Pelosi Reportedly Refuses To Hand Over Home Security Footage

OPINION:  This article contains commentary which may reflect the author’s opinion

One of the most bizarre details about the Paul Pelosi attack is that there is no security footage being released to the general public, and the left is trying to pretend that it is no big deal and that everyone should just move along.

Initial reports from several media outlets that covered the first moments after the weird attack claimed that Pelosi had no security camera systems working, which is of public concern, considering Pelosi is third in line to be President of the United States, especially in these troubling times.

One independent journalist discovered proof that Pelosi does, indeed, have security cams in her San Franciso home in 2021, where the alleged attack happened on her husband, Paul Pelosi.

Jack Posobiec from Human Events did some investigating from open source materials and found that he could debunk the corporate media storyline that Pelosi didn’t have any security in place to capture the most bizarre ‘attack’ that the American public has heard of this close to midterm elections:

Posobeic’s investigations raise the question about what happened to the security details then.

“In one of the richest neighborhoods in the United States, it’s very hard to believe that there was no security footage,” We Love Trump (WLT) reported, adding:

Moving past that though former UFC fighter Jake Shields took to Twitter to say “My friend who’s a San Francisco detective just told me Paul Pelosi won’t hand over video footage and they believe he was engaged in gay sex.”

Shields would follow it up by saying “He isn’t directly working on this case so I can’t confirm reliability”.

“My friend who’s a San Francisco detective just told me Paul Pelosi won’t hand over video footage and they believe he was engaged in gay sex,” WLT reported, adding: “He isn’t directly working on this case so I can’t confirm reliability.”

Mike Cernovich chimed in with some poignant questions.

In other major crimes that have occurred against a notable person security of the incident was released but in the Pelosi case, we are not only not receiving security footage but instead the mass media is changing the narrative every chance they get.

At this point, there are way more questions than answers…

Who was in the car with Paul Pelosi when he got a DUI? Have you tried to obtain body cam footage?

How was there a break in at third in line to POTUS house?

News organizations are hiding facts from the public.

That’s the real vacuum.

– Why wasn’t there signs of forced entry at Pelosi home?

– Who was 3rd person who opened door for the police?

– Why was Pelosi holding hammer, and attack only happened after police arrived?

– Where is bodycam / security footage?

– Why isn’t the press asking these questions?

It’s clear that footage exists but Pelosis will do anything in their power from it ever seeing light.

Vegas shooting, sorry no footage
Epstein suicide, sorry no footage
January 6, sorry no footage

I’m sensing a pattern.

Politifact wants to dispel the idea that someone is withholding security footage from the public:

“Authorities have said that DePape allegedly broke into the Pelosis’ San Francisco residence, surprising a sleeping Paul Pelosi when DePape came into the bedroom and said he wanted to talk to “Nancy.”

We reached out to the San Francisco Police Department about the claim that the Pelosis are withholding home security footage and didn’t immediately receive a response.

Drew Hammill, a spokesperson for the speaker, said the claim is false.

We found no evidence to suggest otherwise.

Plus, Politico reported that Capitol Police have access to the security camera feed from Pelosi’s home. The police are conducting a review of the Oct. 28 incident, including looking at their command center, “which was monitoring the security camera feed from Pelosi’s home, according to a person familiar,” Politico said.

We rate claims that Pelosi’s are withholding security footage from authorities False.”

But, there is no body cam footage of the mysterious attack. According to an official San Franciso Police Department press release, the agency does use body cams:

The use of Body Worn Cameras (BWC) is an effective tool a law enforcement agency can use to demonstrate its commitment to transparency, ensure the accountability of its members, increase the public’s trust in officers, and protect its members from unjustified complaints of misconduct. As such, the San Francisco Police Department is committed to establishing a BWC program that reinforces its responsibility for protecting public and officer safety.

The purpose of this Department General Order is to establish the policies and procedures governing the Department’s BWC program and to ensure members’ effective and rigorous use of BWC and adherence to the program. The BWC is a small audio-video recorder with the singular purpose of recording audio/visual files, specifically designed to be mounted on a person. The BWC is designed to record audio and video activity to preserve evidence for use in criminal and administrative investigations (including disciplinary cases), civil litigation, officer performance evaluations, and to review police procedures and tactics, as appropriate.


A. Use of Equipment. The Department-issued BWC is authorized for use in the course and scope of official police duties as set forth in this Order. Only members authorized by the Chief of Police and trained in the use of BWCs are allowed to wear Department-issued BWCs. The BWC and all recorded data from the BWC are the property of the Department. The use of non-Department issued BWCs while onduty is prohibited.

B. Training. Prior to the issuance of BWCs, officers will be trained on the operation and care of the BWCs. This training will include mandatory, permissible and prohibited uses, significant legal developments, and use of BWCs in medical facilities.

C. Program Administrator. The Risk Management Office (RMO) is the BWC’s program administrator. The duties of the RMO include, but are not limited to:

1. Tracking and maintaining BWC inventory
2. Issuing and replacing BWCs to authorized members
3. Granting security access to the computer server
4. Monitoring retention timeframes as required by policy and law
5. Complying with Public Record Act (PRA) requests and all court record requests
6. Conducting periodic and random audits of BWC equipment and the computer server
7. Conducting periodic and random audits of BWC recordings for members’ compliance with the policy

So, where is the footage?


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.






Send this to a friend