Paramount Agrees to pay Trump $16 million in CBS 60 Minutes lawsuit

[Rambunctious]

There was no judgement. He got a settlement.

He got the money... and you probably hate it... sorry...

 

[Rambunctious]

Marener when you have the responsibility to inform the public on especially political and social matters you MUST get it right... fair and unbiased reporting is essential to the survival of a republic.... do you know what the first casualty of the war of independence was?... it was the Kings news printing shops... our brave rebels burned them down...

 

[egp320i]

It's not illegal, though, is it?

And can a presidential candidate sue for this?

Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

Here's the transcript, I don't have time to go and find what was edited. But editing of answers happens ALL THE TIME.

using your power [media] to sway an election is illegal, trump filed and a judge said yes and he got rewarded, they got punished.
not sure what more there is to add

liberals love to beat a dead donkey, it's all you have

 

[frigidweirdo]

using your power [media] to sway an election is illegal, trump filed and a judge said yes and he got rewarded, they got punished.
not sure what more there is to add

liberals love to beat a dead donkey, it's all you have

No, using the media to sway an election is not illegal. If it were then Fox News would have to post unbiased news, they don't. The whole election they were spouting nonsense about the Democrats.

Trump himself has lied so many times, insulted so many times. If this were illegal Trump would owe the whole world all his money and more.

How Kamala Harris Gave Two Different Answers in 60 Minutes Interview

A recent interview with Vice President Kamala Harris on CBS' 60 Minutes has sparked controversy. Read on to know more.

www.comingsoon.net

"Well Bill, the work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by, or a result of many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region. And we're not going to stop doing that. We are not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end"

This is what Kamala said in response to a question. This is on page 13 of the transcript I posted.

This is the answer they put up a day later, after having aired the full quote the previous day

"“We are not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end.”"

Literally, they didn't post part of the answer.

They didn't make anything up, they cut bits.

Now, they started the interview on 60 minutes at page 9. So they cut EVERYTHING before page 9. Literally they wanted to piece together bits of what Kamala had said.

Of course you'll go off and say "beating a dead donkey".... but actually the issues here are HUGE.

Can a president sue everyone and anyone who says anything they don't like, with the threat that if the President doesn't win, they'll just go around making life hard for these people? The implications that the President isn't running the country, but running his own type of mafia, and stopping people from speaking.

Freedom of speech is literally preventing the US govt (which Trump is head of one part) from stopping people from talking.

This is exactly what Trump has done. Do you not care about your freedom of speech. Have you seen how China destroyed freedom of speech in Hong Kong? They're literally using government to harass people who say things the Chinese govt doesn't like.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Wow. Incredibly embarrassing for CBS and Kamala.

 

[egp320i]

No, using the media to sway an election is not illegal. If it were then Fox News would have to post unbiased news, they don't. The whole election they were spouting nonsense about the Democrats.

Trump himself has lied so many times, insulted so many times. If this were illegal Trump would owe the whole world all his money and more.

How Kamala Harris Gave Two Different Answers in 60 Minutes Interview

A recent interview with Vice President Kamala Harris on CBS' 60 Minutes has sparked controversy. Read on to know more.

www.comingsoon.net

"Well Bill, the work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by, or a result of many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region. And we're not going to stop doing that. We are not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end"

This is what Kamala said in response to a question. This is on page 13 of the transcript I posted.

This is the answer they put up a day later, after having aired the full quote the previous day

"“We are not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end.”"

Literally, they didn't post part of the answer.

They didn't make anything up, they cut bits.

Now, they started the interview on 60 minutes at page 9. So they cut EVERYTHING before page 9. Literally they wanted to piece together bits of what Kamala had said.

Of course you'll go off and say "beating a dead donkey".... but actually the issues here are HUGE.

Can a president sue everyone and anyone who says anything they don't like, with the threat that if the President doesn't win, they'll just go around making life hard for these people? The implications that the President isn't running the country, but running his own type of mafia, and stopping people from speaking.

Freedom of speech is literally preventing the US govt (which Trump is head of one part) from stopping people from talking.

This is exactly what Trump has done. Do you not care about your freedom of speech. Have you seen how China destroyed freedom of speech in Hong Kong? They're literally using government to harass people who say things the Chinese govt doesn't like.

wow, that was a good tangent! If the judge thought trump was wrong why did he rule in his favor?

If you have proof fox edited on purpose any interview of biden or obama to paint them in a different light I'd love to see this evidence.

CBS is far left and they doctored her interview to paint her as smart by taking out her dumbass answers, they got caught

not sure why you are pinning over this so badly

 

[frigidweirdo]

wow, that was a good tangent! If the judge thought trump was wrong why did he rule in his favor?

If you have proof fox edited on purpose any interview of biden or obama to paint them in a different light I'd love to see this evidence.

