Breitbart Surrenders?

Has Breitbart admitted the "N-word" was used against members of the Congressional Black Caucus at a Tea Party rally?

Well, according to the Crooks and Liars blog, he has.

Seems to me the video up above is pretty clear and convincing evidence of spitting, racism and hate, and it seems Breitbart thinks so, too. Now that he can't deny it happened, he's choosing to blame John Lewis et al for walking through the group of angry teabaggers.

Well, I ran the video embedded at the post.

I didn't hear a single "N-word" used during the entire clip. I've invited the lefty who posted a link on his Facebook to point out the time stamp where the word can be heard. I'll update this post if a response is forthcoming.

In response to a comment that:

I don't see this video proves anything of the sort. I hear people yelling "kill the bill", and some guy shouting something at one representative who stopped to talk to him for some reason. I can't hear any slurs or see any expectorating, do you? Seriously, if you do tell me because my 51yr-old ears and eyes aren't what they... See More used to be.

Instead of pointing out a time-stamp where the offending language shows up, the lefty who posted this link posted another link. It claims:

Breitbart Accuses Congressional Black Caucus Of Provoking Tea Party Racial Attacks – That Breitbart Said Didn’t Happen
....
Breitbart said. “They’ve been trying to find evidence to back ‘The tea party is racist,’ for a year and a half. Haven’t found anything (well, except for these photos, for one). All of the evidence comes from the other side that they’re the ones that are being violent. And they’re the ones that are hurling the n-word around… A Democratic Party hack, attacking decent citizens. They’re accusing us of what they’re doing. That’s classic Alinsky. The very act of the Black Congressional Caucus, walking through the tea party people while holding all those videos was an act of provocation..."

Yes, he stated the congresscritters were engaging in an act of provocation. He did not say the provocation was successful.

There's a difference.

---

OK, it's later. He's responded:

"Okay, I have to apologize.

I did not vet the article I posted because three people who I have had much reason to trust in the past posted it earlier, & I was seeing much the same sort of thing going around elsewhere. I was busy & distracted & trying to get multiple stuff done in inadequate time & didn't have the time to do what needed doing. I'm sorry. I probably should have stayed off FB today.

The problem is apparently a shift from "Why did he use the term "provoke" if nothing was provoked (which is still up in the air, but I won't piddle in that stream at this time) to "He's admiting that something happened." Which is a lousy leap of logic & obviously wishful thinking.

Granted Breitbart is flaunting this video around which would take a master sound mixer hours of tedious work to clean out the "Kill the Bill" chant & probably result in claims of fixed & "he edited it in." & granted that nobody who was actually there seems to be acceptable as a witness. But the Hannity sequence is still unacceptable as an admission of any kind, at least not in any court I'd wish to go before. (I still think that Hannity is a smug & pompous jerk, but that's not a crime)