Shows how untrustworthy the BBC are

[Notch7]

How would you know that as you only been here since last month?

Paulhow was Nwgs2

 

[Notch7]

Trump didn't incite any rioting. Far-left agitators in the crowds did that. It will all come out.

It has already come out.

It was right wing agitators such as Proud boys.


But you know that, you are a sh1tstirring troll

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Trump didn't incite any rioting. Far-left agitators in the crowds did that. It will all come out.

You do know people died during this ?

Don't tarnish their lives. Be honest

 

[pete01]

No he is a lefty, put on here and deleted everything before he got sussed out. I sussed him out on his first post. It was so blatantly obvious.

I sussed he was Himmy straight away because his name was Himmy02

 

[Deleted member 325366]

Go and troll elsewhere then.

Bye

You’re the lying troll pal.

 

[Deleted member 325366]

Paulhow was Nwgs2

You really are obsessed with the former poster nwgs. I hope they know you’ve got mental issues

 

[Odds]

That Trump knew but said nothing?

What does that have to do with whether it is "splitting hairs" to recognise a difference between being put on trial for something and being found guilty of it?

I mean his way of weaseling words around to wriggle out of taking any responsibility for the consequences of what he says.
Or what others, like Epstein' have said about him. "Trump is the dog that hasn't barked" - what i think Epstein meant by that and what an observer can deduce from it are two clear and distinct things. He'll send in his pitch weasels to scatter chaff across the media landscape, his lawyers to argue black is really white and the moon is just a sun at night. He's desperate to move the narrative on this issue but cannot summon the political momentum to do so, while Democrats and Republicans like MTG are determined to winkle the truth out of him on this one.

His objection to the Panorama edit has seen him casting doubt on the words he used to incite the 2020 election, while denying his speech had anything to do with the Capitol riot. For months he'd spread rumour and doubt about the election count in case he lost and when he did lose, used that narrative to sow even more doubt among political opponents and Republicans who were among those threatened by his MAGA mob. If they'd come to protest as he claims then why were militia groups from the far right tooled up and ready to rock?

It can only be because they knew he was tacitly supporting their militant tendency to cause chaos on the day.

Panorama's edit simply took two separate statements and drew them together in the timeline to show culpability for his speech, despite Trump's later denial. The impeachment was a recognition of this fact before the later trial exonerated him - after he'd leant on Senate republican's like Mitch McConnell and the Speaker of the House to clear his name.

 

[motorbiking]

Even the BBC aren’t pretending that is true.

 

[Odds]

Even Epstein recognised Trump's insanity describing Trump as “f***ing crazy,” speculated he might be showing “early dementia,” called him “a maniac,” compared him to a mob boss, replied “duh” when someone referred to Trump as “truly stupid,” and added that he was “borderline insane.”

I can only deduce anyone defending such a 'man' shares one or more of those qualities.

 

[motorbiking]

Who’s defending Trump?

 

[Notch7]

Who’s defending Trump?

Fillyboy
Spline
Highwayman
Pete01
Etc
Etc

 

[Odds]

Who’s defending Trump?

You, for a start...Read the thread.

 

[motorbiking]

And that’s the problem. You carman, Notch etc hate Trump so much that you cannot see the problem when a supposedly unbiased, impartial BBC shows that they aren’t. Nobody has defended him beyond the facts. He did not incite a violent uprising. The BBC have apologised for creating the “misleading” edit.

 

[Notch7]

Nobody has defended him beyond the facts. He did not incite a violent uprising

That just proves you are defending him “beyond the facts”

He did incite a violent uprising.

Congress voted a majority to say it was insurrection
Courts / judges stated it was insurrection
Numerous investigations and reports state it was insurrection

 

[motorbiking]

That just proves you are defending him “beyond the facts”

He did incite a violent uprising.

Congress voted a majority to say it was insurrection
Courts / judges stated it was insurrection
Numerous investigations and reports state it was insurrection

So the BBC were wrong to apologise for giving the mistaken impression that Trump made a direct call for violence? According to you he did?

“However, we accept that our edit unintentionally created the impression that we were showing a single continuous section of the speech, rather than excerpts from different points in the speech, and that this gave the mistaken impression that President Trump had made a direct call for violent action.

The BBC would like to apologise to President Trump for that error of judgement.”