Katie Couric Took A Knee for RBG

Couric admits to editing 2016 interview to "protect" Justice Ginsburg. And the Supreme Court press office asked her edit the video.

|

In 2016, Couric interviewed Justice Ginsburg. Couric asked Ginsburg about football players who were taking a knee during the national anthem.

I think it is really dumb of them. Would I arrest them for doing it? No. I think it is dumb and disrespectful. I would have the same answer if you asked me about flag burning. I think it is a terrible thing to do. But I wouldn't lock a person up for doing it. I would point out how ridiculous it seems to me to do such an act. But it is dangerous to arrest people for conduct that doesn't jeopardize the health or wellbeing of other people. It is a symbol they are engaged in.

At that point, the video cuts. Couric asks a followup question. Ginsburg continues:

If they want to be stupid, there is no law that should prevent that. If they want to be arrogant, there is no law that prevents them from that. What I would do is strongly take issue with the point of view they are expressing when when do that.

The video cuts again.

A few days later, Justice Ginsburg issued a statement to the press:

"Some of you have inquired about a book interview in which I was asked how I felt about Colin Kaepernick and other N.F.L. players who refused to stand for the national anthem. Barely aware of the incident or its purpose, my comments were inappropriately dismissive and harsh. I should have declined to respond."

She didn't actually apologize. Nor did she recant her views. Rather, she said they were "dismissive and harsh."

Five years later, there is more to the story. Katie Couric wrote a new book. She admits to editing out part of the RBG interview. Apparently Ginsburg said more about the kneeling:

Ginsburg went on to say that such protests show a 'contempt for a government that has made it possible for their parents and grandparents to live a decent life.'

She said: 'Which they probably could not have lived in the places they came from…as they became older they realize that this was youthful folly. And that's why education is important.'

Imagine how this statement would have played. A privileged white woman telling black football players that they are showing contempt for the government that gave their grandparents a decent life. I suspect some of those grandparents lived during the era of Jim Crow segregation. And then Ginsburg calls these players uneducated and engaged in youthful folly! Ginsburg would have been excoriated.

To protect RBG, Couric simply edited out the statements.

Couric claims that she 'lost a lot of sleep over this one' and still wrestles with the decision she made.

According to Couric, she 'wanted to protect' Ginsburg and felt that the issue of racial justice was a 'blind spot' for her.

Not really. Ginsburg dissented in Fisher II. She explained the importance of racial preferences in college admissions in light of "centuries of law-sanctioned inequality."

I have several times explained why government actors, including state universities, need not be blind to the lingering effects of "an overtly discriminatory past," the legacy of "centuries of law-sanctioned inequality." Id., at 298 (dissenting opinion). See also Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U. S. 200 –274 (1995) (dissenting opinion). Among constitutionally permissible options, I remain convinced, "those that candidly disclose their consideration of race [are] preferable to those that conceal it." Gratz, 539 U. S., at 305, n. 11 (dissenting opinion).

Still, Ginsburg thought the anthem protests were akin to flag burning: stupid exercises of protected speech. RBG was not woke. And I also suspect RBG would be a TERF, by today's standards.

Why did Couric make this edit?

Couric, 64, writes that she always tried to keep her 'personal politics' out of her reporting throughout her career.

But she faced a 'conundrum' when Ginsburg made comments about Colin Kaepernick, the former NFL player who became the controversial figurehead behind the national anthem protest against racial injustice.

Couric felt that when Ginsburg said that people like Kaepernick were 'dumb and disrespectful' they were comments that were 'unworthy of a crusader for equality' like the liberal Supreme Court justice.

But Couric writes in her memoir that she thought the justice, who was 83 at the time, was 'elderly and probably didn't fully understand the question.'

Oh come on. Ginsburg was sharp as a tack. Until the end, she was one of the most aggressive questioners on the Court. Ginsburg's intellect towers over Couric. What a demeaning statement.

The story gets worse:

The day after the sit-down, the head of public affairs for the Supreme Court emailed Couric to say the late justice had 'misspoken' and asked that it be removed from the story.

The day after the sit-down, the head of public affairs for the Supreme Court emailed Couric to say the late justice had 'misspoken' and asked that it be removed from the story.

I'm sorry. The Supreme Court public affairs office doesn't get to call the media and ask them to edit stories because a Justice "misspoke." She did not "misspeak." She said exactly what she thinks. Can you imagine the outrage if this request came from the White House? We know the Supreme Court PIO clips about 5,000 tweets per year. It seems they also ask the press to modify statements.

