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.
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.