What was the point of hosting conspiracy-theorist Brian Claypool, who admitted he had not seen the newly-released Pelosi video, other than as a sop to Fox’s conspiracy-theorist MAGA base?
Yes, the anchors debunked Claypool, but they also egged him on. First, he promoted conservatives’ baseless claim that Pelosi’s attacker, David DePape, was his gay lover:
CLAYPOOL: The other question we’ve got to talk about is, and nobody wants to talk about it, but let’s do it. I mean, did Paul Pelosi know this guy? Because it is a bit weird. You saw a picture: Paul had a drink in his left hand, right? And again, I’m not disrespecting him, but it looked almost casual in some respect.
Claypool also claimed Pelosi “didn’t sound like he was really fearing for his life” in the 911 call. “They were having a 2:50 discussion,” Claypool added, “and in that DePape says that he did know Pelosi. Pelosi said he doesn’t know him.”
At that point, co-anchor Sandra Smith jumped in. “Wasn’t that an effort to keep the attacker calm?” she said, “I think that’s the way a lot of us interpreted that.” Fine, but instead of flatly calling BS on Claypool, she challenged him in the form of a question, suggesting Claypool might have been correct.
However, Smith did go on to say that there is “clear footage” of the attacker breaking into the house. She rolled the video.
Claypool responded “Well, you can make that argument.” He continued suggesting something amiss: “we just want transparency,” he said, “Why did it take so long to get the video footage?”
At that point, Claypool said, “I think we’re done.”
He should have been done but each anchor assured him he wasn’t done. Co-anchor John Roberts urged him to keep going.
So, Claypool kept going “Where is the evidence of a breaking and entering?” he asked. He admitted he had not seen the video when Smith again pointed out that it showed the attacker breaking into the Pelosi house.
“Got it,” Claypool said. Then he moved right along to Hunter Biden, the DOJ and the search of Mar-a-Lago, as if they had anything to do with the Pelosi attack.
CLAYPOOL: I think there was a clear narrative that the DOJ wanted to propagate in this and that, and we’ve been going through this with other occasions, with the Hunter Biden thing, with the Mar-a-Lago search warrant. I think that’s really to me, the biggest takeaway though. Why is there not truth in what happened with that entry?
Roberts continued fact checking the Pelosi attack but he let stand the crazy rest of it.
Finally, Claypool said, “People just want transparency in high-profile investigations involving high-profile Democratic officials, that’s all."
Well, that’s certainly not too much to ask for,” Roberts said, thus legitimizing Claypool’s nonsense.