CBS is far left and they doctored her interview to paint her as smart by taking out her dumbass answers, they got caught

not sure why you are pinning over this so badly

I'm not sure a judge did.

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/07/02/media/cbs-trump-60-minutes-paramount-settlement

"Paramount settles Trump’s ‘60 Minutes’ lawsuit with $16 million payout and no apology"

They settled. In other words, they paid the $16 million instead of having Trump on their back about the merger.

"CBS News parent Paramount Global has agreed to pay $16 million to resolve an extraordinary lawsuit filed by President Donald Trump over a “60 Minutes” news report last fall."

 

[martybegan]

Evidently they were worried that the authoritarian would hold up their merger and impact their profits.

It’s the opinion of the ******* Supreme Court, dipshit.

The case should have been immediately dismissed by they judge shopped to a total jack in butt **** Texas who loves being wrong about the law when it helps his corrupt leaders.

The SC hasn't ruled on this case.

 

[martybegan]

Wow the New York Post...

No credibility.

LOL

 

[buckeye]

It's not illegal, though, is it?

Election interference sure is.

 

[buckeye]

But editing of answers happens ALL THE TIME.

Sure it does. But when it happens to enhance a person by changing her answers right before a presidential candidate faces an election, that's election interference.

 

[Marener]

The SC hasn't ruled on this case.

Unless they decide to overturn Citizens United just so that they can bend the rules for Trump, it’s controlling precedent. Not that the jack judge they shopped for gives a shit about any of that.

 

[Marener]

Sure it does. But when it happens to enhance a person by changing her answers right before a presidential candidate faces an election, that's election interference.

All they did was edit down her answer for brevity.

It didn’t change the answer.

It’s not election interference.

Trump lied.

 

[martybegan]

Unless they decide to overturn Citizens United just so that they can bend the rules for Trump, it’s controlling precedent. Not that the jack judge they shopped for gives a shit about any of that.

Again Citizens united also requires that the person advocating for a candidate come clean about said advocacy.

That's why you hear the quick "paid for by X" at the end of the TV ad.

What 60 minutes did was in kind contribute to Harris' campaign by helping her un-muck her interview with content editing, not editing for time.

 

[Marener]

Again Citizens united also requires that the person advocating for a candidate come clean about said advocacy.

That's why you hear the quick "paid for by X" at the end of the TV ad.

What 60 minutes did was in kind contribute to Harris' campaign by helping her un-muck her interview with content editing, not editing for time.

No it doesn’t. You don’t even know what Citizen United is about. It’s not about a political ad, dipshit. It was about a movie.

Moreover, do you think that people don’t know who pays for 60 Minutes? Are you that ******* stupid!

 

[martybegan]

No it doesn’t. You don’t even know what Citizen United is about. It’s not about a political ad, dipshit. It was about a movie.

Moreover, do you think that people don’t know who pays for 60 Minutes? Are you that ******* stupid!

But it carried over to the fact that you can't restrict people from advocating for a candidate even if they aren't part of the campaign.

Hence the "this ad paid for by X" at the end of every one since Citizens United.

 

[Marener]

But it carried over to the fact that you can't restrict people from advocating for a candidate even if they aren't part of the campaign.

Hence the "this ad paid for by X" at the end of every one since Citizens United.

Except that’s exactly what you think you’re doing to CBS. Restricting their ability to advocate.

 

[buckeye]

All they did was edit down her answer for brevity.

Uh, no.

CBS News Aired 2 Different Answers to Same Question from Harris' '60 Minutes' Interview

Former U.S. President Donald Trump claimed the edits constituted a "giant fake news scam" and demanded CBS' broadcast license be revoked.

www.snopes.com

They changed her answer and then refused to release the transcripts.

All they had to do was release the transcript to prove what you believe and they refused. They were obviously protecting the word salad woman and that's election interference.

 

[martybegan]

Except that’s exactly what you think you’re doing to CBS. Restricting their ability to advocate.

They can advocate but they have to come clean about it. They lied when they said they didn't edit the interview.

And they showed their bias in their editing of the DeSantis interview to make it look like he brushed off a question, where instead he gave a detailed answer. They didn't cut down the answer, they cut it out ENTIRELY.

 

[Marener]

Uh, no.

CBS News Aired 2 Different Answers to Same Question from Harris' '60 Minutes' Interview

Former U.S. President Donald Trump claimed the edits constituted a "giant fake news scam" and demanded CBS' broadcast license be revoked.

www.snopes.com

They changed her answer and then refused to release the transcripts.

All they had to do was release the transcript to prove what you believe and they refused. They were obviously protecting the word salad woman and that's election interference.

They did release the transcript and it’s exactly what they did. Your source is out of date.

Trump claim ‘60 Minutes’ replaced Harris’ interview is wrong

President Donald Trump’s monthslong feud with CBS News’ "60 Minutes" reignited after the news program released the full,

www.politifact.com

Do you think there’s some law against editing an interview for time?