Trump Lawyer Criticizes CBS Reporter After She Brushes Aside ‘Doctored Evidence’
‘The media is trying to divide this country. You are bloodthirsty for rating, and as such you are asking questions now that are already set up with a fact pattern.”
President Donald Trump’s attorney Michael van der Veen slammed CBS News reporter Lana Zak after she attempted to brush aside the doctored evidence Democrats presented at the impeachment trial.
Background
The House managers “accidentally” put a doctored tweet into evidence during the trial.
I’ve never been verified on Twitter so why did my Tweet used in the fact-free impeachment include a verification badge? I’m assuming Democrats faked it like they are faking the whole case. @RepSwalwell why did you add a verified badge to my tweet in your presentation? pic.twitter.com/9Ww0TLveNA
— Jennifer Lynn Lawrence (@JenLawrence21) February 10, 2021
From Fox News:
Singling out Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., Lawrence tweeted earlier this week: “I’ve never been verified on Twitter so why did my Tweet used in the fact-free impeachment include a verification badge?”
In an open letter, Lawrence rejected Swalwell’s implication that she meant to bring troops to the Capitol. The California congressman was criticizing her claim that she would bring “calvary,” but purportedly misconstruing it as horses or “cavalry.”
Calvary according to the Gospels of the Bible, is a site outside the walls of Jerusalem’s where Jesus was crucified.
Attorney David Schoen told the Senate the Democrats changed the date of a tweet to 2021 from 2020, but they “caught this error before it was presented on the Senate floor, so you never saw it.”
CBS Interview
Zak interviewed van der Veen on Saturday.
Trump defense attorney Michael van der Veen speaks with @LanaZak after the Senate's acquittal vote: "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."
Watch the full interview: pic.twitter.com/ndjBZzJgNZ
— CBS News (@CBSNews) February 13, 2021
Van der Veen said:
The prosecutors in this case doctored evidence. They did not investigate this case and when they had to come to the court of the Senate to put their case on, because they hadn’t done any investigation, they doctored evidence. It was absolutely shocking. I think when we discovered it and we were able to expose it, I think it turned a lot of senators.
The American people should not be putting up with this. They need to look at who these House managers were and who they want representing them. It was shocking to me.
Zak butted in to explain the doctored evidence, but appeared to make it seem like it’s all not a big deal:
What you’re talking about now is a checkmark that’s a verification on Twitter that did not exist on that particular tweet and a ‘2020’ that should have read ‘2021’ and the selective editing, you say, of the tapes.
Van der Veen lost his mind. Zak tried to interrupt, but he did not give up:
“Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait,’ van der Veen cut in. ‘That’s not enough for you?’
‘It’s not OK to doctor a ‘little bit’ of evidence,” he said. “Respectfully, ma’am your question is turned. The media has to start telling the right story in this country,’ he said. ‘The media is trying to divide this country. You are bloodthirsty for rating, and as such you are asking questions now that are already set up with a fact pattern. I can’t believe you would ask me a question indicating that is is alright to doctor just a little bit of evidence… We won this case.”
“Your coverage is so slanted it’s got to stop. You guys have to stop and start reporting more like PBS does rather than a TV news show that doesn’t have any journalistic integrity at all,” he told the CBS anchor. “I’m tired of the biased media on both sides – left and right. What this country wants, what this country needs is this country to come together. To take the left and the right and find a middle ground.”
He also said:
What I’m telling you is they doctored evidence and I believe your question was, “Well, it’s only a Twitter check and changing the year of a date, here.” They switched the date of a year to connect it to this case. That’s not a small thing, ma’am. The other thing they did was put a checkmark on something to make it look like it was a validated account when it wasn’t. And when they were caught they didn’t say anything about it. They didn’t even try to come up with an excuse about it. And that’s not the way our prosecutors of our government officials should be conducting themselves.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Ace had this over weekend, what a spank down
She’s pretty and has a nice figure. Her hair and makeup accent her nicely. Her voice is not unpleasant. Her choice in clothes is reasonable. She seems very knowledgeable about eyebrows and eyeshadow. Her choice in lipstick color is quite nice.
All of which makes her immensely qualified for her job, which is to do what her bosses tell her to do with her mouth.
That was also Kamala Harris’ employment requisites with Willie Brown. (But without the speaking requirement.)
