He shamed her twice.
Once for her slanted question,
The second time for her denying she said
“It was only a tiny check mark”
And she cannot even admit to her duplicity in HOW she said it. This is their plan, they give talking points to the limp liberals.....I can hear my family saying this as a defence now...”...it was only a tiny check mark”
Only credit I can give this “journalist” is at least she still had a tiny mark of humanity by showing some sense of embarrassment.
I often wonder about their families...if they are an embarrassment to their parents ...the same as the parents of porn stars.
Suicide weekend makes sense in some ways...it wont be “us” they want to hide their face from..it will be their families, and the disgrace they brought to them.
Can you timestamp where she said “it’s just a check mark”? I watched it three times and can’t find it. To me it just sounds like she was being clear on evidence so the viewers who didn’t watch the trial are up to date.
Note she did not actually say "its just a check mark", but she might as well have said it. She said:
To be clear for our viewers, what you're talking about now is a check mark [upward inflection], that's a verification on Twitter (that did not exist on that particular tweet); a 2020 that should have read 2021; um, and the selective editing, you say, of the tapes—uh is that how—"
Wait, wait wait wait wait—
—is that the doctored evidence of what you're speaking?
—wait wait wait wait, wait—That's not enough for you?
If you had been paying attention to the trial, that was most definitely not the biggest part of the lawyers' arguments. Yet, the tone of finality and the content that she chose to focus on implied that that was how she saw the value of their arguments: that all of their findings amounted to a doctored tweet. She focused on possibly the smallest bit of evidence of the hours' worth of evidence that had been presented, and belittled it subtly, and van der Veen knew exactly what she was trying to do and reacted instantly. She was trying to undermine their foundation, and he was going to have none of it.
No, she wasn't going to clear anything up for her audience. She was going to frame it.
I LOVE THAT GUY! Her condescending manner should be a trigger for everyone, and he eviscerated her. Lucky she had good makeup to cover all the redness that crept up her neck to her face, but her eyes told the story.
I'm with van der Veen, ENOUGH of this shit!
From where I'm sitting the "media" is doing a fine job at what they're getting paid to do. Propaganda and narrative control.
A failure would imply they're not doing it on purpose.
If she was doing a fine job she would have taken control of that interview, or shut it down. He wrecked her, the media, and their entire narrative. If she's not fired over this I will be amazed.
This was excellent. I wish he was on the news all the time. This whole thing would be over in a week.
Every point he makes is awesome except he’s mislabeling what she did. She literally said “to be clear for our viewers” and listed the evidence for those who didn’t watch the trial. She never took any side. His awesome point is made slightly embarrassing by misinterpreting (purposely?) what she said and her attitude about it.
I watched it three times and arrived at the same conclusion. She never was being dismissive of the evidence. Just bringing it up for the viewers.
You're trusting this person far too much, and taking her words at face value.
Yes, that is indeed what she said. No, that is not what she intended to do.
How much time do you think an interviewer has to talk to a lawyer on air to clarify hours of argument? TV stations don't have all day to recap the entire argument, and yet she chose one of the most insignificant bits of evidence for the audience to focus on first. Walk the audience through with baby steps? You know she won't have time, and she knows she won't have time, because she's a professional on TV doing this every day for years.
No, she's banking on running out the clock before they even touch the core of the argument. Oh! Out of time! Too bad! Gotta move on! They do this every single time they interview someone they don't agree with but their viewers are interested in hearing.
Van der Veen knew she was going to waste his time doing precisely that, and that's why he cut it short on his terms, after pointing out exactly what it was that she intended to do.
This man is an absolute unit. Michael van der Veen does not dance around, or mince his words, or dispenses with bullshit, because he keeps his very soul clean of bullshit, and he does not let anyone escape their crimes if he sees them commit it mid-air. Every word he speaks is the clean truth, and he is a champion of the truth, and that is why he tore this lying bitch-faced journalist to shreds.
That is the reason why all of us are watching him with a stupidly wide grin on our faces.
Maid my morning also!
Calls em like he sees em huh....Good for him!
Was it just me or did she look like a deer in the headlights?
Yes! She kinda had that "oh shit, this is going to go viral" look?
