Thanks, mcfarm!

As your friend, I wish I could help you to chill out. 

Unfortunately, since authentic facts are extraordinarily important to me, I will have to correct your distorted version of january 6th for the umpteenth time.

The BBC did in fact make a tiny edit in his speech to make him sound worse that I didn't know about(thanks for letting us know),  so lets discuss that using authentic facts. 

The BBC’s editing of Trump’s January 6 speech caused controversy – but what did he really say?

The scandal has provided Trump another avenue to attack the media, and to relitigate his involvement in January 6

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/10/why-bbc-resignations-trump-speech-edit

In a broadcast of the news show Panorama before the 2024 election, Trump’s speech was edited to put together two sentences that were actually 54 minutes apart, making it appear as though he was telling people they would walk to the US Capitol and “fight like hell”.

What did Trump say in his speech on January 6?

Before supporters stormed the US Capitol, Trump gave a speech to rally the crowd, who assembled in Washington under the belief that he had won the 2020 election and Biden had stolen his victory.

The word “fight” is used throughout the speech, including in the line: “We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”

Throughout the lengthy speech, Trump details what he claimed as evidence for malfeasance in the election, though the courts rejected these claims when his team and allies brought lawsuits seeking to overturn the results.

He also calls on Mike Pence, his then vice-president, to “come through for us” by rejecting the electoral votes – something Pence did not do – saying it would be a “sad day for our country” if Pence didn’t.

The speech was edited – but did Trump actually incite a riot?

In the various inquiries and court cases over Trump’s role in the insurrection, the president’s legal team has sought to highlight a part of the speech where he said people should march to the Capitol to “peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard” as evidence that the president did not incite illegal behavior.

But the January 6 committee, a select congressional committee that investigated the insurrection and sought to recreate a timeline of Trump’s actions that day, found that it was Trump’s speechwriters who added the “peacefully and patriotically” language, while the calls to fight were Trump’s own words.

“President Trump used the phrase scripted for him by his White House speechwriters, ‘peacefully and patriotically’ once, about 20 minutes into his speech,” the committee wrote in its report. “Then he spent the next 50-or-so minutes amping up his crowd with lies about the election, attacking his own vice-president and Republican members of Congress, and exhorting the crowd to fight.”

Before January 6, Trump had resisted calls from his staff to make clear in his tweets that the Capitol rally should remain peaceful. And on the day of the insurrection, he rebuffed repeated attempts from his staff and family members to quell the riot happening at the Capitol.

How does it fit into his rewriting of the 2020 election?

Trump has never conceded his loss in the 2020 election. And since he regained the White House, he has sought to revisit the loss: he has installed people who played roles in seeking to overturn the results or advanced the stolen election narrative into government roles, and some are reported to be working on further investigations of the 2020 election.

During his 2024 campaign, he cast the events of January 6 as a “day of love”. On his first day in office in 2025, he granted clemency to all those charged for their actions at the Capitol riot, including those charged and convicted for violent acts.

This weekend, he also issued preemptive pardons for a host of his allies involved in seeking to overturn the election results.Among those receiving the clemency were Rudy Giuliani, Mark Meadows and those who served as false elector slates in swing states who claimed Trump was the rightful winner. The federal pardon doesn’t apply to state-level charges, which some states have brought against the slates.

+++++++++++++++++

Now that we got that cleared up, other than a tiny edit by 1 news organization intentionally trying to make a speech sound a bit worse, everything else is exactly the same which is 99.9999999% of it. 

mcfarm, go ahead and focus on .0000001% of the relevant information because your sources want you to give it 1 trillion times the weighting than what it deserves because it changes 0 facts about anything.

Just 1 news organization in another country making a small edit years later which doesn't suddenly change what actually happened and who intentionally caused it 4 years later.

In fact, this is actually profound, indisputable proof that there is no real evidence to vindicate President Trump.

Why is that?

Because they WOULD BE USING THAT AND NOT THIS minuscule tidbit, nothing from a foreign country 4 years later, that has no relevance at all on what Trump actually did,  that's why!!!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++=

You guys have yet to provide anything substantial to refute the 99.9999999% of the facts. 

This was your recent previous threads on this topic. Fortunately, since the facts have already been verified indisputably by every reasonable standard and legit sources, I don't have to spend dozens of hours each time to retrieve them.

                Jan 6th again                        

                18 responses |            

                Started by mcfarm - July 5, 2025, 7:14 p.m.  

          https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/112997/

++++++++++++++

And the ones just before that:

                2020 election again            

                           Started by mcfarm - June 18, 2025, 5:51 p.m.  

          https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/112667/

  Started by mcfarm - June 17, 2023, 4:52 p.m. 

           https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/96365/

+++++++++++

Your sources keep coming up with breaking news, magical mystery secrets that nobody ever knew before that are supposed to REPLACE all that we thought that we knew before, despite the prior knowledge being based on the indisputable, authentic facts. 

I acknowledge that this DID happen mcfarm but turning a grain of sand into Mt. Everest doesn't work with authentic facts.

let keep to the story here MM. th real root of the story A so called "news" organization" edited the speech of an American President to what end??????  Could that of been the same end as obama Hillary, comey clapper, brennan cbs nbc abc cnn ny times dnc cia fbi justice depart irs you tell me just where to stop because its all true and happened and there is no way around the cold hard fact of effort over throw the duly elected gov of this country 

Thanks for letting us know how you feel, mcfarm!

You are the voice of MAGA at MarketForum!

no big deal, no facts no affect....nice try on the rationalization of the weaponization that is killing our republic....... might want to run what you said across to those at the bbc that got fired

Thanks, mcfarm,

So is it ok for Trump to weaponize the justice department and in fact most Departments more than any president in history by a Grand Canyon wide margin because  he’s the president of MAGA and you’re MAGA?

well that certainly is an answer to question I did not ask....and I have not idea what that answer has to do with people getting fired at the trump hating bbc

                Re:  the bbc of media in general            

                By mcfarm - Nov. 11, 2025, 10:43 a.m.            

            no big deal, no facts no affect....nice try on the rationalization of the weaponization that is killing our republic..