Trump Team Admits Video of Spat Between President and Reporter Was Sped up, but Claims It Wasn't Altered

In a political era where politicians can seem to claim that up is down and night is day, here's a new one: President Donald Trump's advisor Kellyanne Conway says that speeding up a video isn't altering it.

The claim is in reference to a video tweeted out by Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, which captures a confrontation between CNN reporter Jim Acosta and an aide who tries to grab a microphone out of his hand during a November 7 press conference with President Trump. The reporter was not finished with his question and didn't give up the mic, resulting in inadvertent contact with the intern reaching over his arm. He responded with a "Pardon me, ma'am" and then finished up his question, relinquishing the mic after.

The video in question was used to justify removing the reporter's White House access, and that's where the trouble begins. Trump has denied that the video was altered, and Conway either doesn't know the definition of the word or just contradicted the president publicly.

In a Sunday interview with Fox's Chris Wallace, Conway says that "[Acosta] either put his hands on her and grabbed the mic back or he did not, and he clearly did." She goes on to say about speeding up video:

That’s not altered. That’s sped up. They do it all the time in sports to see if there’s actually a first down or a touchdown.

You can see the comments at about the 9:30 mark in the video above.

Ignoring the fact that no touchdowns were scored at the press conference and that both videos, at most, show a singular hand (not hands) being used in the altercation, she seems to misunderstand what editing means. Speeding up a video is considered editing it, altering it, manipulating it, and yes, doctoring it. When the timing of footage is changed, reality is altered and you're not seeing what actually happened. To make matters even fuzzier, an expert looked at the video and determined that three frames were frozen, and then the actual point of contact was made faster to make it appear like a "karate chop," as Conway says, to the intern's arm. He even called it "too precise to be an accident."

Conway goes on to say that Acosta owes the aide an apology. It's puzzling that the aide hasn't come out to say how she feels about the whole thing, but until then, this interview with Conway is the only window into that question.

To see the original, undoctored video, click here to see the full exchange.

Log in or register to post comments

136 Comments

Alex Cooke's picture

"That’s sped up. They do it all the time in sports to see if there’s actually a first down or a touchdown."

Ummm, no, they *slow things down* to check that. No one ever said: "Boy Jim, that was a close play; let's watch it at double speed to clarify what happened!"

user-156929's picture

Congratulations! You know more about sports and video editing than a political consultant. ;-)
The story, as a whole, might (and that's a big might) warrant discussing, but her comments? Ummm, no.

Alex Cooke's picture

Maybe a political consultant shouldn't comment on sports and video editing for an administration then. People in positions of authority and mass reach opening their mouths when they don't know what they're talking about is a dangerous thing.

user-156929's picture

:-) I guess it's a good thing that hardly ever happens, then! LOL

Alex Cooke's picture

Wow Bob, you're really setting up a lack of rapport between us for the fourth go-around!

user-156929's picture

Bob? "Bad Bob"? The original "Bad Bob" from "The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean"? I really liked that movie when it first came out but I'm not sure how well it would be now.

Tim Ericsson's picture

Jesus Christ get a (chat)room. Nobody gives a shit about your sad little personal vendetta on this site, so stop posting paragraphs of bullshit and ruining the thread for the rest of us.

Nobody cares, loser.

Tim Ericsson's picture

Yes I do. We all voted on it after you were banned.

Oh he totally speaks for me. It's a good thing too, because he's so nice about it.

Tim Ericsson's picture

You’d hate to see me when I’m angry! :P

Alex Cooke's picture

Lots of things escape me, Bob. I only know enough to know how little I know. However, I wasn’t the one who banned you. If we lived closer, I’d invite you for pizza and a cold Pepsi as I imagine an in-person conversation might be fruitful.

Wasim Ahmad's picture

Is it because he's a Pepsi drinker and not Coke?

user-156929's picture

Now that there was funny, I don't care who you are! :-)

Yeah, Alex, a Pepsi? I mean c'mon man...