Even if Couric was inclined to edit the interview, she should have refused in the face of the Supreme Court request. But she didn't. Couric caved. Appalling.

Couric's conduct with Ginsburg here is even more jarring in light of her 2016 interview with members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, a gun rights group. She asked them, "If there are no background checks for gun purchasers, how do you prevent felons or terrorists from purchasing a gun?" And the video show the interviewees with blank stares for nearly 10 seconds. Here, Couric deceptively edited the interview to make the members look bad.

Fortunately, the VDCL members secretly recorded the interview. In reality, one of the interviewees answered the question. But Couric removed the answer to cast the interviewees as idiots. The Washington Post asked Couric to comment. She said she was "very proud of the film."

Reason lampooned Couric's deceptive edit:

The VCDL members sued Couric for libel. At the time, Eugene wrote that the editing was "dishonest" but not "libelous." The district court dismissed the claim, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed.

NEXT: Amnesty International brief against right to bear arms

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. "Until the end, she was one of the most aggressive questions on the Court."

    Indeed. Very mysterious.

    1. "Oh come on. Ginsburg was sharp as a tack."

      EVERYONE loses 'sharpness' over the years. Everyone. If supreme court justices had to be put through cognitive and memory exams every two years, you'd be horrified by the results of the oldsters. Unless you think they aren't like everyone else tested. Fluid intelligence starts to go down in the mid-20s, for God sake.

  2. Couric claims that she 'lost a lot of sleep over this one' and still wrestles with the decision she made.

    I'm sure it was just as agonizing a decision to uncloak this solely to spice up her new book.

  3. "Couric claims that she ‘lost a lot of sleep over this one’ and still wrestles with the decision she made."

    I can see the wrestling part (wrestling with her conscience and winning), but did she actually lose sleep? I wasn't in her bedroom (eww), but I would guess not.

  4. "Ginsburg went on to say that such protests show a 'contempt for a government that has made it possible for their parents and grandparents to live a decent life.'

    "She said: 'Which they probably could not have lived in the places they came from…as they became older they realize that this was youthful folly. And that's why education is important.'"

    Hmmm...the way Couric summarizes those remarks, they do sound somewhat inartful (or, if a Republican said them, racist) - but it boils down to RBG being the patriotic child and grandchild of immigrants. According to Wikipedia, "Her father was a Jewish emigrant from Odessa, Ukraine, at that time part of the Russian Empire, and her mother was born in New York to Jewish parents who came from Kraków, Poland, at that time part of Austria-Hungary."

    *If* Couric summarized her accurately, she was probably commenting on her own experience. In the U. S., her parents and grandparents got a decent life which (to put it mildly) might not have been available to them in the places they came from.

    1. Well I doubt any of the players kneeling were alive under Jim Crow and certainly not during slavery. Objectively all their lives are better than they probably would have been in Africa.

      1. Right, but the reference was to their parents and grandparents.

        I'm just saying RBG was lucky not to be a Republican when she commented on a black person's parents and grandparents having a better life than in "the places they came from."

        Of course, this assumes Couric is quoting accurately and in context, not always a safe assumption it seems.

        1. While I agree RGB's comments were harsh, reality sometimes is harsh, and for the majority of black people in the US during the Jim Crow Era their lives probably were in fact better than most Sub-Saharan Africans

          1. Same argument as 'well the Holocaust got you Israel, why aren't you people more grateful to the Nazis?'

            1. More like arguing that since Israel is pretty nice, actually, don't use the Holocaust as an excuse to attack it.

              1. You have to get here from there, which was a process of fits and starts and slings and arrows. It's precious and fashionable to take a squat over those who pushed in the right direction even if they weren't perfect.

              2. Which analogy requires that blacks' situation be very nice.

                And if you're going to turn it into a comparison with Africa, I've got bad news about the causality there as well.

  5. "Can you imagine the outrage if this request came from the White House."

    Only if there was a Republican in the White House. If there was a Democrat in the White House, the request would immediately be obeyed.

    1. " If there was a Democrat in the White House, the request would immediately be obeyed."

