posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 12:40 PM
I watched the whole video, both parts, that is, yesterday right after it was posted at Mother Jones.
Then, many hours later, they posted the transcript as they had promised they would do, and I read it in full.
I noticed that there was a little bit that I didn't hear on the video, at the beginning of the transcript...and the parts in the middle I had
attributed to maybe getting cut off when dividing the video into two parts, which I had assumed they'd done to make it of acceptable length to upload
So then today, these corrected videos and the explanation...and it fits without suspicion for me...mainly because I have uploaded a lot of videos to
youtube and especially with long videos, stuff happens sometimes that I don't understand myself but I know that it isn't anything I did, I just have
to try the upload again. And sometimes I have to try a couple of times but usually just one more try and it all comes out fine. I'm sure the same
kind of thing possibly happens with other uploaders besides the one at youtube...it might even be the same software because the frame looks much like
Also, since I saw it yesterday, and again today, I don't see anything to suggest purposeful editing for any purpose...the things that are there today
that weren't there yesterday are all things that were in the transcript last night and none of them are comparable as far as shock factor or
revealing...in other words, the parts that were supposedly inadvertently left out the first time are not damaging but neither do they explain or
qualify what he says about the 47% as the left out part was at the beginning of the first video, not in the middle. The gap where it was allegedly
turned off and back on again right away seems to have missed a change or shift from the subject of voters to the economy in regard to trade with
Personally, I don't know what he could have possibly said in that questionable gap that would justify what he says right before. He couldn't rectify
it for me in the damage control press conference he gave yesterday and I doubt he was trying to rectify anything in that regard with respect to the
people he was speaking to at this fundraiser. What he said was accepted as truth by them and they evidently were on board with everything he said.
Which is the way it would be expected to be in this situation...he's speaking to people donating to his campaign...talking about what THEY wanted to
talk about. That's how it's done.
And I can also see that the reason we didn't get the whole video at first is because they really just gave us the parts that were juicy...and those
parts just happen to be before and after the gap...the rest is boring, really, but it doesn't have any inconsistencies as far as the general attitude
and tone of the recorded part of that evening, in general. And neither would some sort of imagined justification allegedly cleverly edited out of the
video...why would Mitt justify his comment to people who had no objection to it at all and whose thinking lines up with everything else he said.
He was there to get donations. He knows what to say and what not to say.