Trump Lawyer Van Der Veen vs. CBS Anchor: The Media Has To Begin Dwelling By The Fact And Not Create A Narrative | Video

Donald Trump’s protection lawyer Michael van der Veen angrily stormed out of his interview with CBSN on Saturday, accusing CBS Information anchor Lana Zak of mischaracterizing his feedback in the course of the trial.

LANA ZAK: Becoming a member of me now’s former President Trump’s lawyer, Michael van der Veen. Thanks, sir, for becoming a member of us. Let’s get proper into these phrases that we heard from Senate Minority Chief, Mitch McConnell. He ended the trial with this passionate speech about President Trump’s involvement within the rebellion. Throughout it, he mentioned that the previous president continues to be answerable for all the pieces he did throughout his interval in workplace. Are you anticipating to face extra fees towards Mr. Trump within the close to future? And do you anticipate being a part of that protection?

MICHAEL VAN DER VEEN: No, that is simply political rhetoric. And I used to be hopeful that one thing would come out of this, that the political rhetoric would cease out of Washington D.C. However I assume apparently it hasn’t.

ZAK: Have been you, although, stunned to listen to these phrases coming from the chief of the Republican Social gathering within the Senate?

VAN DER VEEN: I am not stunned to listen to a politician say something in any respect, no.

ZAK: Effectively, all through the trial, you denied that Mr. Trump had a task in inciting the January 6 rebellion on the Capitol. You argued, to start with, that there was no rebellion. However throughout your closing arguments, you seemingly admitted that there was, in reality, an rebellion, utilizing that phrase, saying that that was not up for debate. What position did the previous president play–

VAN DER VEEN: You did not perceive the case. I used the phrase rebellion in my–

ZAK: I will provide the alternative to make clear, sir.

VAN DER VEEN: Positive. I used the phrase “rebellion” in my closing argument when quoting the charging paperwork. What occurred on the Capitol on January sixth is totally horrific. However what occurred on the Capitol throughout this trial was not too distant from that. The prosecutors on this case doctored proof. They didn’t examine this case. And after they needed to come to the courtroom of the Senate to place their case on, as a result of they hadn’t achieved any investigation, they doctored proof.

It was completely surprising, I feel, after we found it and we had been in a position to expose it and put it out. I feel it turned lots of senators. The American folks shouldn’t be placing up with this. They want to have a look at who these Home managers had been and look to see whether or not these are the oldsters they need representing them. It was surprising to me. Would not have believed it.

ZAK: Let’s comply with up with some extent that you simply’re making proper now in regards to the Home managers, as you say, doctoring proof. And the argument–

VAN DER VEEN: They didn’t– they did not deny it.

ZAK: –to be clear for our viewers.

VAN DER VEEN: They did not deny it. I put it in entrance of them 3 times.

ZAK: – To be clear for our viewers, what you are speaking about now’s a checkmark that is a verification on Twitter that didn’t exist on that exact tweet, a 2020 that ought to have really learn 2021, and the selective enhancing, you say, of the tapes. Is that–

VAN DER VEEN: Wait. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.

ZAK: –is that the doctored proof of what you are talking?

VAN DER VEEN: Wait, that is not sufficient for you? That is not sufficient for you? Wait, wait, wait. No, no, no.

ZAK: Sir, I am trying–


ZAK: I’m not a juror on this trial.

VAN DER VEEN: That is all–

ZAK: What I’m attempting to be clear for our viewers is what you are referring to–

VAN DER VEEN: We found– no, no, no.

ZAK: –because not all people has been following–

VAN DER VEEN: It is not OK–

ZAK: Not everybody– sir, respectfully–

VAN DER VEEN: –to physician somewhat little bit of evidence–

ZAK: Respectfully.

VAN DER VEEN: –respectfully. It is not your question–

ZAK: I’ve not mentioned it’s OK.

VAN DER VEEN: Ma’am, your query is turned–

ZAK: I need to be clear for our viewers.

VAN DER VEEN: Hear, what has to occur is the media has to start–

ZAK: I need to be clear for our viewers about what precisely you are saying once you say “doctored proof.”