Speaking was discouraged.
She got a pretty mouth too.
It’s “purdy.” Gol’darn it, larn to speak Suthrun!
But she’s still an idiot!
She went to Harvard!
QED.
So did David Hogg. So did Obama.
The bigger the potential to be a useful idiot, the lower the admission standard.
Sure, Harvard admits the best and brightest, but also the dumbest and lowest, witness Hogg, Obama, and this bozo on the ‘news’.
Yes, and she has a moral compass stuck “left”.
What a malignant clown.
In defense of Lana Zak…she’s just caught in the middle, repeating what the producers are feeding her through an ear piece. She may or may not believe what she saying and looks kind of lost once the push back on the narrative starts.
She was taken aback at his insane attack on her, when all she’d done was summarize what he was talking about so the viewers would not be completely lost, and asked him to verify it. She never said one word minimizing or brushing aside anything about it. It was all in his imagination.
The media never stops a democrat to summarize their claims.
“To be clear, what you’re referring to as an insurrection is a couple hundred unarmed people that forced their way in to the capitol out of the hundred thousand or so people that were there to attend the rally”
It was absolutely an attempt to dismiss the claim as trivial.
Key word there is “unarmed”. If anyone on the right was truly planning to take ans hold the Capitol, why was everyone unarmed? Plain and simple. All of those evil gun owners decided to leave their guns at home and try to take the Capitol WITHOUT guns? Especially when all those 2nd Amendment supporters can tell you the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to keep the final power in the hands of the people and those people woukd decide to leave the guns at hime?!?
I think van der Veen and I imagined the same thing. Satire is wasted on some people.
She was minimizing, no doubt about it
Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you on the spectrum and just really really don’t comprehend phrasing,tone,facial cues etc….?
Now Milly, you are just speculating that she was taken aback…..
Milhouse taking up for the left again.
A recurring pattern.
Yes, her eyes do look a bit like Omar, AOC and the reast of our congressional low life, it is like the darkness of vast swaths of outer space.
So what you’re saying is that she’s just a brainless body on air repeating what her loyal masters tell her? Hitler must be really proud that he saved the likes of this!
Bingo!!!
In defense of every SS soldier in Nazi Germany: they were only following orders.
What are you thinking?
Remember the media spreading the lie (because that’s what they do) that Trump was supposedly angry with how his lawyers were performing (according to sources ?).
This guy just killed that story dead like a stone cold killer ??
Fuck. The. Media ?
What by sounding like a moron? Yeah great plan. Did such a great job after managing to add more senators to the conviction vote when everyone prior predicted less vs the constitutionality vote.
“What by sounding like a moron?…”
Listen to your own advice.
I think we have very different definitions of moron
Anyone who voted that the trial was unconstitutional and then voted to convict needs some remedial instruction on logic and set theory.
I was once on a jury hearing a drug case. Although we found the defendant “not guilty” on the primary charge, we were unable to do the same with a second charge, because two people who had voted “not guilty” on the main charge insisted on voting “guilty” on the secondary charge, which was, itself, dependent on a finding of guilty to the primary charge! There was no arguing with them that what they were doing was illogical.
Blue check marks and dates … big deal.
Swalwell conflating calvary (Golgotha – where Jesus was crucified) with the cavalry (horse mounted regiment), was an even bigger twisting of the facts / manipulation. Here the woman was saying they were bringing Jesus, or bringing prayer to DC, and Swalwell tried to convince the senate she meant an army.
When I first saw the tweet, I thought “what a wonderful prophetic (divine truth) word that sister posted” … indeed, the remedy for those democrat hate mongers is CALVARY.
I’ll gladly supply the hammer and nails.
Oh, bullshit. Nobody says “we’re bringing the Calvary”. It was an obvious misspelling on her part, and she obviously meant “cavalry”. Which doesn’t mean violence, any more than a political “campaign” means violence, but stop pretending that she meant the skull-place.
When will your show be on the air Carnack? You obviously have the power to read her mind. Do you have a clue when the group she organized met in DC? Probably not. She held a RELIGIOUS FREEDOM rally on the night of January 5th. Get a clue please before you conflate your ability to read minds with some sort of level of intelligence. You have neither!
