(AmericanPoliticalDaily.com)- Michael van der Veen, an attorney who successfully represented former President Donald Trump in the second impeachment hearing this January, tore into the media on Saturday over their lack of understanding over the case and their desperate need to generate ratings through outrage.
The attorney caused a stir when he told CBS News anchor Lana Zak that she is “bloodthirsty for ratings,” before tearing off his microphone and leaving the interview.
Zak began the discussion by wrongly claiming that the attorney believed there was an “insurrection” on Capitol Hill on January 6.
“Throughout the trial, you denied that Mr. Trump had a role in inciting the January 6 insurrection at the Capitol,” she said.
“First of all, you argued that there was no insurrection, but during your closing arguments you seemingly admitted that there was, in fact, an insurrection, using that word, saying that that was not up for debate…what role did the former president play?” she asked.
Van der Veen didn’t fall into the trip, slamming Zak for failing to understand the point of the case.
“No. You didn’t understand the case. I used the word insurrection…” he began, before Zak interrupted again.
“Sure, I used the word insurrection in my closing argument when closing the charge documents,” he continued. “what happened at the Capitol on January 6 is absolutely horrific, but what happened at the Capitol during this trial was not too far away from that. The prosecutors in this case doctored evidence. The did not investigate this case and when they had to come to the court of the Senate to put their case on, they hadn’t done any investigation. They doctored evidence.”
One piece of doctored evidence included a video clip of a speech given by the former president used to “prove” that he incited the riot…but the clip was conveniently cut off before the president called on attendees of the rally to march “peacefully and patriotically” in the nation’s capital.
Van der Veen added that, once they revealed how the evidence was doctored, he believed it swayed a lot of Senators to vote to acquit the former president.
But that wasn’t the only doctored evidence. Zak interrupted and to inform viewers that the evidence which was doctored including a Twitter verification checkmark that didn’t exist on a tweet. The tweet used in evidence should have also read 2021, and not 2020.
When Zak attempted to brush it off, Van der Veen asked, “Wait, wait, wait, that’s not enough for you?”
“Ma’am, your question is turned. What has to happen, the media has to start telling the right story in this country, “ he added.
“The media is trying to divide the country. You are bloodthirsty for ratings, and as such, you’re asking questions now that are already set up with a fact pattern. I can’t believe you would ask me a question indicating that it’s all right just to doctor a little bit of evidence. There’s more stuff that we uncovered that they doctored, to be frank with you, and perhaps that will come out one day,” he continued.
The full exchange is incredible to watch. Zak repeatedly attempts to minimize the fact that Democrats and their lawyers doctored evidence, while Van der Veen explains why doctoring evidence to any extent is a problem.