LIAR! Couric Being Sued For $12 MILLION Over This FAKE News Story! [VIDEO]

VIA| Now, Katie Couric may be taking a place next to Brian Williams, as a disgraced, lying fraud, if the Virginia Citizens Defense League has anything to say about it. Falsifying news and anything related to it, is becoming a popular trend among leftist media and Katie has joined the fray in trying…

Now, Katie Couric may be taking a place next to Brian Williams, as a disgraced, lying fraud, if the Virginia Citizens Defense League has anything to say about it. Falsifying news and anything related to it, is becoming a popular trend among leftist media and Katie has joined the fray in trying to do her part in fighting against the second amendment.



As the producer of an anti-gun documentary, it seems Katie thought she had the right to take liberties with some facts. When she turned her footage over to the editing department, the final product showed completely distorted interviews. The subjects of those interviews are mad as Hell and aren’t gonna take it anymore.

A Virginia gun-rights group is suing Katie Couric and the producers of the documentary “Under the Gun” for $12 million in defamation over an interview that was revealed to have been deceptively edited.

The Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) and two gun-rights activists featured in the film, Daniel Hawes and Patricia Webb, are suing Ms. Couric, who produced the documentary and led the interview in question, as well as director Stephanie Soechtig, Atlas Films and Epix, the film’s distributor.

The suit filed in federal court Tuesday, obtained by BearingArms.com, claimed the producers of the film “intentionally manipulated” footage to make it look like members of the VCDL were stumped when asked about gun background checks.

The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages of $12 million and punitive damages of $350,000 per plaintiff, as well as an injunction against further distribution of the edited footage.

Ms. Couric and Ms. Soechtig faced a wave of backlash this summer after raw audio of the interview between Ms. Couric and the VCDL proved that the group was not accurately portrayed in the documentary. Ms. Couric apologized for the misleading editing, but Ms. Soechtig defiantly stood by her artistic license.

During the interview, Ms. Couric asked members of the VCDL, “If there are no background checks for gun purchasers, how do you prevent felons or terrorists from purchasing a gun?”

The film showed the activists sitting in silence for eight seconds, apparently unable to come up with an answer, before it cut to a different scene. Raw audio of the interview revealed that the activists responded immediately and debated for more than four minutes. Second Amendment supporters expressed outrage over the edit, saying it was done deliberately to embarrass the activists.

Ms. Soechtig responded at the time, “If I wanted to make them look bad, I would have focused exclusively on their radical ideology. But I didn’t do that. I wanted to allow them an opportunity to explain their beliefs. In hindsight, had I known that the NRA would focus on eight seconds of a two-hour film, I might have done things differently. But I made the creative decision and I stand by it.”

At publishing of this post, plaintiffs still claim the documentary still contains inaccuracies and are seeking to shut down its distribution.

Here’s the way the interview REALLY went down and how Couric and Co. manipulated the interview for dramatic effect.

What do you think? Leave your comments below. Should Katie pay up? Should this be a career buster?

HERE IS A LIST OF EVERY SINGLE TIME OBAMA COMMITTED AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE THAT DEMS & MEDIA COVERED UP “Impeach!” It’s been more than eight years since Democrats uttered that word – long enough for anyone to wonder if it was still in their vocabulary, considering the deafening silence through the dozens of serious scandals during President Obama’s administration – but now that President Trump is the man in the White House, it’s back with a vengeance. . . Democrats everywhere are wildly slinging the “I” word, hoping to nail Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors after the New York Times claimed a memo written by former FBI Director James Comey said the president urged him to end the federal investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn. . . Some members of Congress are getting in on the action. They include Reps. Maxine Water, D-Calif., and Al Green, D-Texas. Even a Republican, Rep. Justin Amash, claimed Wednesday there are grounds to impeach President Trump. House Oversign Committee Chair Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, asked for the alleged Comey memo and other documents. Chaffetz tweeted that he is prepared to subpoena the information. And Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., invoked “Watergate.” . . Now the Democratic Party is reportedly poll testing impeachment as a 2018 election issue. More than 1 million people signed a petition calling on Congress to impeach Trump. . . Wasting no time Wednesday, the mainstream media sprang into action, enthusiastically echoing the left’s impeachment calls. MSNBC launched a Watergate ad implying Trump is America’s new Richard Nixon. . . “Watergate. We know its name because there were reporters who never stopped asking questions,” says MSNBC host Chris Hayes, who hinted that Trump is next on the impeachment chopping block. “Now, who knows where the questions will take us. But I know this: I’m not going to stop asking them.” . . Meanwhile, some overzealous members of the left plastered fliers around Washington, D.C., demanding all White House staffers resign Wednesday. . . The posters read: “If you work for this White House you are complicit in hate-mongering, lies, corrupt taking of Americans’ tax money via self-dealing and emoluments, and quite possibly federal crimes and treason. Also, any wars will be on your soul. … Resign now.” . . But constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley, who voted for President Obama, warned “impeachment” enthusiasts not to get ahead of themselves with President Trump. Why? . . At this time, there’s no evidence Trump actually committed a crime. . . “The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo,” Turley wrote in a May 17 opinion piece posted at the Hill. Turley explained: . . For the first time, the Comey memo pushes the litany of controversies surrounding Trump into the scope of the United States criminal code. . . However, if this is food for obstruction of justice, it is still an awfully thin soup. Some commentators seem to be alleging criminal conduct in office or calling for impeachment before Trump completed the words of his inaugural oath of office. Not surprising, within minutes of the New York Times report, the response was a chorus of breathless “gotcha” announcements. But this memo is neither the Pentagon Papers nor the Watergate tapes. Indeed, it raises as many questions for Comey as it does Trump in terms of the alleged underlying conduct. . . A good place to start would be with the federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. 1503. The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo. There are dozens of different variations of obstruction charges ranging from threatening witnesses to influencing jurors. None would fit this case. That leaves the omnibus provision on attempts to interfere with the “due administration of justice.” . . However, that still leaves the need to show that the effort was to influence “corruptly” when Trump could say that he did little but express concern for a longtime associate. The term “corruptly” is actually defined differently under the various obstruction provisions, but it often involves a showing that someone acted “with the intent to secure an unlawful benefit for oneself or another.” Encouraging leniency or advocating for an associate is improper but not necessarily seeking an unlawful benefit for him. . . -Obama’s Iran nuke deal -Obama knew about Hillary’s private email server -Obama IRS targets conservatives -Obama’s DOJ spies on AP reporters -Obamacare & Obama’s false promises -Illegal-alien amnesty by executive order -Benghazi-gate -Operation Fast & Furious -5 Taliban leaders for Bergdahl -Extortion 17 -‘Recess ‘ appointments – when Senate was in session -Appointment of ‘czars’ without Senate approval -Suing Arizona for enforcing federal law -Refusal to defend Defense of Marriage Act -Illegally conducting war against Libya -NSA: Spying on Americans -Muslim Brotherhood ties -Miriam Carey -Birth certificate -Executive orders -Solyndra and the lost $535 million -Egypt -Cap & Trade: When in doubt, bypass Congress -Refusal to prosecute New Black Panthers -Obama’s U.S. citizen ‘hit list’