Given what Calvary actually means it could either be interpreted as ‘acute mental anguish’ or a typo and actually meaning cavalry. I don’t see how referencing the place ‘Calvary’ makes a whole lot of sense in context.
Nobody in the history of the world has ever referred to a prayer rally as “the Calvary”, let alone as “we’re bringing the Calvary”.
“The Calvary” is not an expression in the English language. Whereas “the cavalry” is an extremely common expression, meaning not mounted soldiers but reinforcements or rescue, and it is very common to speak of “bringing” it or “sending it in”.
Yeah that’s true, good point
I have to support Milhouse here. It’s obviously a misspelling, as “cavalry” is often misspelled “calvary” (and mispronounced that way too) and because nobody has ever written (or said) “bring the calvary” and didn’t mean “cavalry.”
It’s enough that the Dems tampered with the evidence. No need for dissembling concerning the meaning of the text. It’s clearly enough a figure of speech, and not a real threat to bring either horse soldiers or their modern-day equivalent (of which I was once myself).
The proper way to deal with this mystery for our purposes is:
1. Did she type “Calvary” or “cavalry”?
Whatever she typed the tweet seems to read “Calvary.”
2. Is that maybe autocorrect at work?
Very unlikely, as Milhouse points out “bring the cavalry” is a comparatively common phrase while “bring the Calvary” may be idiosyncratic but certainly not commonplace.
3. Given that she likely had no help from autocorrect, what did she mean?
There seem to be two (maybe three) possibilities:
(1) She meant cavalry. If this is the correct reading then it is clear that it is used in the 1.2 sense, as she does not command a contingent of soldiers on horseback or in armored vehicles. And yet Swalwell clearly implied she meant to signal to the President she was bringing reinforcements ready for physical violence.
(2a) She meant Calvary.
If it is this reading then she says she’s bringing a sculpture or picture representing the scene of the Crucifixion.
Or, maybe,
(2b) She meant Calvary and this is the name of her prayer group or has some other idiosyncratic meaning.
Which is it? It cannot be conclusively decided without further information.
The author denies she misspelling “cavalry” and she would normally have no reason to lie, as all readings are innocuous. The deliberate misrepresentation by Swalwell, whose deliberate lie made her a target for the Democrat Antifa/BLM brownshirts might have changed that though.
But we do not have to decide the issue.
Even though the House managers fabricated what they thought was “smoking gun” evidence their fabrication is no such thing.
This also means there is no reason to claim without evidence that Swalwell’s and Raskin’s victim is dishonest.
So don’t make gratuitous claims to that effect, please, Milhouse?
“Is that maybe autocorrect at work?
Very unlikely, as Milhouse points out “bring the cavalry” is a comparatively common phrase while “bring the Calvary” may be idiosyncratic but certainly not commonplace.”
I have seen cavalry misspelled as calvary innumerable times in the postings and tweets of “normal” people. It’s an incredibly common misspelling.
I have never seen the opposite misspelling (perhaps because not many of the postings or tweets I read are occasions to refer to Calvary).
However, she did capitalize it; and it’s possible some religious communities (another venue I don’t frequent) have adopted the “clever” meme of “bringing the Calvary,” something of which I would not be aware.
If it weren’t for the capitalization, I would be firmly in the “misspelling” camp. But given all of the above, and my unfamiliarity with contemporary religious narratives, I just don’t know.
@Milhouse, how about you don’t make gratuitous claims that someone lied just because you want to demonstrate your ability to know it all?
She went to Harvard. Forgive her for not knowing English that well.
Like obama, this idiot is lost without a teleprompter and a compliant interviewee:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omHUsRTYFAU
She had it in the tweet. People in interviews about that tweet said it. That is not “nobody”.
Besides, there are several possible meanings of the phrase that make just as much sense as bringing the cavalry, even if they are clearly not as common. See my comment below for details.
While it is still possible that Calvary is a misspelling of cavalry that also changed the capitalization (and if your thesis is correct is certainly not the result of an autocorrect function) it is hardly obvious that that is the case.
Apparently, it is “comment above” instead of “comment below”—at least it is a prior comment…
Many people don’t know when, and when not, to capitalize words. The entire thrust of her tweet was that she supports Trump and planned to bring that support to him on Jan 6th. Nobody has ever brought help to anyone by “bringing Calvary,” they’ve brought it by bringing “cavalry.” The arrival of cavalry in the nick of time to bring assistance to people in need of help is a common trope in American western movies and well-entrenched in the mythos of the American west and therefore in American culture in general.
