disrupt the peaceful transfer of power of as is laid out in the Constitution

[GoodTaste]

"In my view, the attack on the Capitol that day was designed for a particular purpose at a particular moment, and that was to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power of as is laid out in the Constitution," Kaine said in an interview with ABC "This Week" anchor George Stephanopoulos. "So I think there's a powerful argument to be made."

Source: ABC News 'There's a powerful argument' Trump is disqualified for presidency under 14th Amendment: Kaine

Should the second "of" in "disrupt the peaceful transfer of power of as is laid out in the Constitution" be removed?

 

[Tarheel]

Yes, it's an error.

 

[Amigos4]

Yes, it's an error.

Not so fast! If you listen closely to Senator Kaine's comment, he does use the second "of" in his response to George Stephanopoulos's question.

Source: ABC News

 

[Amigos4]

Should the second "of" in "disrupt the peaceful transfer of power of as is laid out in the Constitution" be removed?

The second "of" does not appear in the official transcript of Senator Kaine's response. How do editors handle situations like this when an unintended second word is uttered but it doesn't change the meaning of the sentence? Should it be included or excluded from the transcript?

 

[Tarheel]

Not so fast! If you listen closely to Senator Kaine's comment, he does use the second "of" in his response to George Stephanopoulos's question.

Source: ABC News

Yes, but that's what's in print. That "of" doesn't make sense. Of what?

 

[Amigos4]

Yes, but that's what's in print. That "of" doesn't make sense. Of what?

No, that’s not what is in print. The editor of the transcript did not include the second “of”. What was said by Senator Kaine is not what is written. Thus, my question stands. When does an editor include/exclude an unintended word?
You are correct, Grand Wizard of Charlotte! The second “of” is incorrect when written.

 

[jutfrank]

When does an editor include/exclude an unintended word?

There are several reasons to exclude and few reasons to include. Here, it really should be left out. It does nothing at all except confuse. If you were to leave it in, it'd stand out where it doesn't in the speech.

I'm not sure he even says of anyway. I think it's just a filler syllable.