Those of us who read about former President Trump’s impeachment trial hope that his lawyer Michael Van Der Veen is having better days.
I’ll recap later in this post.
He did a great job for his client and had a gimlet eye on the facts.
He had to correct Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) for misquoting Trump:
His closing argument was excellent.
In one of these clips, he says that House impeachment managers sent him evidence on the first day of the trial, rather than before. Proceedings had already started by the time they sent van der Veen the email with the evidence.
Trump’s accusers did not make reference to any laws or the US Constitution:
Van der Veen spoke about the six months of civil unrest that preceded what took place at the Capitol on Wednesday, January 6. Last year’s unrest was actually encouraged by a number of Democrats:
He rightly condemned all the unrest, from last year to January 6, but asked how the United States could find itself in such a position:
He concluded that President Trump said nothing that could have incited a riot on January 6:
In fact, the mêlée had already started before Trump encouraged his rally goers to walk to the Capitol. With so many people in the nation’s capital that day, it would have taken about a half hour to walk to the Capitol building from the Ellipse, where Trump was speaking.
In any event, Trump was acquitted.
That was partly because someone on the impeachment managers’ team doctored the evidence. Two pieces of tampering that emerged in the news were 1) a tweet which was doctored so that 2020 read 2021 and 2) a blue tick mark added to a Twitter user’s account.
Van der Veen said there was more falsified evidence.
A CBS News interviewer, Lana Zak, was mystified that van der Veen would find falsified Twitter evidence egregious and unethical.
He was clearly displeased with her reaction and told her so (start at 2 minutes in):
Howie Carr made some excellent observations about this on Monday, February 15 (emphases mine):
What set van der Veen off was when this anchor cupcake by the name of Lana Zak (never heard of her before, how about you?) tried to pooh-pooh the falsification of evidence by the so-called House managers.
In case you missed it, and you probably did, they put blue check marks on Twitter accounts that didn’t have them (to somehow add credibility to meaningless, stupid comments). They also changed the dates on various postings, and they doctored video.
In other words, the Democrats falsified evidence, just as the FBI did on Carter Page in the application for search warrants in the secret FISA court.
And the Democrats (including of course See BS News) act like it’s no big deal, to try to frame somebody. I get it, it wasn’t a criminal trial so technically you don’t have to worry about niceties like due process, hearsay, Sixth Amendment rights to confront accusers etc. But still, is it proper to falsify evidence, and then, when you get busted red-handed, shrug it off because you were only doing it to a Republican?
Whatever happened to the American Civil Liberties Union?
Unfortunately, things were hotting up at the van der Veen residence that same day.
Fox News asked the lawyer about it during a post-acquittal interview that Saturday. He said that he didn’t want to talk about it. His office was also ‘under siege’, as he put it. The Gateway Pundit has more on the story, along with the video from Fox News.
I hope things have calmed down for him and his family.
What an appalling state of affairs.
The Left, including the media, should be ashamed of themselves. ‘Shame’, however, is a word and a concept unknown to them.