It’s disingenuous to argue that, within the context of the tweet, that she meant anything other than “cavalry.” Spell check would not have caught the problem as “Calvary” is a word. (Spell check here knows it should be capitalized. Her spell check may have auto-corrected it. Certainly enough people complain here of lack of the ability to edit comments because their own proof-reading – mine included – often lets pass similar slip-ups. We usually understand when we read them exactly what the writers intend and don’t participate in mental gymnastics to explain otherwise.)
So, you do not know the woman.
You do not know the community she lives in, who she talks to regularly, or if her speech community has certain peculiarities different from yours.
She said that she meant “Calvary”, not cavalry. Her pastor back her up. Read what Just the News has on the matter.
But you just know that nobody ever has nor would anyone ever use that phrase, therefore she and these people must be lying. Without any good reason. Just because you lack imagination? Did I get that right?
Propagandist: Can’t you think a little lying is OK?
It was “mostly factual” evidence. And besides, she probably carries insurance.
“You guys have to stop and start reporting more like PBS does”
Yeah, I would not have said that. Propaganda Broadcasting Service is not an exemplar of objectivity.
Mary, I’m disappointed that you bought this hoax of a story. The reported did not “brush aside” anything, and she did not “appeared to make it seem like it’s all not a big deal”. Van Der Veen referred to doctored evidence without bothering to explain what he was referring to, so she summarized it for the viewers as she understood it, and asked him to confirm that she had got it right. That’s basic journalism. He lost his mind and started attacking her and accusing her of minimizing it, and refused to let her get a word in edgewise to explain what her question was.
Sorry the tone is exactly that…. “you say is doctored evidence”….. If it was “You presented doctored evidence” would have been better spoken. How and her tone reeked of disrespect to an attorney that just got the President of the United States acquitted.
Nope, you’re wrong on this one.
What do you mean, she should have said “you presented doctored evidence”? He didn’t. They did. He referred to it, and she summarized his claim. She correctly said “What you say is doctored”, because that’s the fact. She was neither endorsing his claim nor contradicting it. She put it neutrally, since the whole point was to explain what the hell he was talking about.
Everyone else is on Hill 34 at this point…Milly still dying back on Hill 3.
The THEY to which you refer for doctoring evidence–was it ALL of the House mongers or just Swalwell (Bang Fang’s beau)?
It’s obvious the evidence was doctored and when she inserts, “you say” it is to give the impression that it is the sole opinion of the lawyer
Here’s what she said: “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. Is that the doctored evidence of which you’re speaking?”
It’s not at all “obvious” that the tapes were selectively edited. That’s an assertion that he is making. She’s not disputing it, but without personally verifying it she can hardly endorse it, can she? She’s being completely neutral. He says the tapes were selectively edited, and she’s asking whether that, and the other two items, are what he is referring to. Without this explanation how were the viewers supposed to make head or tail of his words? How were they to know what he meant by “doctored evidence”? This was the first time most viewers had heard of it.
Goodness, the defense proved it during the trial, it was kind of important, and it is hardly too much to ask of a news organization to look at and remember key evidence presented by the defense when they report on the Impeachment trial.
Besides, if it was on her prompter or in her earpiece she would absolutely “endorse” any claim without personally verifying it. It is what news anchors usually do whenever they are on air, after all.
@felixrigidus.
“Proved it during the trial”
The point that she clearly states is that not everyone followed the trial hence summarising the position in a neutral fashion.
Mark, if done in a neutral fashion it would not be a problem.
I was taking issue with Milhouse’s claim that the journalist was just trying to not endorse the claim, which I believe is reaching. If she knew to explain what the specific claims of manipulating evidence were she or the CBS team obviously had prepared and therefore also knew from the trial that it was not just “a claim” that may or may not be true but that it was indeed true.
Her tone when asking “is that the doctored evidence of which you’re speaking” did seem to trivialize it. Taking the lead-up into account I think one has to admit that Mr. van der Veen at least can be forgiven for taking it this way.
