A protection lawyer for former President Donald Trump stormed out of a reside video interview on Saturday after likening Trump’s impeachment trial to the lethal riot on the Capitol and angrily accusing the information anchor interviewing him of downplaying his declare that prosecutors “doctored evidence.”
Attorney Michael van der Veen was talking with CBS News anchor Lana Zak after Trump’s acquittal when he tossed his microphone on the bottom and left the set after saying Trump’s trial was unfair and Zak’s protection was biased.
“What happened at the Capitol on Jan. 6 was absolutely horrific, but what happened at the Capitol during this trial was not too far away from that,” he advised Zak, evaluating the impeachment trial to the violent assault that left at the very least 5 folks lifeless.
Van der Veen went on to dismiss the case in opposition to Trump by claiming that prosecutors doctored proof introduced in opposition to the previous president.
“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 when we discovered it,” he stated.
Zak then specified what proof he was referencing: A tweet that was mislabeled with the fallacious date earlier than it was mounted and proven on the Senate flooring and one tweet that was incorrectly proven with a blue checkmark on it, indicating that the account posting it was verified as genuine.
“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,” Zak stated.
“Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. That’s not enough for you? That’s not enough for you?” he angrily interrupted earlier than occurring a tangent about media bias and the way Americans ought to search a center floor.
“I can’t believe you would ask me a question indicating that it’s all right just to doctor a little bit of evidence,” he stated. “There’s more stuff that we uncovered that they doctored, to be frank with you, and perhaps that will come out one day.”
Zak repeatedly stated she was not making a judgement, and famous that she was solely specifying what proof the lawyer was referencing for viewers who didn’t know. Van der Veen responded by mimicking the journalist, talking with a higher-pitched voice and tilting his head backwards and forwards.
“That was your question: ‘Isn’t it OK for them to cheat? Just a little bit?’ You said, ‘To be fair, it was only a check on the Twitter.’ That’s what you said,” he stated. As Zak started to thank him for his time, he took off his microphone and tossed it on the bottom earlier than leaving the digicam’s view.
Van der Veen’s staff might have received the case, however he in any other case had a tough week. His home was vandalized on Friday, and at one level the Senate broke out in laughter over his pronunciation of Philadelphia, resulting in a spoof on Saturday Night Live.
Calling all HuffPost superfans!
Sign up for membership to change into a founding member and assist form HuffPost’s subsequent chapter