      And never spoken of again

      1. Please stop, your put-upon victimhood is bringing tears to my eyes.

    2. During the Trump years, every single responsible journalistic outlet would ask for the Trump White House's views on any breaking, leak-sourced story. Then they dutifully printed their lies and spin, like it provides some meaningful context. They're doing the same thing right now, whenever his not-yet-campaign is touched by a story they're doing.

      Would they agree not to publish something that the Trump White House would ask them not to publish? Probably not. But Trump was granted far more credulous coverage than you seem to appreciate. It took years for a few journalistic outlets to get brave enough to say just things like, "It's not entirely clear how this is true."

      1. Tghe only sentence in that sequence of crap that's not a lie is the one ending in a question mark.

        1. I don’t know how you could possibly know one way or the other, because you clearly don’t consume any responsible journalism.

  6. Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland, the VC nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
    1. Will you condemn the late RBG for the views she expressed to Couric?
    2. Are you Team Jagger or Team Richards re: whether the Stones should continue playing Brown Sugar?

    1. Why summon the devil?

    2. For Kirkland (if he can get past it being from NRO). Now that I know he’s a Rolling Stones’ super fan, I’m hoping even as a conservative, homeschooling Christian, we can find common ground in the VC comments section. (My teenage sons know more about the Beatles that anyone I know, and their love for the band rubbed off on me, so hopefully Kirkland wasn’t too offended by Sir Paul’s recent comments about the Stones (which admittedly seemed a bit ungracious, but I’ll need to read the context), and the VC commenters from all sides of the spectrum can have occasional non-political discussions about the Beatles and other music icons.) Hope springs eternal! https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/brown-sugar-gets-canceled/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

      1. Fine, okay, go after Jagger and Richards. But leave Randy Newman alone!

        1. Short-tempered people got no reason to live.

  7. Dan Rather and Couric both anchored the CBS Evening News.

    Great legacy.

  8. As an exercise for the reader, the intended takeaway here is:

    a) Boo Justice Ginsburg!
    b) Boo Katie Couric!
    c) Hurray gun rights!

    1. Is Blackman the best messenger for this news? Are his motives pure? Don't ask me, I don't know.

      But did you miss the part where the story is actually interesting?

      1. "Is Blackman the best messenger for this news? Are his motives pure?"

        Do his motives matter at all?

        1. Media literacy 101: the messenger is not irrelevant to the message, especially in politics.

          1. Ad Hominem in a nutshell.

            1. No, Brett. Ad hominem would be if I said a factual claim of Blackman's was wrong because he was bad.

              You know this; don't jerk your knee so quick.

              1. He didn't say you made one, he pointed out that your statement was an excellent summary of how ad hominem attacks work.

                "The messenger is not irrelevant to the message" is the heart and soul of an ad hominem argument - and here you are, justifying it.

          2. In science, you address the argument, not the arguer.

            I politics, the opposite, because laws are often passed for hidden reasons rather than the public ones. So it becomes a game of hockey, where the puck is a stated reason no politician cares about.

            1. I'm talking about media, which can be about science or politics.

    2. Well, they do seem like reasonable takeaways, anyway.

      1. Right, you view the world through the same nasty lens that Josh does.

        1. ...Simon says, nastily, projecting in response to a non-nasty observation.

    3. Actually there's nothing in the piece about gun rights. Or anti-RGB.

      What he missed was that Couric was protecting the kneelers from the justified criticism, not RGB.

  9. What a shocking revelation!
    The press is a shill for the fascists.
    Damn. Whodathunkit?

    1. Since it's true onlt top the extent that Democrats are fascist, and you don't mean that, only loons like you.

  10. Shades of Adam Schefter...

  11. Between this and the ACLU, I wish the left would make up its mind.

    Was RGB a progressive icon and a heroine, or was she a ridiculous bigot who couldn't string a sentence together without it having to be redacted?

    1. Her only value to them was her vote on the SC. That's gone so now she's fair game for the usual attacks.

      Holding out to the end rather than resigning was a good choice for her, otherwise she would have seen all this shortly after stepping down.

      1. What are you talking about? The left is attacking RGB?

        1. Ah, yeah. Isn't that what we've been discussing?

          1. Not really. For Blackman's thesis I direct you to Martinned's pithy synopsis.

        2. In Bizarroworld the Left is just fine with RGB calling out the kneelers.

    2. I have absolutely no idea why you think "the left" can't possibly say something like, "Yes, RBG was awesome, even if she had screwy views on some issues."

