Donald Trump's impeachment lawyers are claiming House impeachment managers doctored evidence during the trial. But according to Vox's Aaron Rupar, those claims are "extremely flimsy and can't withstand basic scrutiny." However, they nevertheless give Trump's lawyers plenty of things to talk about on the cable news shows.
Trump attorney Michael van der Veen made the claim during a heated interview with CBS News this Monday. When CBS News host Lana Zak tried to push back on the claims, Rupar contends that he didn't have much to offer.
"To be clear for our viewers, what you're talking about now is a check mark that's a verification on Twitter that did not exist on that particular tweet, a '2020' that should've actually read '2021,' and the selective editing, you say, of the tapes. Is that the doctored evidence of which you're speaking?" CBS News' Lana Zak asked.
According to Rupar, Zak's characterization of the accusations was accurate. But Van der Veen was having none of it.
"Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait — that's not enough for you? No, no, no. It's not okay to doctor a little bit of evidence," he said, adding later: "I can't believe you would ask me a question indicating that it's all right to doctor just a little bit of evidence."
Rupar writes that the discrepancies on the tweets are legitimate errors, "but they had absolutely no bearing on the actual content of the posts in question or the substance of the House managers' case."
"And as an aide to the House managers explained after Schoen made light of these discrepancies, the errors happened because prosecutors had to recreate Trump's tweets from scratch after his account was permanently suspended."
Read Rupar's full article over at Vox.