I will say, however, that I do not believe that was conscious on her part or done with malice. In fact, I think it was indeed almost neutral. Mr. van der Veen was clearly shocked by the Senate vote, and with good reason. Given the evidence the House managers presented—even ignoring the fact that part of that was doctored and misrepresented—and the article of impeachment the result should have been 100:0 not guilty. That a majority voted guilty over the problems of jurisdiction, due process, freedom of speech, and that the House managers had not presented any evidence for their central claim that Trump “assembled the mob, (…) summoned the mob, and (…) incited the mob”, the “mob” being the one attacking the Capitol, not the audience at the rally.
Voting “not guilty” of the specific charge does not imply any sort of endorsement of the underlying behavior, as Senator McConnell’s speech made abundantly clear.
@Felix
Almost neutral ha, fair enough … It’s difficult to be perfectly neutral. I can respect that view. I’d say that the doctoring claim doesn’t seem to hold water since it was never presented as I understand it , I’m led to believe it was corrected before presentation?
As for evidence for Trump’s incitement plenty was presented but I suspect that’s an agree to disagree moment so won’t dwell on that.
@mark311
They corrected the mistaken date, but not the added checkmark of that particular tweet. The “doctored” was not said (at least during the trial) with respect to the date, which was a truthful representation of the original tweet in the presentation. The blue checkmark wasn’t.
Then there were some video edits that were highly misleading and not obvious cuts, one could say “deceptively edited.” If memory serves, Mr. Schoen demonstrated that by playing the House manager’s clip and the original footage side by side for the movie showing Trump’s January 6 speech intercut with the footage from the incursion at the Capitol building and the Charlottesville hoax footage that the House managers presented for whatever reason as part of their case for “incitement of the insurrection”.
In any case, I think that it is understandable and mostly justified that Mr. van der Veen was irked. I’m willing to cut him some slack with respect to the date thing because he was clearly not the point man on the evidence manipulation and too angry to be careful. He certainly created a false impression though he might have just been mad at the attempt to suggest that changing the date on a tweet would be negligible.
Her tone definitely trivialize it. Just bringing up the false check mark would have caused quit a stir in regular court for a speeding ticket, yet this was a huge case, the President, 1st Amend and Due Process and Bill of Attainder. To even focus on the trivial is just ignoring what this case was really about. The seriousness about altering the evidence is huge.
She is an idiot. He handled her well. We all knew what she was trying to do.
“She put it neutrally”…???
She reminded me of a deer caught in the headlights.
I thought she was dismissive of the added check mark and date. He did too.
And you were both projecting. There was nothing in her words to indicate that.
I have to disagree with Milhouse on this. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard reporters (almost certainly intentionally) twist an interviewee’s words with a “summary” for the audience. It’s almost as if they’re not paying attention, but it’s actually because they interviewee isn’t on the reservation.
I heard this interview but just now am left asking ..
Does he mean that the Tweet was from the Democrats’ First Annual Impeachment Fiasco but they redated the Tweet to use it for the Democrats’ Second Annual Impeachment Fiasco ?
No. The tweet was from 2021. While preparing it for presentation at the trial, the Dems mistakenly labeled it as 2020. They caught their error and changed it to 2021, which was the correct date, before presenting it. But a NYT article about the preparation included a picture of Raskin studying this tweet on a computer screen, and in the picture you could see that it was incorrectly labelled “2020”. That’s what he’s talking about.
Thanks Milhouse, I hadn’t realised it was just a typo. Makes the lawyer sound a little unhinged in that light because he surely should have known that.
Mr. van der Veen is wrong when he claims that the House managers tried to connect that tweet to the events on January 6 by changing the year (although Ms. Zak brought this point up and likely inadvertently prompted that confusion).
It is just that this mistake in the version seen in the NYT picture seems to have alerted the defense to the fact that the House managers did not show an actual screenshot of the tweet (with highlights added) but had some graphics people recreate the tweet. The House managers did not disclose that they didn’t show a screenshot with added highlights. Their duty of candor compelled the disclosure that they used a recreation that could have been altered without any internal evidence pointing to that alteration. The highlights—while misleading in their own way—did not mislead as to who authored them.
===================================================================
Mr. Schoen’s argument per the Congressional Record of February 12, 2021, S 670:
Just a typo?
When you are presenting something as evidence, you present that something — you don’t create a (potentially faulty) copy of that something and then present that.