Alex Cooke's picture

Well, we used to at least give each other enough respect to believe each other to mean well and be honest, despite how much we disagreed. Since you can’t give me that anymore, I have no intention of engaging with you again.

Also, since you seem absolutely bound and determined to stick around but claim you have no idea why you were banned the first three times, here are some guidelines:

1. Stop badgering people. Learn to disengage from dialogues that are going nowhere.
2. Don’t insert yourself into every conversation you come across. Being the most prolific poster does not make you the highest quality poster.
3. Stop playing the victim card with your politics. We have plenty of people who are far more right wing than you, both writers and commenters, and they all have active accounts and are doing fine on the site. You were not banned because of your politics and continuing to delude yourself into thinking that and allowing your behavior to continue will only get you banned again.
4. Stop playing this game of indirectly insulting people, then throwing your hands up and saying, “well I never directly insulted them!” It’s not clever and we see right through it.

Tim Ericsson's picture

It’s clear you were banned because you’re a raving lunatic who clogs the forum with paragraphs of off topic delusional nonsense that nobody cares about.

Get a life, man.

Tim Ericsson's picture

How about a public spanking instead? Could you do it, Bo-Jack? I’d be into that! lol

But seriously I rearly hope you get banned again. You’re a virus on this forum

Tim Ericsson's picture

Oooo thanks for the downvote! You know what they do to me!

Alex Cooke's picture

I gave you the guidelines. I told you that once you questioned my honesty and intentions I wasn't interested in discussion beyond that point. As I said, if you keep refusing to take responsibility for your behavior and deluding yourself into thinking you're an innocent victim, we'll end up in the same spot for the fourth time. Those are the rules, like them or not. I don't care what you think of me.

A fourth time ban to anyone surely warrants something more permanent?

Tim Ericsson's picture

4 times?! I thought he said it was 2 times (which is bad enough). Jesus, this guy's got to get a hobby.

Tim Ericsson's picture

C'mon everybody: pizza and Pepsi at Alex's house! I'll take Bo-Jack's Bradyson's slice.

William Howell's picture

Come on Alex, Bob-Jack’s comment was humorous. "I was thinking that when I read your article."

>>It's unfortunate that for someone as obviously well educated and as intelligent as you are, someone that is even capable of showing admirable kindness, that wisdom, tolerance and the truth still significantly escapes you

Where "wisdom" and "truth" seem to mean believing that action replays for sports are speed up instead of slowed down when Goebbels Lite tells you so...

And, of course, the opposite tomorrow if she changes her mind.

Kelly Anne Conway is the queen of alternative facts. Her attempt to defend the indefensible would be comical if her politics wasn’t so terrifying. Right now California is on fire, but alternative facts allow some to believe the real threat is at the southern border.

user-156929's picture

You'll never hear me defend her but aren't the fires and illegal immigration, separate and independent threats? I think the real threat is partisanship, as evidenced by the people here, on both sides, blindly voting up or down comments that really aren't provocative with no attempt to understand what's even being said. I heard a financial consultant, on the radio, commenting about the importance of couples needing to talk about their financial and retirement goals. Like it or not, we're all (for the most part) married to each other. :-/

Lorretta Clarke's picture

Sam i agree. Whenever there is a king on the horizon the first play is divide and conquer. Its terrible whats happened to the country. I am not talking spirituality here but we r all connected what happens to the disenfranchised for instance, u can ignore it for a time but we all pay eventually. Having said that this is a photography forum we should stick to that since maybe just maybe some people will find harmony and respect through interests that may transcend our political beliefs.

user-156929's picture

I don't understand the first part of your comment but agree with your summation.

Lorretta Clarke's picture

To destroy any organisation the first principle is to divide. The way to do this is always to stir up the fringes, disenfranchised. This is the price we all pay for ignoring 3 to 4 decades of people who feel they have no hope. This is the blame of all parties. My hope is that one day we all see this

michael buehrle's picture

i wish it was shot on an iPhone.

More comments