VAN DER VEEN: The media has to begin telling the precise story on this nation. The media is attempting to divide this nation. You’re bloodthirsty for scores. And as such, you are asking questions now which can be already arrange with a reality sample. I am unable to imagine you’d ask me a query indicating that it is all proper simply to physician somewhat little bit of proof. There’s extra stuff that we uncovered that they doctored, to be frank with you. And maybe that can come out at some point.

However we gained this case. And I am not a sore loser. However what happened– or a sore winner, I ought to say. However what ought to occur is any individual ought to have a look at the conduct of those Home managers. It is unconscionable, other than the entire due course of violations that my shopper had. And the media needs to be trying that at a sq., straight method, a straight method. After I watch the information, I watch one station and it is raining. I watch one other station on the similar time and it is sunny.

Your protection is so slanted. It is acquired to cease. You guys need to cease and begin reporting extra like PBS does quite than a TV information present that does not have any journalistic integrity in any respect. What I am telling you is that they doctored proof. And I imagine your query says, nicely, it is solely a Twitter verify and altering a yr of a date right here. They switched the date of a Twitter a yr to attempt to join it to this case. That is not a small factor, ma’am.

The opposite factor they did is that they put a checkmark on one thing to make it appear to be it was a validated account when it wasn’t. And after they had been caught, they did not say something about it. They did not even attempt to give you an excuse about it. And that is not the way in which our prosecutors or our authorities officers needs to be conducting themselves. And the media should not letting them get away with it, both.

I am uninterested in the biased media– on either side, left and proper. What this nation needs, what this nation wants, is that this nation to come back collectively, to take the left and the precise and discover a center floor and begin responsibly being our public officers, our elected officers. And one of many the reason why they do it’s due to the media, as a result of the media needs to inform their narrative quite than simply telling it like it’s.

And admittedly, I am uninterested in it. I am not a media– I am not in entrance of your cameras on a regular basis. However what I have been subjected–

ZAK: Sir, I understand–

VAN DER VEEN: –to this final week–

ZAK: I understand–


ZAK: –and I’ve provide the alternative.

VAN DER VEEN: You do not need to hear the reality. Yep. OK.

ZAK: I’ve given you the chance. I’ll remind you that what I mentioned was that for our viewers who haven’t been following–

VAN DER VEEN: We heard what you mentioned.

ZAK: –all of the hours of this trial to be clear about what you might be talking about. And I perceive that you simply appear very upset–

VAN DER VEEN: I am talking in regards to the Home managers’ failure to show their case. That is what I am telling you.

ZAK: And you’ve got won–

VAN DER VEEN: They weren’t in a position to show their case.

ZAK: –the acquittal– you’ve gained the acquittal of your shopper.

VAN DER VEEN: Sure, I did.

ZAK: And if you would like to proceed to speak about this dialog, we are able to have that dialogue.

VAN DER VEEN: I needn’t.

ZAK: However for me to ask a question– however for me to ask a query to make clear for our viewers–

VAN DER VEEN: A slanted query.

ZAK: –what you are speaking about is a good query.

VAN DER VEEN: A slanted query that was set as much as say, it is OK for them to cheat. That was your query.

ZAK: I did not say that.

VAN DER VEEN: Is not it OK for them to cheat?

ZAK: I did not say that.

VAN DER VEEN: It is just a bit bit.

ZAK: No.

VAN DER VEEN: You mentioned, to be honest, it was–

ZAK: It is positive. I understand–

VAN DER VEEN: –only a verify on the Twitter. That is what you mentioned. You have to reside your phrases. That is the issue. The media has to begin residing the reality and not–

ZAK: All proper.

VAN DER VEEN: –try to create a story.

ZAK: Michael van der Veen.


ZAK: Thanks for–

VAN DER VEEN: Citizen.

ZAK: –joining us. I do appreciate–


ZAK: OK, I see you taking off your microphone now. That was President Trump’s protection lawyer, Michael van der Veen.

Supply hyperlink