SUCH SAD LITTLE MEN:

The right's conspiracy theorists went to work soon after news of Paul Pelosi's assault broke. They create dubious but politically beneficial narratives by taking existing facts - particularly ones that emerge early in the life of a story, when initial reports are often wrong - mixing in falsehoods, and using wild logical jumps to put the result in a different context.

First, an investigative journalist at a local TV affiliate reported on Friday that the assailant was wearing only his underwear when police arrived. But the journalist retracted that reporting the same day, and no other outlet confirmed it. 

Second, the dispatcher who received a 911 call from Paul Pelosi said that he had identified the intruder as a "friend." But Pelosi, according to law enforcement, was making that call surreptitiously from the bathroom and speaking "in code" to the dispatcher in an attempt to avoid his suspicion.

Third, some alleged that there were no signs of forced entry at the Pelosi home, suggesting that Paul Pelosi had willingly let DePape inside. In fact, police say he forced entry through the rear door, and aerial photos and video show shattered glass around that entryway (in fact, other internet sleuths claim that the glass pattern is suspicious).

Fourth, Politico reported on Friday based on San Francisco Police Chief William Scott's press conference that the first police officers responding on the scene "were let inside by an unknown person. They discovered DePape and Pelosi struggling for a hammer." This generated speculation that a third individual had been present. But Scott did not actually say that, and the SFPD subsequently confirmed only two people, DePape and Paul Pelosi, were at the home when police arrived.

The right's conspiracy theorists took those four pieces of evidence, mixed in Paul Pelosi's May DUI charge, and concocted the narrative that hehad been the victim of a drunken gay lovers' spat that was subsequently covered up. 

By Sunday, versions of this speculation were rampant on the right. Commentators who present themselves as credible offered a version in which they were simply asking questions because the press supposedly refused to do so.

Those who lack such airs simply claimed, as Dinesh D'Douza did, that "this guy, the assailant, is either a sexual partner or a male prostitute, and this is a sexual rendezvous that went sideways."

Eventually, the story reached Musk, a troll beloved on the right with a penchant for conspiracy theories. And on Sunday morning, he blasted it out to his 112 million Twitter followers. [...]

At the same time, the right-wing media generated nonsensical explanations for why the assailant's Internet footprint is forged and he's actually a leftist. They cannot accept that the assailant believed right-wing conspiracy theories without taking on responsibility, so they've developed an alternate explanation instead. 

Tweet   @brothersjudd