(02-14-2021 01:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-14-2021 12:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Didnt know where to put this.

One of Trump's attorneys being interviewed.

I rather enjoyed it.

to comply with the new 'must have x words on any linky' stricture that some here are jumping about on, here goes:

Van der Ween (Trump attorney): [After correcting a massive stupid contextual error by the interviewer] The prosecutors in this case doctored evidence. They did not investigate this case, and when they had to come to the court, or the Senate, to put their case on, because they hadn’t done any investigation, they doctored evidence. It was absolutely shocking….

Interviewer: 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. Is that how — is that the doctored evidence of what you’re speaking?

Fun stuff happens here:

VDV: Wait, wait, wait, wait…that’s not enough for you? That’s not enough for you?

(Both talking over one another)

VDV: It’s not okay to doctor a little bit of evidence. The media has to start telling the right story in this country. The media is trying to divide this country. You are bloodthirsty for ratings, and as such, you’re asking questions now that are already set up with a fact pattern. I can’t believe you would ask me a question indicating that it’s alright just to doctor a little bit of evidence. There’s more stuff we uncovered that they doctored, to be frank with you, and maybe that will come out someday.

VDV is spot on. It is *not* okay to doctor *any* piece of evidence. No matter how small. Period.

Stupid twit seems to parrot that it is perfectly fine.

I really like this guy. Too bad the left is going after him now with death threats. That seems to be the course we are on these days.

Interesting story. Looks like the main argument of doctored tweets isn’t really relevant, as the claims were based on preparatory photos from a NYTimes article, and the error was caught prior to the blown up tweet graphics being presented as evidence.

Quote: But the House impeachment managers never presented the doctored tweets at the trial, which Schoen himself noted. Instead, they presented a screenshot of Trump's retweet, correctly dated January 3, 2021, which has since been taken down as his account is permanently suspended. They also showed the follow-up tweet with the same date.

"To be fair, the House managers caught this error before showing it on the Senate floor, so you never saw it when it was presented to you," Schoen said Friday.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.busines...21-2%3Famp

Quote: "As Trump's attorneys spotlighted, while inexplicably condemning the managers for a draft graphic of a tweet barely visible on a computer screen inside a New York Times photo that was not shown in the Senate, it is necessary to format and blow up the text of tweets into a graphic so that Senators can see it. The text is entirely unchanged," the aide said.

"The final graphic accidentally had a blue verification checkmark on it, but the substance of it was entirely accurate. So what is Trump's attorneys' point? If anything, it is further evidence of President Trump's attention to and knowledge of what was being openly planned on Jan. 6 by his followers, even those without Twitter verifications," the aide continued.

"Furthermore, in self-evident context, it is simply not believable that President Trump recognized the frequently confused 'calvary' as anything besides the 'cavalry is coming.' "



The aide also pushed back against Trump's lawyers' allegation that the video the managers showed was strategically spliced to paint a false depiction of the former president's remarks. The aide noted Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.) showed video of the former president stating that protesters should "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com...rial%3Famp

I guess you are fine and copacetic with 'tiny' evidence doctoring. Perhaps that is a difference between you and me. In your 'world' view, where is the 'its okay/not okay' to change evidence?

My simplistic world is simple enough --- ina proceeding, or even in a prep for a proceeding, it is *never* correct, nor is it even defensible. If that even occurred in the slightest amount in something I was doing, I would be on the phone to the State Bar, the judge, and maybe even the authorities to report it. Guess I am an old, stupid, absolutist on that particular issue.

I dont understand *any* defense of it, no matter how small. But again, that appears to be a very clear difference between your world view and mine. Cest le vie.

Seems not to be the case in the impeachment managers frame of mind either, if you hadnt noticed.