Ah, schadenfreude, you can be so yummy delicious. Following the vote to 57-43 vote to acquit President Donald Trump in the Senate, attorney Michael van der Veen granted an interview to Lana Zak of CBS News. To say that he filleted her would be underselling the situation. Following the interview, Miss Zak probably slid to the floor because she had no bones left.
Mr. van der Veen has been quite the joke with the D.C. and Ivy League elitists. Harvard’s own Lawrence Tribe tweeted:
Michael van der Veen, Trump’s lawyer, is acting out a bad caricature of legal and constitutional argument. It’s downright embarrassing. Law doesn’t seem to be his first language. Or his second. Or third. . .
— Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) February 13, 2021
Horror of horrors, the attorney handles personal injury cases:
Michael van der Veen is an ambulance chaser in his primary law practice https://t.co/8TFMdxFaFt
— Roger Rabbit (@robertfj48) February 13, 2021
You can read his curriculum vitae on his website here. It is rather impressive. Calling him an ambulance chaser is a slur that most personal injury attorneys would reject. But, whatevs.
The Trump lawyer has also been taking grief for his “anger” issues by none other than Jonathan Turley:
“But he’s also allowing himself to get upset and casual,” Turley said, mocking the noticeably aggrieved van der Veen. “It’s not a good thing when you’re representing someone accused of violent incitement when you seem to have anger management issues in front of the Senate.”
Well, I might be a feeling a little aggrieved if my opposing counsel was faking evidence and my home was vandalized:
The suburban Philadelphia home of one of the attorneys defending former President Donald Trump in his impeachment trial has been vandalized with graffiti.
Detective Scott Pezick of the West Whiteland Township Police Department in Chester County said the graffiti was reported around 8 p.m. Friday at the home of attorney Michael van der Veen.
Someone vandalized Mike van der Veen's home in suburban Philly – spray painted "TRAITOR" on his driveway.
Via @jeremyrroebuck and photo from Tyger Williams:https://t.co/jQSTkCTyJk pic.twitter.com/DtYvpPyjvu— Jonathan Tamari (@JonathanTamari) February 13, 2021
Even with all that was going on Michael van der Veen pulled out a “W” for his client. Then, he went on CBS News and used a fillet knife to de-bone Lana Zak. She started it:
CBS News titled the video, “Trump attorney rips off mic after questioning from CBSN anchor”. Bwa ha ha ha ha! I thought that the attorney was quite patient with Zak:
Michael van der Veen, appeared on CBS News and was asked about Sen. Mitch McConnell’s comments after Trump’s acquittal. As Bonchie covered earlier, McConnell said that “President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day,” and that Trump is “still liable for everything he did during his period in office.” When he was specifically asked whether he was surprised to hear such a serious rebuke from the leader of the Republican party in the Senate, van der Veen’s expression, tone, and words said it all.
“I’m not surprised to hear a politician say anything at all. No.”
Crickets. The CBS News anchor, Lana Zak, wasn’t quite sure what to make of the reply. She decided to move forward and attempt to “gotcha” van der Veen, and it doesn’t go well for her at all. This, like Friday’s supercut of Democrats inciting violence, is a must-watch clip for two reasons: one, it’s rare that someone so articulately calls out the media, and two, it’s rare that the media have a guest they’re afraid to just cut off as they speak “their truth.”
Then, it got even better. Remember that the Democrat House Managers faked a little evidence:
Throughout the trial you denied that President Trump had a role in inciting the January 6 insurrection at the Capitol. You argued first of all 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 —
No, you didn’t understand the case. I used the word “insurrection” in my closing argument when quoting the charging documents.
What happened at the Capitol on January 6th 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. They did not investigate this case, and when they had to come to the court, or the Senate, to put their case on, because they hadn’t done any investigation, they doctored evidence. It was absolutely shocking….
Zak then tried to return to HER narrative:
To be clear for our viewers, what you’re talking about now is a checkmark that’s a verification on Twitter that did not exist on that particular tweet, a 2020 that should have actually read 2021, and the selective editing, you say, of the tapes. Is that how — is that the doctored evidence of what you’re speaking?
But, Chef van der Veen wasn’t smelling what Zak was cooking:
It’s not okay to doctor a little bit of evidence. The media has to start telling the right story in this country. The media is trying to divide this 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 alright just to doctor a little bit of evidence. There’s more stuff we uncovered that they doctored, to be frank with you, and maybe that will come out someday.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the point. It’s not okay to doctor a little bit of evidence. Michael van der Veen is the lawyer that Donald Trump needed. A white shoe, Washington, D.C. lawyer would have politely not mentioned it.
How much doctoring of evidence is allowed? It’s the same question we need to ask, “How much election fraud is allowed?”
Attorney van der Veen was quite patient with Miss Zak. He did take off his microphone as the interview was ending. He didn’t rip it off, but who could’ve blamed him. We need to take lessons from the attorney. We do not accept doctored evidence or any amount of election fraud. And, we need to fillet more teleprompter readers.
Robin H says: That was epic. I do feel bad for him, you could tell he was very uncomfortable talking to her like that, but it needed to be said. We need way more people to take on the media like he did, stop allowing teir talking points and biased questions.
John Wilson says: She deserved every bit of it.
John Wilson says: I want Ven Der Veen on my case! My father was an attorney who understood the power of language and brevity and when VDV answered questions in the well with one word answers, I saw my dad helping him. VDV is a hero and that young woman deserved what she got. The crazies changed the date of an email from 2020 to 2021 to help tie some allegations to the case. That should get somebody disbarred.
3 Comments