      The left doesn't suffer from the same brain-rot that Trumpers do, where they have to lie to themselves about believing that their "heroes" are flawless.

      1. The left only kissed her ass until she was dead.

      2. Simon, because in recent years, it has been all or nothing. You are perfect or you are a monster to be deleted. This is why people go back years on social media. If you said something stupid at 13, certain groups will actively attempt to bully your job into firing you.

        And 99% of Trump supporters will agree that he's a jerk and that he's far from flawless. The majority disagree with him on at least one major issue.

        1. Trump supporters are happy to acknowledge that he’s a “jerk.” That’s the whole point. That’s why they like him. They only “disagree” with him when he does something that is too accommodating to the Republican establishment.

          I have never seen a single Trump supporter admit that Trump has any character flaw or has ever made any mistake, other than diverge from his inherent Trumpiness. Every decision is the right one.

      3. "I have absolutely no idea why you think “the left” can’t possibly say something like, “Yes, RBG was awesome, even if she had screwy views on some issues.”"

        They can, but they don't. They redact or conceal the screwy parts from her comments.

        "The left doesn’t suffer from the same brain-rot that Trumpers do, where they have to lie to themselves about believing that their “heroes” are flawless."

        They why do the edit what she says?

    3. Was she wrong? That might be an interesting debate and educational process.

      But education and thinking isn't what this was about. Enforcement of received wisdom through social terrorism, without allowing thought is.

  12. The media's always gone easy on Ginsburg. RGB claimed, without evidence, that her Chemistry professor sexually harassed her, and no one ever pushed back or asked her to justify her claim.

    1. I have absolutely no idea what (if anything) happened between her and the individual she accused.

      But as for the press going easy on her, absolutely they did. The only question is whether she's going to get cancelled now that she's passed on to a higher Judge.

      This latest thing is fairly bad from a Woke perspective. And for the woke, it's no defense to say, "but...but...I did so much for you people, you can't turn against me!"

      Now, remember that 2009 quote which got totally taken out of context to make her look like some kind of eugenicist racist?

      https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ruth-bader-ginsburg-and-roe-v-wade/

      Maybe the Woke will start throwing that in her face, too.

    2. What evidence of such an anecdote would you require?

      And why is that going easy, and yet the nonsense reported about schools you regularly post does not require corroboration?

      Some might think the truth was not your goal.

      1. "What evidence of such an anecdote would you require?"

        Assuming that said chemistry professor is identifiable, why would such an accusation not require some sort of evidence? If not legally, at least morally?

        1. TiP seems to jump over assuming to just attacking.

      2. "What evidence of such an anecdote would you require?"

        Well, she claimed that her Chemistry prof gave her a practice exam that turned out to be identical to the real exam, and she assumed that expected sex in return. Since she had no personal knowelege of her professor's expectations, maybe more than zero evidence would be nice.

        "And why is that going easy, and yet the nonsense reported about schools you regularly post does not require corroboration?"

        Sound fair?

        What nonsense? If you're referring to Garland siccing the FBI on people who complain about their daughter being raped at school, that's been largely corroborated.

        1. I see, you're just being obtuse in order to call RGB a liar. If you can't figure out how that would be understood as a quid pro quo, you're much more naiive than I know you are.

          You post single-sourced 'I took this educators' written statement like this' all the time. You never ask for corroboration for them.

          1. "I see, you’re just being obtuse in order to call RGB a liar. If you can’t figure out how that would be understood as a quid pro quo, you’re much more naiive than I know you are."

            To be clear, are you claiming that giving a student a practice exam that is identical to the actual exam, without more, is sexual harassment?

            Talk about obtuse!

            1. Hey, no, Sarcastro's experiences in school may have been different than yours. It's not your place to judge what decisions he may have made for his grades.

              1. Yeah, but we can at least let him know that he may not have had to do some of those things.

          2. I mean, how would such a "quid pro quo" system work?

            1. Woman innocently takes practice test.
            2. Woman takes real test, notices answers are the same.
            3. Woman says, "Gee, I guess I have to suck the professor's dick now."
            4. Woman goes to office and sucks professor's dick.

            Sounds like Sarcastro's been watching too much porn.

            Of course, even if the professor had such and expectation, IRL it would play out the way it did in RGB's case every time.

            And there's no evidence that the professor had such an expectation.

  13. But there's good news, too:

    Hulu, the streaming company, is paying for three statues of women, including RBG.

