One of the best parts of the Second Impeachment Trial of President Donald Trump was in Michael van der Veen’s the closing argument.
Since I want to make it easy for my readers to find and share the best part with others, I copied the transcript of that best part from C-SPAN and cleaned it up a bit (Impeachment Trial, Day 5 (c-span.org)). C-SPAN apparently uses language recognition software, and that software makes mistakes. That software also does not break up the transcript into paragraphs.
Note I copied the transcript this morning. I did not have any luck finding it latter. Hopefully, the C-SPAN is not trying to cancel something so obvious.
Michael van der Veen’s closing argument begins at about 4 hours and 50 minutes in the video, Impeachment Trial, Day 5 (c-span.org). The part of the transcript I cut out starts at about eleven minutes into the PBS video. Note that the original C-SPAN transcript was in capital letters.
DEMOCRAT POLITICIANS SPENT MONTHS PRIOR TO JANUARY 6, ATTACKING THE VERY LEGITIMACY OF OUR NATION’S MOST CHERISHED INSTITUTIONS AND TRADITIONS. THEY DID NOT JUST QUESTION THE INTEGRITY OF ONE ELECTION. THEY CHALLENGED THE INTEGRITY OF OUR ENTIRE NATION. EVERYTHING FROM OUR FOUNDING FATHERS, OUR CONSTITUTION, DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, AND THE UNITED STATES MILITARY. THEY SAID THAT OUR SOCIETY WAS ROOTED IN HATRED. THEY EVEN SAID THAT AMERICA DESERVED, AND I WILL QUOTE, “A RECKONING.” AS YOU HEARD YESTERDAY, THROUGHOUT THIS SUMMER, DEMOCRAT LEADERS, INCLUDING THE CURRENT PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT, REPEATEDLY MADE COMMENTS THAT PROVIDED MORAL COMFORT TO MOBS ATTACKING POLICE OFFICERS.
DURING THAT TIME, MANY OFFICERS ACROSS THE COUNTRY WERE INJURED. AS WE ALL KNOW, TWO SHERIFFS DEPUTIES IN LOS ANGELES WERE AMBUSHED AND SHOT AT BLANK RANGE. MEMBERS OF THIS VERY BODY HAVE BEEN ENDANGERED. SENATORS FROM MAINE TO KENTUCKY AND MOST POINTS IN BETWEEN HAVE BEEN HARASSED BY MOBS. LAST AUGUST, A MENACING LEFT WING MOB SWARMED SENATOR RAND PAUL AND HIS WIFE AS THEY LEFT THE WHITE HOUSE, AND THEY HAD TO BE RESCUED BY POLICE. FOR MONTHS, OUR FEDERAL COURTHOUSE IN PORTLAND WAS PLACED UNDER SEIGE BY VIOLENT ANARCHISTS WHO ATTACKED ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS DAILY AND REPEATEDLY AND TRIED TO SET FIRE TO THE BUILDING. SPEAKER PELOSI DID NOT CALL THE VIOLENT SIEGE OF THE FEDERAL BUILDING AN INSURRECTION. SHE CALLED THE FEDERAL AGENTS PROTECTING THE COURTHOUSE STORM TROOPERS. THE WHITE HOUSE COMPLEX WAS BESIEGED BY MOBS THAT THREW BRICKS, ROCKS, AND BOTTLES AT SECRET SERVICE AGENTS. THEY SET FIRE TO AN HISTORIC STRUCTURE AND BREACHED THE SECURITY FENCE TO INFILTRATE THE TREASURY GROUNDS.
WHEN MY CLIENT’S ADMINISTRATION SENT IN THE NATIONAL GUARD TO SECURE THE NATION’S CAPITOL. CITY ADMINISTRATORS, DEMOCRAT LEADERS, DEMANDED THAT THE FORCES BE WITHDRAWN. THE WASHINGTON DC MAYOR SAID THE PRESENCE OF THE NATIONAL GUARDS WAS AND AFRONT OF THE SAFETY OF THE DISTRICT. IT MUST BE FULLY INVESTIGATED WHETHER POLITICAL LEADERSHIP HERE IN WASHINGTON DC TOOK AN INADEQUATE AND IRRESPONSIBLE FORCE POSTURE ON JANUARY 6th BECAUSE OF THEIR COMMITMENT TO THE FALSE NARRATIVE OF WHAT HAPPENED LAST JUNE. HOPEFULLY, WE CAN ALL NOW AGREE THAT THE ADMINISTRATION ACTED PROPERLY BY TAKING ACTION TO STOP A RIOTOUS MOB ESTABLISHING AN APPROPRIATE SECURITY PERIMETER AND PREVENT THE WHITE HOUSE FROM POTENTIALLY BEING OVERRUN.
