Thank you for offering an objective analysis of the story. Too many people go to it with pre-conceived bias against this particular carmaker. If you replaced it with 'Ford' the article would never have been published.
If you'd seen the before/after video clips you'd understand that this is a pretty big deal. The BBC spliced two separate video clips nearly 1hr apart to make out that Trump was an insurrectionist.
Original quote:
"We’re gonna walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women"
Manipulated BBC version of quote:
"We’re gonna walk down to the Capitol, and I'll be there with you, and we fight. We fight like hell"
The BBC should not have cut together the footage in the way that they did.
But let's be clear, the edited footage does not misrepresent the nature of what happened; Trump was an insurrectionist.
You don't have to take my (or the BBC's) word for it. Jack Smith's final report [1] makes it clear that Trump knew what he was doing on January 6th (emphasis mine):
> ...the evidence established that the violence was foreseeable to Mr. Trump, that he caused it, that it was beneficial to his plan to interfere with the certification, and that when it occurred, he made a conscious choice not to stop it and instead to leverage it for more delay.
The main reason Trump wasn't charged with insurrection was down to the lack of case law (emphasis mine):
> [insurrection] typically involves overthrowing a sitting government, rather than maintaining power...
As such, the case would likely be bogged down for years as Trump attempted to wiggle through his favourite loophole, "nobody anticipated such an awful person being in charge."
Venezuela's evil narco-terrorist illegitimate leader in prison, Iran's nuclear threat eliminated, ceasefire achieved in Gaza, and a Trump-led, UN-approved Board of Peace established to continue the humanitarian aid and rebuild the Gaza strip.