    "Hulu's 'Made by Her: Monuments' campaign is partnering with Brooklyn-based visual artist Saya Woolfalk, who will design these monuments and bring them to life in three American cities: civil human rights leader Coretta Scott King in Atlanta, conservationist Marjory Stoneman Douglas in Miami and Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in Los Angeles."

    Hulu points out that women are underrepresented in public art, so it's time to have monuments to three women whose contributions were previously unrecognized. King manages the image of her late husband, in whose honor a national holiday was proclaimed. There's RBG, who spent much of her underreported career successfully litigating before an obscure court and then serving on it. And Douglas, who published a highly influential book in 1947 which Wikipedia says "sold out of its first printing in a month" - so you can only imagine how well her book would sold if she hadn't been an obscure woman.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/la-city-approves-ruth-bader-ginsburg-monument/ar-AAPreEm

    https://abc7ny.com/made-by-her-monuments-percentage-of-statues-women-in-us-hulu-coretta-scott-king/10646021/

    And the fun part is that the benefits to the statue market may be even more than these articles report. If RBG gets cancelled because of a couple of blown-out-of-proportion remarks to the press, then they'll have to make *another* statue of *another* woman, just so there won't be any setback in the cause of making statues of women. More work to go around.

  14. Now THIS is some hard hitting, thoughtful libertarian journalism!!

  15. "Couric, 64, writes that she always tried to keep her 'personal politics' out of her reporting throughout her career."

    Her hit piece on the VCDL says otherwise.

    1. Her entire career says otherwise.

  16. Maybe RGB wasn't all bad.....?

    1. I thought she was a thug all these years but maybe I was wrong.

  17. I'd give better than even odds that RBG, having no idea who Colin Kaepernick is, assumed he was white. That's no excuse for what Couric did, but everything about RBG's side of the story makes more sense that way.

    1. So what construction do you put on :

      'contempt for a government that has made it possible for their parents and grandparents to live a decent life.'

      She said: 'Which they probably could not have lived in the places they came from…

      She was concerned about white footballers descended from dust bowl farmers being insufficently grateful for the New Deal ?

      1. Well, a rather considerable fraction of the population are descended from immigrants, not all of whom were brought here in chains. And the US is nice enough that it was a step up for virtually all of them.

        1. It's a good thing people like you are putting an end to that!

      2. She said: ‘Which they probably could not have lived in the places they came from…

        Actually, it hadn't occurred to me that RGB didn't know that the kneelers were mostly black, but if she thought they were black where do you think she thought those parents and grandparents, suddenly uplifted into living a decenr life, had come from?

        Sounds to me like maybe she got to where Biden is and couldn't get through a sentence without losing track. Mention parents and grandparents and she wandered off into talking about her own.

    2. "I’d give better than even odds that RBG, having no idea who Colin Kaepernick is, assumed he was white."

      I doubt that, but if Couric had been a better journalist, she could have followed up and we'd have a better understanding of what she meant.

  18. The day after the sit-down, the head of public affairs for the Supreme Court emailed Couric to say the late justice had 'misspoken' and asked that it be removed from the story.

    Seems like this implicates the head of public affairs of the Supreme Court. RBG didn't email herself, or get her secretary or a clerk or other acolyte to call, she used the official Supreme Court panjandrum to do it.

    And the "misspoken" characterisation is an actual lie. Of course it's a small and fairly routine lie, used by press secretaries the world over, to assert verbal confusion and to deny verbal accuracy plus second thoughts.

    But is the Supreme Court honcho really supposed to be patching over Justices' gaffes* with porkies - even conventional euphemistic porkies ? Somebody ought to check with said honcho and ask him if the Chief Justice has anything to say officially about the proper role of the public affairs department of the Supreme Court. We are used to press secretaries lying on their bosses behalf, but then we expect politicians and government departments to be lying through their teeth. But is a Supreme Court allegedly concerned for its reputation playing the same game with the Chief Justice's approval ?

    *not that RBG's perfectly sensible remarks were a gaffe, merely good wholesome toothpaste that had escaped from the tube.

    1. That did kind of occur to me. We expect better of the judiciary. Maybe we shouldn't expect better, and just accept that they're politicians in black robes, selected by politicians in suits?

      But, yes, there would be some hard questions asked about that, if the country still had journalists who were allowed to ask questions like that.

