Ethics Hero: Trump Defense Lawyer Michael van der Veen


I have had dreams that I was in a position to tell a TV news anchor exactly how biased, unethical and destructive his or her profession has become. So far, I have not had that opportunity, but the fact that Donald Trump’s defense attorney in the just completed Senate “trial,” a victory for his client, did have such an opportunity and took full advantage of it marks him as an Ethics Hero.

President Trump’s attorney, Michael van der Veen, appeared on CBS News and was asked by Lana Zak about Sen. Mitch McConnell’s (obnoxious and gratuitous) comments after Trump’s acquittal, specifically whether he was surprised at McConnell’s venom. “I’m not surprised to hear a politician say anything at all. No,” the lawyer replied. Zak then attempted to discredit van der Veen and his defense—he’s Trump’s lawyer, so her job is to discredit him—asking a “when did you stop beating your wife” question,

Throughout the trial you denied that President Trump had a role in inciting the January 6 insurrection at the Capitol. You argued first of all that there was no insurrection, but during your closing arguments you seemingly admitted that there was, in fact, an insurrection, using that word, saying that that was not up for debate. What role did the former President play —

The lawyer cut her off and metaphorically slapped her in the face with a mackerel, saying,

No, you didn’t understand the case. I used the word “insurrection” in my closing argument when quoting the charging documents.What happened at the Capitol on January 6th is absolutely horrific, but what happened at the Capitol during this trial was not too far away from that.The prosecutors in this case doctored evidence. They did not investigate this case, and when they had to come to the court, or the Senate, to put their case on, because they hadn’t done any investigation, they doctored evidence. It was absolutely shocking….

Zak then displayed the full extent of the news media’s corruption, saying,

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. Is that how — is that the doctored evidence of what you’re speaking?

And like Perry Mason on an guilty witness, the lawyer pounced, as Zak couldn’t muster the wit or fortitude to interrupt:

Wait, wait, wait, wait…that’s not enough for you? That’s not enough for you? It’s not okay to doctor a little bit of evidence. The media has to start telling the right story in this country. The media is trying to divide this country. You are bloodthirsty for ratings, and as such, you’re asking questions now that are already set up with a fact pattern. I can’t believe you would ask me a question indicating that it’s alright just to doctor a little bit of evidence. There’s more stuff we uncovered that they doctored, to be frank with you, and maybe that will come out someday. The media should be looking at that in a square, straight away. When I watch one news, I watch one station and it’s raining. I watch another station at the same time and it’s sunny. Your coverage is so slanted. It’s gotta 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. What I’m telling you is that they doctored evidence, and I believe your question says that it’s only a Twitter check here and changing a date there….” The media shouldn’t be letting them get away with it, either. 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 and start responsibly being our public officials, our elected officials…I’m not a media – I’m not in front of your cameras all the time, but what I’ve been subjected to this last week –

Zak finally jumped in to pat herself on the back for giving him an opportunity to make his point. Then she cut him off. “You don’t want to hear the truth. I’ve got it,” the disgusted lawyer replied. He ended the interview by throwing down his microphone.

Proving everything van der Veen said about the news media was true, the headline on CBS News’ video of the interview is (as I write this) “Trump attorney rips off mic after questioning from CBSN anchor.”


Pointer: Red State

9 thoughts on “Ethics Hero: Trump Defense Lawyer Michael van der Veen

  1. And they wonder why millions of really woke Americans are mad! I only woke to the media’s bias during Obama’s administration but we all have known most career politicians are corrupt for decades. Mitch McConnell and 7 more Republicans plus all Democrat representatives just proved that. I just read that McConnell is threatening to oppose Trump-backed Senate candidates if they are not electable. So the Swamp creatures get a little more slimy.

  2. Forbes Magazine has already fact-checked the attorney saying he was repeating untruths. As far as the media is concerned, this attorney is just an unethical bottom feeder, lower than the ambulance chasing plaintiff’s lawyers, lower than the slugs who keep deadbeat tenants in their apartments yet another month, lower than anything.

    Apparently his house is already been vandalized and his family harassed. It would not surprise me if the bar association of his state is looking to bring him up on ethics charges and see if they can pull his license. In all my life, I don’t think I’ve seen any public figure so reviled in this country that anyone who does anything for him at all, including assist him in asserting the rights that every citizen in this country is entitled to, is not just turned into a pariah, but into a target for abuse.

    Interfering with people’s livings, harassing their families harassing them, vandalizing their property, this is the kind of thing that used to be done by hate groups to those they chose to hate. It was wrong then, and it’s wrong now.

    • If a lawyer says that evidence was altered on TV, he is putting his license on the line, and has all he needs to back it up. And, of course, Zak knew about the altered evidence, but just shrugged it off with an “oh, THAT.” Forbes challenged his claims about antifa’s involvement in the riot, but not hos doctored evidence claim, as far as I can find.

  3. Kudos to Michael van der Veen for having a backbone and presenting his case in a calm but firm manner. We need more like him teaching the ethics of the law.

  4. Pardon me for playing Devil’s Advocate, but I just watched the clip in question, and she didn’t say that it was ok, which she kept trying clarify, she said “For our viewers”, so it sounded like she just meant to bring up the doctored evidence in question so viewers knew what they were talking about, Plus his line, “There’s more stuff we uncovered that they doctored, to be frank with you, and maybe that will come out someday”, indicates she wasn’t cherry-picking something she thought could be dismissed, she was discussing what was publicly known that he could talk about. She never said the doctored evidence was “OK,” or anything I found to be dismissive of the point in question. She MIGHT have if van der Veen hadn’t cut her off right there, but he didn’t give her the chance. It seemed like he was reacting to what he thought she was going to say rather than what she actually said.

    • That’s a legitimate interpretation, GR.

      He obviously thought she was implying that the changes were no big deal, and he was there. I felt that way too, but I may have been picking up on his reaction, and indeed, I don’t trust Zak and her ilk. Confirmation bias?

  5. In the wake of the reporter’s earlier “gotcha” question about the “insurrection”, Mr. Van der Veen interpreted her description of the altered evidence as dismissive of its significance.
    Although it seemed that he then aggressively stopped her from clarifying her question’s intent, I agree with him that her phrasing seemed to imply the alterations to the messages weren’t significant. Such ‘errors’ seen very unlikely to have happened by chance. Since the Democrat senators were clearly uninterested in treating President Trump fairly, and the mainstream media have been covering for them as best they can, I don’t blame him for adopting a confrontational tone.

  6. Her repetitive attempts to get “clarification for the viewers” were just a lame way to slant her and her station’s perspective, absolve herself of any responsibility during the process, and gain control of an interview that had clearly gotten away from her. Mr. van der Veen idestroyed her, though I doubt she gets it. He’s an ethics hero in my book.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.