THE HOUSE MANAGERS ARGUED THIS WEEK THAT AN ALLEGED BRIEF DELAY IN ISSUING IN ISSUING A PUBLIC STATEMENT FROM MR. TRUMP ON JANUARY 6 WAS SOME HOW EVIDENCE THAT HE COMMITED INCITEMENT OR SUPPORTED THE VIOLENCE. YET FOR MONTHS LAST YEAR JOE BIDEN, VICE PRESIDENT HARRIS AND COUNTLESS OF OTHER DEMOCRAT REPEATEDLY REFUSED TO CONDEMN THE EXTREME RIOTS THAT WERE OCCURRING DAILY, AS BUSINESSES WERE BEING RAMSHACKLED. AS NEIGHBORHOODS WERE BEING BURNED, AS A BOMBS WERE EXPLODING. THEY REPEATEDLY REFUSED TO TELL THEIR VIOLENT SUPPORTERS TO STAND DOWN. SOME EVEN SUGGESTED THE MOB’S ACTIONS WERE JUSTIFIED. VICE PRESIDENT HARRIS LITERALLY URGED HER FOLLOWERS TO DONATE MONEY TO A FUND TO BAIL OUT THE VIOLENT EXTREME RIOTERS SO THAT THEY COULD GET OUT AND CONTINUED TO DO IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN. SHE LATER SAID THAT THOSE FOLKS WERE NOT GOING TO LET UP AND THAT THEY SHOULD NOT.
ALL OF THIS WAS FAR CLOSER TO THE ACTUAL DEFINITION OF INCITEMENT THAN ANYTHING PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS EVER SAID OR DONE, NEVER MIND WHAT HE SAID ON THE SIXTH. IT IS A HYPOCRISY. IT IS A HYPOCRISY THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE LAID AT THE FEET OF THIS CHAMBER.
THE HOUSE MANAGERS SUGGESTED IN THIS RECENT — THAT THIS RECENT HISTORY IS IRRELEVANT TO THE CURRENT PROCEEDINGS. BUT NOT ONLY AS A DEMOCRAT BEHAVIOR SURROUNDING LAST YEAR’S RIOTS HIGHLY RELEVANT AS A PRECEDENT, AND DOES NOT ONLY REVEALED THE DISHONESTY AND INSINCERITY OF THIS ENTIRE ENDEAVOR. IT ALSO PROVIDES CRUCIAL CONTACTS THAT SHOULD INFORM OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE EVENTS THAT TOOK PLACE ON JANUARY 6.
MANY OF THE PEOPLE INFILTRATED THE CAPITOL TOOK PICTURES OF THEMSELVES AND POSTED THEM ON SOCIAL MEDIA. TO SOME IT SEEMS, THEY THOUGHT THAT IT WAS ALL A GAME. THEY APPARENTLY BELIEVED VIOLENT MOBS, DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY, RIOTING, ASSAULTING POLICE AND VANDALIZING HISTORIC TREASURES WAS SOMEHOW NOW ACCEPTABLE IN THE UNITED STATES. WHERE MIGHT THEY HAVE GOTTEN THAT IDEA? I WOULD SUGGEST TO YOU IT WAS NOT FROM MR. TRUMP. IT WAS NOT MR. TRUMP, IT WAS NOT ANYONE IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY THAT SPENT THE SIX MONTHS IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO THE CAPITOL ASSAULT GIVING RHETORICAL AID AND COMFORT TO MOBS, MAKING EXCUSES FOR RIOTERS, CELEBRATING RADICALISM AND EXPLAINING THAT ANGRY FRUSTRATED MARGINALIZED PEOPLE WERE ENTITLED TO BLOW OFF STEAM LIKE THAT.