    2. What seemed odd to me was that the head of public affairs for the Supreme Court even knew what RGB had said. Was RGB accompanied by a minder who sat in on the interview and realized that, from a Prog point of view, RGB had made a mess on the floor?

    3. "Seems like this implicates the head of public affairs of the Supreme Court. RBG didn’t email herself, or get her secretary or a clerk or other acolyte to call, she used the official Supreme Court panjandrum to do it."

      If only there were some sort of profession dedicated to gathering facts. They one of those professionals could have responded and given RGB a chance to explain what she meant, rather than just burying the quote.

  19. Josh - you're a hack, and a hateful and awful person, and here is a good opportunity for you to reflect on what you're doing and see how this is so.

    One could have taken Couric's revelation about the interview as revealing that RBG's views were a bit more nuanced than we might commonly assume. Conservatives could come away with the understanding that partisan divides on the Court were maybe not quite so extreme as seems commonly assumed. RBG's position on free speech could have been revealed as not so much, "I support active opposition to America," as leftism is often lampooned as on the right, as "I recognize that America's most important values include a tolerance of public dissent that we might view as odious." Which is something that some conservatives purport to believe, as well.

    But no.

    You viewed this solely as an opportunity to smear RBG and take a shot at Couric. You ask, sneeringly, whether she would have been "excoriated" by the woke left for opposing anti-jingoist protests at football games. You add, giggling to yourself, that she probably would have been a TERF, too, to try to take a jibe at the Chapelle controversy swirling about right now. Do you care that her comments might admit to a bit of anachronistic blindness to her white, cis privilege. Do you take her comments to suggest that "the left" has more nuanced views of these issues than is sometimes conveyed on Twitter? No, of course not! You just think that the left would have a fit over it, and so you spin this tale about Couric "protecting" RBG from that kind of flak.

    You have to understand, Josh, that when you look at the world and you see it this way - as just opportunities to say good things about the right and nasty things about the left - rather than as an opportunity to deepen your understanding of humanity in general, something is fundamentally wrong with your brain. You are contributing to our hyper-partisan, nastiness-driven public discourse. You are making the country a worse place for those of us who would like to be able to disagree civilly again. You are engaged in an identity-driven grievance politics.

    Please, just stop.

    1. It is good to poke fun at social terrorism used to enforce orthodoxy of already-decided positions.

      Just in principle, if nothing else.

      It isn't about debating stupid things. It is about some deciding that it is already answered, the debate and educational process is over, and dissent must be crushed.

      Chapelle is an experiment. Once corporations realize there is no massive downside to not insta-firing people for the temerity of free speech, the power behind cancel culture will start to wane.

      1. And by that, I mean no measurable hits to the bottom line over twitter histrionics.

      2. I prefer to poke fun at melodramatic cries of 'social terrorism.'

        I look forwards to social 9-11 and the hunt for social Bin Laden.

    2. You viewed this solely as an opportunity to smear RBG...

      Your comment is stupid beyond words. There's nothing in Blackman's article that says anything negative about RGB at all, still less "smears" her.

  20. Just run of the mill media propaganda.

    And RGB gets something kinda right for once.

  21. AAAARRRGGHHHH!

    One of my minor pet peeves on full display in the comments section. Her name was Ruth Bader Ginsburg, not Ruth Gader Binsburg. Her initials are RBG, not RGB.

    1. I always called her CYMK anyway.

  22. Considering Katie Couric learned her churnalistic style from Jane Pauley, yes the one who used rocket motors to blow up trucks in order to "prove" the trucks were dangerous in a crash when they oddly couldn't get one to catch fire in repeated crashes, is it any wonder that she lies and distorts the truth? If she tried half the shit she has been given a pass on in regards to covid on twitter or facebook she'd be banned. - Correction: provided twitter or facebook didn't already share same political point of view -

    Maybe she wants the world to know that she was one of the white knights who protected RBG from the obvious scathing attacks she would have deservedly received. Maybe it's Katie's fault RBG didn't retire under such withering fire and by extension is responsible for Trump being able to pick RBG's replacement. Maybe she's a self centered narcissist who will do anything in her waning years to draw attention to herself just to sell a book. I'm actually surprised she's not running for office in order to sell the book.

  23. I'm shocked...SHOCKED, I TELL YOU...to learn that Katie Couric is a dishonest partisan hack masquerading as a journalist.

Please to post comments