Benny from the Blaze picks up on how the two-part video release from Mother Jones has a missing period of time between the clips.
Tuesday afternoon, the site Mother Jones released what was described as the “full,“ ”raw and uncut” video of Mitt Romney’s comments at a private campaign fundraiser, which has drawn immense criticism from both sides. The “uncut” videos leave out a critical portion of the speech, as Romney was beginning to explain his now infamous “47 percent” remarks, and pick up in an altogether different location.
Here is Benny’s video mashup of the last 10 second of the first clip, and the first 10 seconds of the second clip.
As noted, there are some problems with calling this an unedited video. The video transcribed would read:
[Romney]“We do all these polls — I find it amazing. We poll all these people to see where you stand in the polls but 45 percent of the people vote for the Republicans and 48 or 49–,”
This is where the first part of the video cuts out.
Part two picks up seemingly on a completely different subject: China.
“…about twice as much as China, not 10 times as much like is reported. And we have responsibility for the whole world, they’re only focused on one little area of the world, the south china sea…”
Not only are the topics completely different, but the second clip starts with a nearly full pitcher of some beverage sitting atop the table.
Legal Insurrection received an explanation from Mother Jones regarding the discrepancy.
“According to the source, the recording device inadvertently turned off. The source noticed this quickly and turned it back one. The source estimates that one to two minutes, maybe less, of recording was missed.”
I’m going to have to go ahead and call BS on this one. Mother Jones was portraying this video as completely uncut and unedited. So they had to have known that a gap in the sequence, which is easily noticed when the two clips are played in succession, would at the least have looked like they were cut and spliced.
Why didn’t they get out in front and offer that explanation before releasing the entire video?
While this doesn’t necessarily provide any new light on the material in the video, it does raise some eyebrows as to those who released it and claimed it was unedited.
There is a controversy brewing at the London Olympics and it doesn’t involve judges, steroids, or tanking matches (we’re looking at you Badminton) – it involves bikinis.
Are the Olympics women’s beach volleyball photos too sexy? That is the claim being made by some people who find that too many pictures of these female Olympians are filled with crotch shots and close-ups of women’s derrieres in tight bikini bottoms, according to the Huffington Post just yesterday.
… Although female beach volleyball teams are no longer required to wear bikinis while competing in the Olympics, most of them chose to continue the tradition of skimpy two-piece swimsuits for the 2012 Olympics.
It should come as no surprise that the women’s beach volleyball photos of competitors in bikinis come across as far sexier than photos of Olympians who chose to compete while fully clothed. While wearing a bikini, everything from hand signals to a congratulatory hug looks sexy. No one is blaming the women for being too sexy. The question is whether the photographers are gratuitously focusing on certain body parts or poses when they snap their photos.
So what do you think readers? Too sexy, too photographed, or not enough of either? Tell us in the comments section!
&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;a href=”http://polldaddy.com/poll/6439658/”&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;Are women’s beach volleyball uniforms too sexy?&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/a&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;
On behalf of everyone who recognized Huntsman as an unhinged RINO loon, allow us to say… “Phew!”
No Jon, this is actually what they do in China if you talk off script…