He ripped off his microphone, but not before he ripped the mask off his media interviewer. President Trump defense attorney Michael van der Veen made news Saturday by doing something shocking, something rare, something his client often did: He told the media the truth — about the media.
The media’s response was to propagandize. Much as they do to Trump himself, they misrepresented van der Veen’s appearance. In headlines they accused him of having a “whiny tone,” putting on a “silly voice,” of “mansplaining,” and of flipping out.
Appearing after Trump’s acquittal on impeachment charges, van der Veen’s interviewer was CBS News’ Lana Zak. Zak asked the attorney almost immediately if he was surprised by the post-trial condemnation of Trump issued by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), a member of the former president’s own party.
{modulepos inner_text_ad}
Van der Veen responded simply, “I’m not surprised to hear a politician say anything at all — no”
Of course, a very skilled “politician,” McConnell seems to almost have a split personality enabling him to adeptly play both sides of the fence. He’s a bipartisan body unto himself.
Zak then mentioned that van der Veen had said the Capitol event was not an “insurrection” (it wasn’t), but that he’d later, during his closing arguments, “seemingly admitted that there was in fact an insurrection.” Van der Veen proceeded to correct her, stating that he’d merely been quoting charging documents.
But then the fireworks really began. “What happened at the Capitol on January 6 is absolutely horrific,” said van der Veen, “but what happened at the Capitol during this trial was not too far away from that.”
“The prosecutors in this case doctored evidence,” he elaborated. “It was absolutely shocking and I think when we discovered it and we were able to expose it and put it out, I think it turned a lot of Senators.”
“The American people should not be putting up with this,” he continued. “They need to look at who these House managers were and look to see whether these are the folks they want representing them. It was shocking to me. Wouldn’t have believed it.”
Zak then asked about van der Veen’s “doctoring evidence” statement as if it was in dispute, to which the attorney responded that the Senate Democrats “didn’t deny it.”
Zak didn’t deny it, either. She instead did what the mainstream media usually do: She carried water for the Democrats.
“To be clear for our viewers, what you’re talking about now is a check mark, 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,” she stated, plainly implying that the manipulation was trivial. “Is that the doctored evidence of which you’re speaking?”
After going back and forth a bit, van der Veen pointed out that it’s “not OK to doctor a little bit of evidence” (video below. Relevant portion begins at 3:00).
Of course, doctoring video — a visual representation of past reality — is never a small matter. That said, a trial can literally turn on a “bit” of evidence, on a small fact. Little things can mean a lot.
Zak tried denying her implication, claiming she was just attempting to clarify matters for the audience. But van der Veen would have none of it. “You are bloodthirsty for ratings and as such you’re asking questions now that are already set up with a fact pattern,” he said, among other things.
“I can’t believe you would ask me a question indicating it’s alright just to doctor a little bit of evidence,” he continued. “What should happen is somebody should look at the conduct of these House managers; it’s unconscionable.” The attorney also called the media “slanted.”
Van der Veen punctuated his message by ripping off his microphone at the interview’s conclusion and responding to Zak’s close of “Michael van der Veen” by saying, “citizen.”
Unfortunately but unsurprisingly, the media are now vindicating the attorney’s point about their bias. For they are valuing Zak’s smooth, politician-like dissembling over the citizen’s blunt voicing of Truth. So maybe, just perhaps, we should ponder whether the worst form of impoliteness is insincerity in discourse.
For sure is that meeting lies with ritualized politeness doesn’t carry the day, and this is, mind you, a major reason why Trump’s supporters are so devoted to him: “He fights,” as Evan Sayet put it in 2017.
For “decades the left has been engaged in a brutal, scorched-earth war against America and, very specifically, against conservatives,” writes commentator Andrea Widburg, summarizing Sayet’s thesis. “Conservatives, however, kept playing by the rules. They’d get kneecapped and apologize for leaving their knees in the way of the left’s jackboots.”
Widburg then quoted Sayet directly:
With Donald Trump, this all has come to an end. Donald Trump is America’s first wartime president in the Culture War.
Trump is fighting. And what’s particularly delicious is that, like Patton standing over the battlefield as his tanks obliterated Rommel’s, he’s shouting, “You magnificent bastards, I read your book!” That is just the icing on the cake, but it’s wonderful to see that not only is Trump fighting, he’s defeating the Left using their own tactics.
While sometimes love must be tough and other times soft, while Truth must sometimes be delivered with a hammer and other times in a whisper, remember that the remedy for lies always is Truth. We all need to boldly speak it more and fear being cancelled less.
The pseudo-elites in and out of media may not appreciate this, but good people will rally behind it. As Ronald Reagan is said to have learned during his Hollywood years, there’s a big difference between critics and box office.
