Trump’s Lawyer Goes After Talking Head. Good For Him.

There’s no need for us to discuss the acquittal of President Donald Trump for a second time.

Michael van der Veen was one of the Trump lawyers. He spoke with a member of the media from CBSN and instead of accepting her talking points, van der Veen went after the media in general and how they presented a narrative that was not accurate. In addition, he called them out for not highlighting the fact that the House managers had fabricated and doctored evidence in the impeachment trial which the media did not cover to any great extent.

It is a beautiful thing to watch and instructive that the interviewer kept trying to make her points, rather than asking questions and dealing with the answers.

However, no good deed goes unpunished and van der Veen reported that his house and law practice office was attacked:

Michael van der Veen, one of the lawyers who defended former President Donald Trump successfully in the Senate impeachment trial, said after the verdict Saturday that his family, home and law practice are “under siege” due to his representation of Mr. Trump.

“My home was attacked. I’d rather not go into it because it would encourage other people to do it more, but you know, I’ve had nearly 100 death threats,” he told reporters. “My home was attacked last night — windows broken, spray paint, really bad words spray-painted everywhere.”

Among the vandalism, someone spray-painted the word “traitor” on the driveway of his Philadelphia home.

We aren’t holding our breath for people like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer to condemn that attack on the Constitution as this is an attempt to deny a defendant the right to counsel. If lawyers fear for their safety and the safety of their families, they won’t represent people.

We do want to note that there was and still remains a controversy as to whether an elected official can be impeached once they have left office. The Constitution doesn’t seem to support it, but precedence in the Congress does.

However, there was another Constitutional issue lurking beneath the surface like a circling great white shark.

In an impeachment trial, the judge is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. That is by law and there is a good reason for that. If the Congress could be prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner of impeached individuals, what is lost is the separation of powers. In essence, without the impartial oversight of the trial by the Chief Justice, the trial becomes nothing but a kangaroo court. The Congress could conceivably just make up charges and with sympathetic “judge” from Congress, just ram cases for the removal of officers and elected official with impunity.

The second impeachment of Trump did not have an impartial judge from another branch of the government. The fact that the Congress went forth as a stand alone and “above it all” body was essentially the same thing that many members of the Congress were upset about concerning Trump’s actions.

Just more political hypocrisy and lies from elected officials.

2 Responses to “Trump’s Lawyer Goes After Talking Head. Good For Him.”

  1. Moon doggy says:

    This was painful to watch and I actually felt a little sorry for this obviously biased reporter, she’s probably not a bad person, just doing her job and pushing the talking points she’s paid to put out. I loved how Trumps attorney called out politicians and media for continuing to push this divisive narrative to score political points or tv ratings. I’m sure this clip will never get much traction on in the biased liberal media. If you do see it anywhere, I’m sure it will be severely edited.

    I loved the look on her face as it went on, you could just see her wondering why her producer didn’t cut it off early.

    • AAfterwit says:


      Thanks for the comment.

      The thing that is troubling is that some are trying to say that the reporter was just trying to give people information and that there was not indication that she was trying to say that the doctoring of evidence was acceptable. The fact of the matter is that when van der Veen started to make the point concerning the tampering / altering of evidence, she tried to talk over him. It would have been better for her to allow him to finish and give the examples or ask van der Veen what examples he was talking about.

      As for “almost feeling sorry for her,” allow us to join in that sorrow. We have a instrument around here somewhere that can play for her.


      Thanks again.

      A. Afterwit.