There was no reason to present this tweet in any form other than a screenshot of the original. Instead, they made up a copy of it, and altered that. Legally one has to assume the alteration was an intentional tampering with evidence.
You don’t go to court on a traffic charge and hand the judge a photo of a recreation of the incident, shot on the following day with other cars standing in for the original cars.
I choked when I heard this”
,i>“Your coverage is so slanted it’s got to stop. You guys have to stop and start reporting more like PBS does rather than a TV news show that doesn’t have any journalistic integrity at all,”
That has to be a troll by Michael van der Veen. I sure hope it is because everything I heard out of NPR and PBS is pretty slanted.
It’s acted outrage. Everybody’s doing an act in all of this. So long as it’s entertaining it gets on the air, because they sell your eyeballs to advertisers as their business.
Okay lawyers tell us what you Really think.
U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell is an attorney.
The state bar of California should pull his license for submitting fraudulent documents is a trial.
It’s not a judicial trial. Different kind of animal.
You are mistaken. Any fraudulent documents presented can get his license pulled.
Lawyers do get punished doing this type of stuff in trials.
Apparently Democrat lawyers in DC do not get punished. they probably get paid.
It was doctored by CCP intelligence agents while Swallwell was asleep (exhausted).
A lawyer may be disbarred for conduct outside the courtroom. Knowingly proffering faked, altered, or forged documents for any purpose, official or to gain private advantage, would be actionable in most jurisdictions.
Example from California, Rule 8.4 Misconduct
(Rule Approved by the Supreme Court, Effective November 1, 2018) “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,* deceit, or reckless or intentional misrepresentation;”
and, in the comments, please note:
Comment
[1] A violation of this rule can occur when a lawyer is acting in propria persona or when a lawyer is not practicing law or acting in a professional capacity.
While elected officials who are also members of the bar should be granted great leeway, deliberate doctoring of documents to be used as evidence against another person is so egregious it begs for action. It simply should not be tolerated as such a practice would destroy all faith in the judicial system and fair prosecution and administration of justice.
WRONG. Moral turpitude is the standard.
Swalwell should be disbarred.
Do bar association’s even still do this kind of thing? Not to mention that this is the California bar association to what you prefer.
If they do, it will only be toward righties.
I liked it a lot. Push back hard, drop your mic and walk away. Republicans take note and do it more often. It’s good for ratings. She has way more views afterwards.
“I don’t care,” snarled the Wolf; “if it was not you it was your father;” and with that he rushed upon the poor little Lamb and ate her all up.
Stop Democrat games by using Democrat rules.
“It’s not a judicial trial.” The duty of candor (in relevant part) applies whether in court or not, whether the proceeding is adjudicatory or not. Reread your Rules of Professional Conduct.
If I wanted to use a tweet as evidence, I’d simply include the screenshot and document how I obtained the screenshot. Apparently the House Managers (more likely, one of their minions) decided to doctor it — how? Photoshop? Is there a “tweet editor” that allows you to copy a tweet and play with it?
So in claiming that the tweet was doctored, I’d like to know how it was done. That would allow me to understand the magnitude of the doctoring, and who might have done it. I can see WHAT was done, but not HOW.
Next — does the woman in question have a claim for action against the House and House Managers? I suspect the House is constitutionally protected even if the doctoring was done in bad faith.
Also, Milhouse makes a point — the CBS anchor was indeed trying to explain to the audience what had been done (allegedly, of course). Mr. van der Veen should have let her do that and THEN jumped the issue. The danger, of course (and I think he knew that) is that she would have changed the subject.
Finally, if I were going to run against Rep. Swalwell, I’d be sure to use a ‘blue check’ in my advertising — as in, “Here’s Mr. Swalwell’s blue check for accuracy for getting it on with a hottie Chinese spy!”
They didn’t get called out on it, but they also doctored “screenshots” from TheDonald.win and ALMOST got it right. We had deceptively edited video (actually deceptively, not just what the lefties call any video from Veritas), oddly modified tweets, and fake screenshots from TD.win
It makes you wonder.
And that’s how every Republican needs to handle these knuckle draggers in the propaganda machine.
What you’re saying is that some people who don’t apparently work for President Nixon’s campaign broke into an office that happened to be leased to the DNC…
The screenshot at the top is golden. Just behind the reporter all you see is BSN.
