Busted: Katie Couric edited interview with Ruth Ginsburg to conceal her opinion on National Anthem kneelers


Editor note: In 2020, we saw a nationwide push to “defund the police”.  While we all stood here shaking our heads wondering if these people were serious… they cut billions of dollars in funding for police officers.  And as a result, crime has skyrocketed – all while the same politicians who said “you don’t need guns, the government will protect you” continued their attacks on both our police officers and our Second Amendment rights.

And that’s exactly why we’re launching this national crowdfunding campaign as part of our efforts to help “re-fund the police”.

For those looking for a quick link to get in the fight and support the cause, click here.

Ah, leftists. They’re nothing if not phonies. The latest one to be outed is Katie Couric, who’s faded into oblivion since her “glory” days at NBC News. She has admitted editing an interview to protect former Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. 

In her new memoir (who would buy a Couric memoir?) she admitted that her 2016 interview on Yahoo News with the justice formerly known as RBG (Ginsburg) was edited to keep the snowflake liberals at bay.

Why would cute little Katie do such a thing? Because Ginsburg had the audacity…the unmitigated gall to criticize haters such as Colin Kaepernick who kneeled for the national anthem.

Breitbart News reported that in the original interview, then-Justice Ginsburg referred to the anthem protests as “dumb and disrespectful,” which Couric left in the interview. She decided however to omit parts that she believed were more troublesome.

For example, she cut out the portion where Ginsburg defined the protester’s conduct as showing “contempt for a government that has made it possible for their parents and grandparents to live a decent life.”

Continuing, the late Supreme Court justice 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.”

In an unbelievable case of arrogance, the Daily Mail noted Couric said in the book that it was her opinion that Ginsburg, then 83, was “too elderly and probably didn’t fully understand the question.”

Think about that last statement…Couric believed she (Ginsburg) was “too elderly” and “didn’t…understand the question,” yet she was still sitting on the Supreme Court making life and death decisions, a matter that Couric apparently didn’t take issue with?

Couric decided she should take it upon herself to try to protect the legacy of Ginsburg as something of a leftist icon, and believed that some of her comments would hold her up to disdain from the far-left liberals who worship her.

Couric said she struggled with balancing so-called “journalistic integrity” with “personal politics,” describing it as a “conundrum,” defining her comments as being “unworthy of a crusader for equality.” In other words, she had to make sure that Ginsburg’s persona didn’t take a hit.

At some point after the interview, Couric received a call from the head of public affairs for the Supreme Court in which she was asked to remove Ginsburg’s remarks about the anthem protesters, alleging she had misspoken.

The former head of ABC News, David Westin suggested Couric leave the comments in the report, while New York Times’ David Brooks claimed Ginsburg didn’t understand the question. In the end, Couric decided to compromise and left a censored version of her comments in the story.

Couric, who claimed she “lost a lot of sleep” over the issue at times questions her decision, adding that she “wanted to protect” Ginsburg over an issue that might have been a “blind spot” for her.

Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters?  Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you.  Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories.  Click to check it out.

LET Unity

In case you missed it, here is a piece we wrote ab0ut the late Supreme Court justice last year. 


WASHINGTON, DC- For all the caterwauling we hear from leftists and Democrats about the so-called “dying wish” of the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, that her seat not be replaced until “a new president is installed,” Law Enforcement Today has learned that particular point of view is contrary to previous comments she made.

Democrats have been whining and crying for the past couple of weeks that President Trump and Senate Republicans “don’t have the right” to fill her seat prior to next January.

However, that is contrary to comments that Ginsburg made all the way back in 2016. Oh, it’s politically expedient to claim the president “doesn’t have the right” to fill the seat, after all in 2016 when Justice Antonin Scalia passed away, Senate Republicans refused to push the nomination of his replacement forward.

As President Obama once said, “elections have consequences.” In 2016, Republicans had control of the Senate, while obviously Obama, a Democrat was president. The case this year is that Republicans have both the Senate and the White House. Elections have consequences.