Well...your right about that!
He shamed her twice. Once for her slanted question, The second time for her denying she said
“It was only a tiny check mark”
And she cannot even admit to her duplicity in HOW she said it. This is their plan, they give talking points to the limp liberals.....I can hear my family saying this as a defence now...”...it was only a tiny check mark”
Only credit I can give this “journalist” is at least she still had a tiny mark of humanity by showing some sense of embarrassment.
I often wonder about their families...if they are an embarrassment to their parents ...the same as the parents of porn stars.
Suicide weekend makes sense in some ways...it wont be “us” they want to hide their face from..it will be their families, and the disgrace they brought to them.
Can you timestamp where she said “it’s just a check mark”? I watched it three times and can’t find it. To me it just sounds like she was being clear on evidence so the viewers who didn’t watch the trial are up to date.
@2:45
Note she did not actually say "its just a check mark", but she might as well have said it. She said:
If you had been paying attention to the trial, that was most definitely not the biggest part of the lawyers' arguments. Yet, the tone of finality and the content that she chose to focus on implied that that was how she saw the value of their arguments: that all of their findings amounted to a doctored tweet. She focused on possibly the smallest bit of evidence of the hours' worth of evidence that had been presented, and belittled it subtly, and van der Veen knew exactly what she was trying to do and reacted instantly. She was trying to undermine their foundation, and he was going to have none of it.
No, she wasn't going to clear anything up for her audience. She was going to frame it.
2:49 - 2:50 blue check verification...she also diminishes that it was just the year... thats why he goes off...esp. about the year...great clip
In my opinion, that reporter should face a firing squad.
Basically she got eloquently beeyatch slapped, twice.
I'm no scientist with body language, but my God look at what she does at 7:24-7:27.
Good man.
The cunning stunt got bitch slapped!
I LOVE THAT GUY! Her condescending manner should be a trigger for everyone, and he eviscerated her. Lucky she had good makeup to cover all the redness that crept up her neck to her face, but her eyes told the story. I'm with van der Veen, ENOUGH of this shit!
From where I'm sitting the "media" is doing a fine job at what they're getting paid to do. Propaganda and narrative control. A failure would imply they're not doing it on purpose.
If she was doing a fine job she would have taken control of that interview, or shut it down. He wrecked her, the media, and their entire narrative. If she's not fired over this I will be amazed.
This was excellent. I wish he was on the news all the time. This whole thing would be over in a week.
Good on him for calling out the loaded questions
Every point he makes is awesome except he’s mislabeling what she did. She literally said “to be clear for our viewers” and listed the evidence for those who didn’t watch the trial. She never took any side. His awesome point is made slightly embarrassing by misinterpreting (purposely?) what she said and her attitude about it.
I watched it three times and arrived at the same conclusion. She never was being dismissive of the evidence. Just bringing it up for the viewers.
She purposely tried to minimize what was doctored as if it were reasonable. There in lies get manipulation of the facts.
You're trusting this person far too much, and taking her words at face value.
Yes, that is indeed what she said. No, that is not what she intended to do.
How much time do you think an interviewer has to talk to a lawyer on air to clarify hours of argument? TV stations don't have all day to recap the entire argument, and yet she chose one of the most insignificant bits of evidence for the audience to focus on first. Walk the audience through with baby steps? You know she won't have time, and she knows she won't have time, because she's a professional on TV doing this every day for years.
No, she's banking on running out the clock before they even touch the core of the argument. Oh! Out of time! Too bad! Gotta move on! They do this every single time they interview someone they don't agree with but their viewers are interested in hearing.
Van der Veen knew she was going to waste his time doing precisely that, and that's why he cut it short on his terms, after pointing out exactly what it was that she intended to do.
This man is an absolute unit. Michael van der Veen does not dance around, or mince his words, or dispenses with bullshit, because he keeps his very soul clean of bullshit, and he does not let anyone escape their crimes if he sees them commit it mid-air. Every word he speaks is the clean truth, and he is a champion of the truth, and that is why he tore this lying bitch-faced journalist to shreds.
That is the reason why all of us are watching him with a stupidly wide grin on our faces.
Honest citizen with great integrity!!