state of undress.

    This call exemplifies how critical a home defense can be. Because Capitol Police failed to monitor the property, Pelosi was on his own. I can tell you from personal experience that it’s the loneliest, most vulnerable time in your life, when someone has broken in. Pelosi had to diplomatically place the call, play charades with the operator, and then wait for police to arrive, check perimeter, and enter. DePape could have easily bashed him in the head before police arrived, or before he even made the call. There are times when you’re on your own.

    “Just call the police” is no comfort when he’s already inside your house..

    Best wishes for Mr Pelosi’s full recovery.

Leave a Reply