I googled “famous CBS anchor that made stuff up” and I got a link for Dan Rather. Goes to credibility. They must earn it back.
There’s your problem — you limited it to CBS.
Not to mention the delusion of the likes of Dan Rather (and this corrupt woman) wanting to ‘earn back’ anything.
They don’t want to earn anything They want to destroy us. Biden’s press secretary’s associate let it slip:
“I Will Destroy You” – Biden Deputy Press Secretary Threatens Female Politico Reporter:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/02/will-destroy-biden-deputy-press-secretary-threatens-politico-reporter-pursuing-story-wanted-kept-private/
Some transgressions deserve the Scarlett Letter for life.
How about Cronkite telling us nightly that the U.S. was acting criminally in Vietnam and losing the war? That was made up, too.
Did he do that when Johnson was in office?
cronkite was pretty solid until he went over to see tet and its aftermath in person–that’s what changed him/his attitude
Cronkite was a liar and a fraud. He lied about Vietnam every night.
She smiles–nice teeth. But she’s pulling 28 inches of vaccum between her ears. Air head in the extrme. Pretty though.
No, she did not minimize the importance of the doctored evidence. She was clarifying for her audience what the lawyer meant when he mentioned the doctored evidence. He flipped out while she was trying to do that. She did get a little defensive when he accused her of diminishing it but he was wrong. Despite her shock at being accused of something she did not do, she let him rant for 2 1/2 minutes without interruption. Now, it was a righteous rant because his home and family had been threatened by members of the Democrat Party and what he was saying about the media in general was accurate (and she let him say it without cutting off his mic like Fredo Cuomo would have done). This girl is being unfairly criticized for this interview. I listened to and watched the entire video (10+ minutes) multiple times and I did not see any sign of her trying to diminish the importance of the doctored evidence. In 99.999% of the time, I am ready to (figuratively) slam the media for their dishonest reporting but in this case, I think people are seeing something that didn’t happen.
The clip above is NOT the full video. The full video is over 10 minutes.
Yep it was 10 minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0G6mAMUAsA
The first three minutes positioned the story that Trump incited it and was guilty. She states that the vote was 53 to 47 in favor of conviction. Then she goes on a rant that the defense “claimed”. Listen to the whole thing. It is worst.
Announcing 7 member broke party lines. Mich said former President bears responsibility.
Then she plays off on Mich’s comment. Then she uses insurrection incorrectly and he corrects her. Then she cites examples in a trivial way. It is a BS comment. He calls her out on it. It is even worst when you listen to the whole thing and see how it is setup.
The man just got the President of the United States acquitted on a fake charge and this is the best she can do.
Cry me a river. It was bad.
Actually, in the tape, she says the lawyer called it an insurrection and he says he did not. If you look at the full length video at 2:26 to 2:41, he does indeed call it an insurrection and he says everyone agrees (that it was). He may not have said it during the closing argument (which she says he did and he says he did not – he was just reading the Article – but he clearly did say it was an insurrection. Of course, I disagree; it wasn’t an insurrection but I’m not going to let people improperly condemn this woman for something she didn’t do.
Anna D is a liar and a fraud.
believe it’s precisely what she DIDN’T do that set him off
she didn’t react with any sincere journalistic indignation to what he had just told her–the dems/managers had doctored/altered/tampered with evidence presented to the us senate in a proceeding involving the (former)president of the united states
imagine the lawyer’s astonishment–he had to conclude that:
a) the woman is a complete moron
b) she doesn’t care that evidence was tampered with and is
literally too stupid to comprehend the import and
significance of what she’s just been told
c) she’s going to push the narrative that PDJT is still
guilty regardless
d) all of the above
@Anna D,
per the Congressional Record S 729 what he said is this:
As Mr. van der Veen says in the interview he did not adopt the characterization of the attack on the Capitol as “insurrection” but basically quoted the charge contained in the article of impeachment. But what Mr. van der Veen said in his closing argument was easily misunderstood. The point on which everyone agrees, is not that “there was a violent insurrection” but that “the question before us is not whether there was a violent insurrection”—but rather whether President Trump incited an insurrection.
The beauty of America is we can both have an opinion about what we saw on TV.