@2:45
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.
@2:45
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 Veer 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.
@2:45
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 Veer 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.
@2:45
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 Veer 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.
@2:45
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 Lawyer's 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 Veer 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.
@2:45
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 Lawyer's 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 Veer 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.
@2:45
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 Lawyer's 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 Veer 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.
@2:45
Note she did not literally 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 Lawyer's 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 Veer 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.