Katie Couric, the third rate reporter, who has been largely forgotten, should be ashamed of herself for the fraudulent editing of her doc.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 31, 2016

I just got off the phone with Philip Van Cleave of the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL). The VCDL is the group apparently libeled via fraudulent editing in Katie Couric’s Under the Gun, a rabidly anti-gun film.

The film’s director, Stephanie Soechtig, was caught replacing a detailed, more than four-minute answer by three VCDL members to an obvious gun control question with eight seconds of VCDL members during a break taken during more than two hours of filming. The obvious intent of such an edit was to fraudulently make it appear that Couric’s question had stumped the group of gun rights supporters. In reality, the audio tape Van Cleave made of the exchange showed that the VCDL offered a multi-layered, well-reasoned response.

A bemused Van Cleave noted that in Couric’s recently published, semi-hidden apology on the Under the Gun web site (the cryptically linked “Message from Katie”), the transcript offered by Couric cut out the full VCDL response yet again.

According the the partial transcript Couric included in her “message,” the segment ended here.

FEMALE: I would take another outlook on this. First, I’ll ask you what crime or what law has ever stopped a crime? Tell me one law that has ever stopped a crime from happening.

Van Cleave noted that this partial transcript stops just 1:45 into a segment. The full conversation about this topic is actually 4:45 long. Couric once again cut VCDL three full minutes short.

You can listen to the entire segment here.

Why did Couric not provide the actual, full transcript from this segment of the interview? Why did Couric stop the transcript at a point that it sounds like a disjointed response instead of a rhetorical question designed to further the conversation?

Those and other questions may be among those Couric may have to answer under oath.

VCDL is weighing their legal options to having their response being fraudulently represented in the film, including a possible libel case.