LET ME BE VERY CLEAR, THERE CAN BE NO EXCUSE OF THE DEPRAVED ACTION OF THE RIOTERS HERE AT THE CAPITOL OR ANYWHERE ELSE ACROSS THIS COUNTRY. 100% OF THOSE GUILTY OF CRIMES SHOULD HAVE LENGTHY PRISON SENTENCES FOR THEIR SHAMEFUL AND DEPRAVED CONDUCT, BUT THIS TRIAL HAS RAISED THE QUESTIONS ABOUT WORDS, ACTIONS OR CONSEQUENCES.
AS A NATION WE WILL ASK OURSELVES HOW DID WE ARRIVE AT THIS PLACE WHERE RIOTING AND PILLAGING WOULD BECOME COMMONPLACE? I SUBMIT TO YOU THAT IT WAS MONTH AFTER MONTH OF POLITICAL LEADERS AND MEDIA PERSONALITIES, BLOOD THIRSTY FOR RATINGS, GLORIFYING CIVIL UNREST AND CONDEMNING THE REASONABLE LAW ENFORCEMENT MEASURES THAT ARE REQUIRED TO QUELL VIOLENT MOBS. HOPEFULLY WE CAN ALL LEAVE THIS CHAMBER AND UNIFORM AGREEMENT THAT ALL RIOTING, ALL RIOTING, IS BAD. AND THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT DESERVES OUR RESPECT AND SUPPORT. THAT HAS BEEN MR. TRUMP’S POSITION FROM THE VERY BEGINNING.
THE REAL QUESTION IN THIS CASE IS WHO IS ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR SUCH ACTS OF A MAYHEM AND VIOLENCE WHEN THEY ARE COMMITTED? HOUSE DEMOCRATS WENT TWO DIFFERENT STANDARDS. ONE FOR THEMSELVES AND ONE FOR THEIR POLITICAL OPPOSITION. THEY HAVE CARRIED OUT A GROSSLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL EFFORT TO PUNISH MR. TRUMP FOR PROTECTED FIRST AMENDMENT SPEECH. IT IS AN EGREGIOUS VIOLATION OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. SINCE HE UTTERED NOT A SINGLE WORD ENCOURAGING VIOLENCE, THIS ACTION CAN ONLY BE SEEN AS AN EFFORT TO CENSOR DISFAVORED POLITICAL SPEECH AND DISCRIMINATE AGAINST A DISAPPROVED VIEWPOINT. IT IS AN UNPRECEDENTED ACTION WITH THE POTENTIAL TO DO GRAVE AND LASTING DAMAGE TO BOTH THE PRESIDENCY, AND THE SEPARATION OF POWERS AND THE FUTURE OF DEMOCRATIC SELF-GOVERNMENT. YESTERDAY WE PLAYED YOU A VIDEO OF COUNTLESS DEMOCRAT MEMBERS OF THE SENATE URGING THEIR SUPPORTERS TO FIGHT. WE SHOWED YOU THOSE VIDEOS NOT BECAUSE WE THINK YOU SHOULD BE FORCIBLY REMOVED FROM OFFICE FOR SAYING THOSE THINGS, BUT BECAUSE WE KNOW YOU SHOULD NOT BE FORCIBLY REMOVED FROM OFFICE FOR SAYING THOSE THINGS. BUT RECOGNIZE THE HYPOCRISY.Impeachment Trial, Day 5 (c-span.org)
Here is a bonus, an example of why I like Michael van der Veen, Trump attorney rips off mic after questioning from CBSN anchor (yahoo.com). Because of her obvious effort to slant the interview, van der Veen just chewed up CBSB news anchor Lana Zak.
Admittedly, when van der Veen recommended PBS to Zak as a good example, I cracked up. There is a subtlety here that van der Veen apparently misses. PBS is just as partisan, but they make a rigorous effort to hide their partisanship. When PBS doesn’t want us know something, they hide it. When PBS wants us to know something that is not true, they just calmly report it. What PBS doesn’t do is sound as rabidly partisan as other partisan Liberal Democrat media outlets.
Why do privately own networks more readily reveal their bias? Why does PBS hide its partisanship? Before cable and the Internet, getting an FCC license was much important. Broadcasters had to have an FCC license to connect to their listeners and viewers over the airwaves. Since FCC is a government entity, broadcasters did not want to upset any politician powerful enough to interfere with keeping their license. PBS, because it receives government funding, still has a great incentive to avoid upsetting powerful politicians. So, they walk softly. Nevertheless, because Democrat politicians are far more eager to fund them, PBS (and NPR too) maintain a Liberal Democrat bias.