In 2016, when Republicans refused to push Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to a vote, Justice Ginsburg said that:

“The president is elected for 4 years not 3 years, so the powers that he has in year 3 continue into year 4. Maybe some members of the Senate will wake up & appreciate that that’s how it should be.”


The Daily Wire also reported that Ginsburg, during a speech at Georgetown Law School on Sept. 7, 2016 said:

“As you know, the president has the authority to name appointees to the Supreme Court, but he has to do so with the advice and consent of the Senate. And if the Senate does not act, as this current Senate is not acting, what can be done about it?”

Justice Ginsburg continued:

“Even if you could conceive of a testing lawsuit, what would the response be? ‘Well, you want us to vote? So, we’ll vote no.’ But I do think that cooler heads will prevail; I hope sooner rather than later.

The president is elected for four years, not three years, so the power that he has in year three continue into year four and maybe some members of the Senate will wake up and appreciate that that’s how it should be.”

One argument made by liberals and Democrats is that with Ginsburg’s death, a “woman’s right to choose” is at risk.

What many pro-abortion advocates may not realize, however is that despite being an advocate for abortion, Justice Ginsburg had in fact criticized the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade.

As with conservatives, Ginsburg made the same argument they do—in that a right to privacy doesn’t have to do with whether an unborn child has a right to life or not.

Ginsburg did not feel that abortion was a privacy issue, rather an equal rights issue. One might also argue, although Ginsburg did not state this, that abortion is a state’s rights issue.

Sonja West, a law professor at the University of Georgia spoke to the Washington Post in 2016:

“The key to understanding Justice Ginsburg’s views on the constitutional right to abortion is that she sees it as a question of equal protection and not privacy.”  

While quite obviously Ginsburg was an abortion rights advocate, pro-abortion advocates dismiss any criticism of Roe v. Wade, and they might be disappointed that Ginsburg questioned how the ruling was framed.

One area that leftists and Democrats have been advocating is that of “packing” the Supreme Court—in other words, increasing the number of justices and appointing enough justices in an assumed Democratic Senate majority and presidency to completely change the ideology of the Court.

This would in essence make the Supreme Court a quasi-legislative branch, which would appear to be unconstitutional. Justice Ginsburg opposed the idea.

That’s one way Democrats operate—if you don’t like the game, change the rules. However, Justice Ginsburg had a different point of view in a 2019 interview with NPR.

“Nine seems to be a good number. It’s been that way for a long time,” she said. “I think it was a bad idea when President Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the court.”

She continued, “If anything would make the court look partisan. It would be that—one side saying, ‘When we’re in power, we’re going to enlarge the number of judges, so we would have more people who would vote the way we want them to.’”

Democrats often accuse President Trump and Republicans of acting like dictators. One would think if that was the case, President Trump and Mitch McConnell would have done exactly what Democrats are proposing—adding more justices to the court. Instead, it appears to be Democrats who are proposing to act like dictators.

Finally, Colin Kaepernick has become the “poster child” for Democrats of so-called “systemic racism” and the left has embraced Kaepernick and his kneeling “protests” when he was in the NFL. Because of course, America is an evil country and oppresses blacks.

When Kaepernick began to pull this stunt in 2016, conservatives heavily criticized him for kneeling during the national anthem, calling it disrespectful to those who have served in the military and especially to those who died defending our freedom. Justice Ginsburg (gasp!) agreed with conservatives.


“I think it’s dumb and disrespectful,” she said in October 2016. “I would have the same answer if you asked me about flag burning. I think it’s a terrible thing to do, but I wouldn’t lock a person up for doing it,” Ginsburg said.

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

After Ginsburg made those comments, she was widely criticized for the tone of her comments, for which she apologized. She did not, however apologize for the context of her statement.

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

Liberals and Democrats should take stock of all of Justice Ginsburg’s opinions prior to cherry-picking those which suit their agenda.

Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today?  With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.  

Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing!  (See image below.)  Thanks for being a part of the LET family!
Facebook Follow First
Submit a Correction
Related Posts