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

[Marener]

Broadcasting a fake video to deceive voters into thinking one candidate is better than they are.

It's fine if you do that and call it a campaign ad. But if you call it "news", then it's election interference, and, as CBS themselves told us in 2021, that's insurrection.

What do you mean by calling it a “fake video”?

 

[Marener]

No he didn’t, we all saw the videos

Why do you lie about something so obvious?

Yep. He did.

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

 

[WEATHER53]

Trump lied.

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

CBS is dealing with an authoritarian.

As I said several posts ago, we know you have the delusion that your feelings and wishes are more correct than CBS executives shilling out multi millions.
Now but…but…but.. us some more oh infantile one

 

[martybegan]

Campaign finance is prosecuted by the government, not individuals.

It’s also nowhere in the lawsuit, because it’s complete ******* nonsense.

They edited down the response to make it shorter so that the interview would fit into their broadcast.

That’s standard practice.

Bull ******* shit. They selectively edited DeSantis to make it look like he blew off a response, and they selectively edited Harris to remove the mish mosh to make her look more coherent.

 

[ColonelAngus]

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT MR PRESIDENT…..THIS IS 60 MINUTES!

- Lesley Stahl about the Hunter Biden laptop being fake when Trump said it was real.

Well guess what, you smug self righteous *****, THE LAPTOP IS REAL AND NOW 60 MINUTES GOT BUSTED CAMPAIGNING FOR KAMALA.

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, Mrs. Stahl…..YOU ARE A DUMB WHORE. **** YOU AND **** LYING 60 MINUTES.

 

[marvin martian]

What do you mean by calling it a “fake video”?

fake1
/fāk/

noun
noun: fake; plural noun: fakes

1. a thing that is not genuine; a forgery or sham.
   "the painting was a fake"
   
   Similar:
   forgery
   counterfeit
   copy
   sham
   fraud
   hoax
   imitation
   mock-up
   dummy
   reproduction
   lookalike
   likeness
   phoney
   pirate
   knockoff
   rip-off
   dupe
   • a person who appears or claims to be something that they are not.

 

[Marener]

Bull ******* shit. They selectively edited DeSantis to make it look like he blew off a response, and they selectively edited Harris to remove the mish mosh to make her look more coherent.

That’s your opinion. Not a fact.

Of course you can’t tell the difference.

 

[martybegan]

That’s your opinion. Not a fact.

Of course you can’t tell the difference.

It's obvious to anyone not a SJW **** like you and your ilk.

The fact is they edited both interviews, the obvious TRUTH is they did so to make DeSantis look bad, and to make Harris look better.

 

[Marener]

fake1
/fāk/

noun
noun: fake; plural noun: fakes

1. a thing that is not genuine; a forgery or sham.
   "the painting was a fake"
   
   Similar:
   forgery
   counterfeit
   copy
   sham
   fraud
   hoax
   imitation
   mock-up
   dummy
   reproduction
   lookalike
   likeness
   phoney
   pirate
   knockoff
   rip-off
   dupe
   • a person who appears or claims to be something that they are not.

The video was real.

 

[Marener]

It's obvious to anyone not a SJW **** like you and your ilk.

The fact is they edited both interviews, the obvious TRUTH is they did so to make DeSantis look bad, and to make Harris look better.

It’s a fact that they edited the interview. It’s your opinion as to why they edited the interview.

Even if they wanted to make Harris look good, they’re entitled to do so by the first amendment. That’s emphasized by the Citizen’s United case.

 

[martybegan]

It’s a fact that they edited the interview. It’s your opinion as to why they edited the interview.

Even if they wanted to make Harris look good, they’re entitled to do so by the first amendment. That’s emphasized by the Citizen’s United case.

Not when they claimed they didn't do it, and not when it gives an advantage to one candidate over others.

You notice Citizen's united allowed ads have to say who paid for the advertisement, right?

 

[Mashmont]

Paramount has agreed to pay Trump $16 million to settle the lawsuit Trump filed against them over an edited interview on 60 Minutes during last year's election cycle. The interview in question involved Kamala Harris, and the lawsuit claimed that it was maliciously and deceptively edited to make her appear smarter and more competent in her Oct 7, 2024 interview.

Paramount agrees to pay $16 million to settle Trump's CBS ‘60 Minutes' lawsuit

President Trump had filed a $20-billion lawsuit claiming a ‘60 Minutes' interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris was manipulated to show her in a flattering light. Trump alleged the news interview was 'election-threatening.'

www.latimes.com

I would take CBS to the cleaners.

 

[Marener]

Not when they claimed they didn't do it, and not when it gives an advantage to one candidate over others.

You notice Citizen's united allowed ads have to say who paid for the advertisement, right?

What they claimed makes absolutely no difference because that claim is also protected by the first amendment. Same with whether they did it to help Harris, still protected by the first amendment.

You have nothing except your hypocritical view of the first amendment.

 

[martybegan]

What they claimed makes absolutely no difference because that claim is also protected by the first amendment. Same with whether they did it to help Harris, still protected by the first amendment.

You have nothing except your hypocritical view of the first amendment.

Not when it involves a federal election where it can be considered an in kind campaign contribution.

And not when they lie about doing it.

 

[ColonelAngus]

She answered a word salad, so then 60 minutes put in an answer she gave to another question.

They deceptively edited the interview to help Kamala look better.

Basically, 60 minutes campaigned for Kamala.

 

[konradv]

Paramount has agreed to pay Trump $16 million to settle the lawsuit Trump filed against them over an edited interview on 60 Minutes during last year's election cycle. The interview in question involved Kamala Harris, and the lawsuit claimed that it was maliciously and deceptively edited to make her appear smarter and more competent in her Oct 7, 2024 interview.

Paramount agrees to pay $16 million to settle Trump's CBS ‘60 Minutes' lawsuit

President Trump had filed a $20-billion lawsuit claiming a ‘60 Minutes' interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris was manipulated to show her in a flattering light. Trump alleged the news interview was 'election-threatening.'

www.latimes.com

Extortion made “legal”!

 

[Marener]

Not when it involves a federal election where it can be considered an in kind campaign contribution.

And not when they lie about doing it.

Yes, when it involves a federal election. Citizens United involved a federal election, dipshit. It wasn’t an in kind donation, it was free speech.

 

[Marener]

She answered a word salad, so then 60 minutes put in an answer she gave to another question.

Trump lied about that. You believed him.

 

[Foxfyre]

Define “election manipulation”.

Define “election manipulation”.

Anything that unethically attempts to change the outcome of an election.

 

[Foxfyre]

They edited down to completely change what she sounded like. The fact she couldn’t put together a coherent thought was an issue, they tried to make her sound better

That’s not standard practice

Not standard practice. Not ethical. And according to a leftist news source and no doubt left leaning court, sufficiently materially harmful to merit a $16 MILLION dollar judgment.