On February 13, Trump defense attorney Michael van der Veen stormed out of an interview with CBS's Lana Zak after she followed up on his claims that impeachment prosecutors "doctored evidence."
After Lana Zak pushed back against van der Veen's claim, he lost his composure, mocking her by imitating her voice and claiming:
"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."
Trump defense attorney Michael van der Veen speaks with @LanaZak after the Senate's acquittal vote: "What happened… https://t.co/kNfhxRdvOa— CBS News (@CBS News)1613255111.0
@CBSNews @LanaZak 5 people died on the 6th. Three more killed themselves afterward.— moleek (@moleek)1613268551.0
@CBSNews @LanaZak The House Managers DID NOT doctor evidence. Stop the lies. A stone could have won this case for… https://t.co/P45jzLdfgE— Doreen Zankowski (@Doreen Zankowski)1613320251.0
@CBSNews @LanaZak He must be so embarrassed of his performative outrage....or he SHOULD be... this is the same guy… https://t.co/QfyJQHB0uH— Aaron T (@Aaron T)1613331126.0
When van der Veen claimed the impeachment prosecutors had brought "doctored evidence" to the trial, Zak clarified:
"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."
Van der Veen then interrupted, saying:
"Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. That's not enough for you? That's not enough for you?"
"I can't believe you would ask me a question indicating that it's all right just to doctor a little bit of evidence. There's more stuff that we uncovered that they doctored, to be frank with you, and perhaps that will come out one day."
@CBSNews @LanaZak Doctored Evidence? No, 43 Senators didn't accept the evidence because they were already pre-dispo… https://t.co/jAb58vnOih— CRJ (@CRJ)1613280171.0
@CBSNews @LanaZak It was irresponsible to air this. What good does it do? What do we learn from this interview? Not… https://t.co/hOqgwVAPfE— Chris (@Chris)1613276306.0
@CBSNews @LanaZak She asked valid questions. Considering his client I don't think anyone really takes his word for… https://t.co/XY7EOD1UIc— Chris F (@Chris F)1613369271.0
Zak tried to calm van der Veen by saying she was not attempting to draw a judgement but was only trying to make viewers aware of the evidence he was referencing.
Trump's lawyer responded by raising his voice to imitate her and saying:
"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."
@CBSNews @LanaZak I think @LanaZak did an excellent job of staying cool in the face of some really disingenuous behavior.— Vertex (@Vertex)1613272387.0
@CBSNews @LanaZak Thank you for trying to get straight honest answers from Mr. van der Veen! I wanted clarification… https://t.co/3qZmNulzJH— Kim Bress (@Kim Bress)1613255889.0
@CBSNews @LanaZak You deserve a raise in pay for your calm rebuttal. I wish you had more opportunity to argue your… https://t.co/o2o28G55Fd— Enormous Magnitude (@Enormous Magnitude)1613258078.0
As Zak tried to wrap the interview up by thanking van der Veen for his time, he ripped off his microphone and threw it to the ground before walking off camera.
@CBSNews @LanaZak I watch this because someone I follow posted it on Twitter and rapidly realized that this is the… https://t.co/ZSnthCK4wZ— Corrie Sias (@Corrie Sias)1613327937.0
@luvinlifeinID @CBSNews @LanaZak After claiming that a twitter checkmark and a single tweet's date were manipulated… https://t.co/oWfG97YydY— Jason 🇺🇲🌊🐻🧸🐼🌈🏳️🌈 (@Jason 🇺🇲🌊🐻🧸🐼🌈🏳️🌈)1613274427.0
@CBSNews @LanaZak @LanaZak I’m so sorry you had to go through that. However, watching his melt down was pure comedy.— someone else (@someone else)1613260114.0
Twitter roasted van der Veen from all sides for his immature behaviour.
@CBSNews @LanaZak Just wondering if he would still be speaking that way if it were a male journalist? Utterly disre… https://t.co/T02MVQhRrw— BJEJJT7109 (@BJEJJT7109)1613364781.0
@CBSNews @LanaZak No thanks! Van der Veen was undoubtedly, unmistakably not prepared to provide a credible defense… https://t.co/60DkiSbnY0— Kirsten Dinesen (@Kirsten Dinesen)1613317299.0
It seems former President Trump is lucky so many Republican Senators were prepared to support him regardless of how his lawyers performed, because van der Veen isn't great at responding to high-pressure moments.
The Senate voted 57 to 43 to convict Trump. But conviction votes require a two-thirds instead of a majority vote.