Trump Impeachment Defense Lawyer Exposes Disgusting Media Bias

903
Stop the Ban Hatred Impeach Trump by pasa47 is licensed under CC BY 2.0

It’s no secret that the mainstream media has a liberal bias. What’s less well-known is just how bad it is.

They don’t even try to hide it, with interviewers and anchors throwing totally skewed questions and smirking at conservatives 24/7.


The only difference between now and pre-Trump is that now there are conservatives brave enough to call them out on-air for their unfair questions and unprofessional attitudes.

The latest man to do so is Trump impeachment defense lawyer Michael van der Veen who blasted CBS News’ Lana Zak for her biased question and accused her of being “bloodthirsty for ratings.”

Impeach Trump by swanksalot is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

CBS Gets Served

The contentious interview is worth watching in full. Zak thinks she can roll van der Veen like an amateur and tries to frame him with false statements that he never made. However he lashes right back at her and explains that she’s wrong.

“Throughout the trial, you denied that Mr. Trump had a role in inciting the January 6 insurrection at the Capitol. First of all, you argued 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 —”

Van der Veen explained to her that he was reading from the charging documents, not agreeing to what they claimed. In other words he was doing what a defense attorney does in detailing the charges in his concluding statements to refute them.

“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. 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, 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 and put it out; I think it turned a lot of senators,” van der Veen added.

That’s when things got ugly, with Zak making a very odd claim.

“To be clear for our viewers, what you’re talking about 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 the doctored evidence of what you’re speaking?”

Van der Veen was stunned.

“Wait, wait, wait, wait , wait, wait, wait. That’s not enough for you? That’s not enough for you?”

Zak smirked. They then argued for a number of minutes about her intentions in making that statement, with Zak claiming that it was just to explain to viewers what the doctored evidence was.

Media Bias Finally Being Called Out

Zak claimed that she was just making the note of what was doctored so viewers would understand, but it was obvious to van der Veen and everyone watching that she was doing it to make his claim of doctoring look trivial. In fact the changing of the year of a date and blue checkmark had a major impact on the argument of those arguing for impeachment and, as van der Veen said, the defense found many other things which had been blatantly falsified by the prosecution as well.

It’s time for media bias to be treated like this across the board. Van der Veen ripped off his lapel mic and walked away at the end of the interview, humiliating Zac, and she fully deserved it. The interview was an example of complete lack of professionalism and smirking progressive “gotcha” style reporting.