All errors should be reported to

Thursday, June 01, 2017

Obama-appointed judge lets Katie Couric off the hook

Barack Obama appointed Democrat John Gibney Jr. to a federal judgeship in eastern Virginia in 2010 as a favor to Democratic Senators Jim Webb and Mark Warner.

Gibney just tossed out a lawsuit against Katie Couric for defaming the Virginia Citizens Defense League in a Fake News documentary for Yahoo News.

From the Hollywood Reporter:
A Virginia judge has just shot down a $13 million lawsuit against Katie Couric, Stephanie Soechtig, Epix and others associated with the documentary Under the Gun.
The film, which premiered at the Sundance Film Festival in January, provoked controversy because of one scene in particular. In it, Couric asks gun rights advocates, "If there are no background checks for gun purchasers, how do you prevent felons or terrorists from purchasing a gun?"
Under the Gun shows those being interviewed in nine seconds of silence.
In response, the Virginia Citizens Defense League attempted to make the case that this pregnant pause was defamatory. In a complaint filed in federal court, the group and its members alleged that the "manipulated footage falsely informed viewers that the VCDL members had been stumped and had no basis for their position on background checks.
On Wednesday, U.S. District Court judge John Gibney, Jr. shredded the complaint and granted a motion to dismiss.
"The plaintiffs' defamation claims fail because the interview scene is not false," Gibney writes. "Under the Gun portrays members of the VCDL not answering the question posed by Couric. In reality, members of the VCDL did not answer the question posed by Couric. They talked about background checks and gun laws generally, but did not answer the question of how to prevent felons or terrorists from purchasing guns without background checks. The editing simply dramatizes the sophistry of the VCDL members."
Couric did her best to get Obama elected in 2008 in two interviews with Sarah Palin.

That just saved her $13 million.

On November 8, 2016, the American people said, "Trump the Establishment!"

Now read the book that explains how and why the press missed this historic election.

It is available on Kindle, and in paperback.

And then read the original, "Trump the Press," which chronicled and mocked how the media missed Trump's nomination.

It is available on Kindle, and in paperback

Autographed copies of both books are available by writing me at

Please follow me on Twitter.

Friend me on Facebook.


  1. This is why we want and need Trump to nominate judges.

    1. Before any residual trust in the system is completely gone.

  2. The judges "decision" merely demonstrates the sophistry of lawyers.

  3. Liberal Privilege. - Elric

  4. In this case, I agree with the judge's dismissal. Even though the manipulated video footage was misleading, it didn't rise (or sink) to the level of being legally defamatory. The case was a stretch from the start. In any interview by an agenda-driven broadcast personality like Couric, there is a danger of having your message distorted. Avoid such people unless you have a lot of previous experience dealing with them and do not be flattered by their request for an interview. Stick with reporters and journalists who have a long track record of being fair and honest with the public.

    1. I have to agree, although I'm not sure where one would find "reporters and journalists who have a long track record of being fair and honest with the public." They seem to be an endangered species.

    2. Said the man commenting on the blog of an endangered species.

    3. I think Sharyl Attkisson has the bona fides, as does Catherine Herridge of Fox. There are some out there who are trying to keep the profession honest and principled.

  5. It's not like I had judges on a pedestal anyway:

    --Montana state officials are not allowed to report the immigration status of people seeking state services, the state’s high court ruled on Tuesday.

    In a unanimous decision, the court struck down the last piece of a voter-approved law meant to deter undocumented immigrants from living and working in the “Treasure State.” It upholds a 2014 ruling stating that the law denying unemployment benefits, university enrollment and other services to people who are in the country illegally was unconstitutional.

    The Montana Supreme went further, rejecting the one remaining position that required state workers to report to federal immigration officials the names of applicants who are in the U.S. undocumented.--