Remember when trump became quite agitated at 60 Minutes?

[berg80]

Last fall, Kamala Harris sat down with CBS News’ “60 Minutes,” and when the pre-election interview aired, it included the kind of benign edits that are typical of broadcasts of its kind. Donald Trump, however, didn’t quite see it that way.

Rather, the Republican became rather hysterical about the largely meaningless edits, accusing the program of criminal misconduct, demanding that CBS lose its broadcast license, and even filing a $20 billion lawsuit over the manufactured controversy. (The network’s corporate parent recently settled the case out of court under controversial circumstances.)

Key Democrat sends letter to Fox News seeking info on edited Trump interview

As a key Democrat seeks new details from Fox News, the party appears to be taking “it’s time to get tougher and start playing hardball” advice to heart.

www.msnbc.com

Naturally, the allegation lead to trump devotees similarly becoming quite agitated. Feeding off the whole "MSM is biased against trump" frenzy.

And now, this.

Garcia specifically asked Fox News to turn over internal records about the interview, as well as communications about the interview between the network and the Trump campaign.

“Considering President Trump’s well-documented past social ties with Jeffrey Epstein, Fox News’s selective omission raises serious concerns that the network may have deliberately sought to shield then-candidate Trump from any further association with Epstein,” the letter read, adding, “it is legitimate to ask whether President Trump himself or those close to him may have actively encouraged” the edit.

Fox News issued a statement in response to Garcia's outreach, noting, among other things, “As previously stated, there was no selective or deceptive editing whatsoever."

There’s no shortage of angles to a story like this one, so let’s unpack it.

In the grand scheme of things, that being the abomination of trump 2.0, is this a very big deal? I don't think so. The idea that Faux would deceitfully edit an interview for trump's benefit is hardly surprising to anyone. But the aftermath of the Harris interview dust up does shine a light on how trump is successfully intimidating the media given the retributive powers he holds as POTUS.

Anyone who thinks Late Night on CBS is really being cancelled for financial reasons is naive. Now trump is suing Rupert Murdoch, personally, over the article published in the WSJ even though he has nothing to do with day to day operations. The message is clear. Don't publish negative stories about trump. It's what authoritarians do.

 

[The Duke]

Last fall, Kamala Harris sat down with CBS News’ “60 Minutes,” and when the pre-election interview aired, it included the kind of benign edits that are typical of broadcasts of its kind. Donald Trump, however, didn’t quite see it that way.

Rather, the Republican became rather hysterical about the largely meaningless edits, accusing the program of criminal misconduct, demanding that CBS lose its broadcast license, and even filing a $20 billion lawsuit over the manufactured controversy. (The network’s corporate parent recently settled the case out of court under controversial circumstances.)

Key Democrat sends letter to Fox News seeking info on edited Trump interview

As a key Democrat seeks new details from Fox News, the party appears to be taking “it’s time to get tougher and start playing hardball” advice to heart.

www.msnbc.com

Naturally, the allegation lead to trump devotees similarly becoming quite agitated. Feeding off the whole "MSM is biased against trump" frenzy.

And now, this.

Garcia specifically asked Fox News to turn over internal records about the interview, as well as communications about the interview between the network and the Trump campaign.

“Considering President Trump’s well-documented past social ties with Jeffrey Epstein, Fox News’s selective omission raises serious concerns that the network may have deliberately sought to shield then-candidate Trump from any further association with Epstein,” the letter read, adding, “it is legitimate to ask whether President Trump himself or those close to him may have actively encouraged” the edit.

Fox News issued a statement in response to Garcia's outreach, noting, among other things, “As previously stated, there was no selective or deceptive editing whatsoever."

There’s no shortage of angles to a story like this one, so let’s unpack it.

In the grand scheme of things, that being the abomination of trump 2.0, is this a very big deal? I don't think so. The idea that Faux would deceitfully edit an interview for trump's benefit is hardly surprising to anyone. But the aftermath of the Harris interview dust up does shine a light on how trump is successfully intimidating the media given the retributive powers he holds as POTUS.

Anyone who thinks Late Night on CBS is really being cancelled for financial reasons is naive. Now trump is suing Rupert Murdoch, personally, over the article published in the WSJ even though he has nothing to do with day to day operations. The message is clear. Don't publish negative stories about trump. It's what authoritarians do.

Remember Trump won a settlement for that?
$15 million.

 

[struth]

Last fall, Kamala Harris sat down with CBS News’ “60 Minutes,” and when the pre-election interview aired, it included the kind of benign edits that are typical of broadcasts of its kind. Donald Trump, however, didn’t quite see it that way.

Rather, the Republican became rather hysterical about the largely meaningless edits, accusing the program of criminal misconduct, demanding that CBS lose its broadcast license, and even filing a $20 billion lawsuit over the manufactured controversy. (The network’s corporate parent recently settled the case out of court under controversial circumstances.)

Key Democrat sends letter to Fox News seeking info on edited Trump interview

As a key Democrat seeks new details from Fox News, the party appears to be taking “it’s time to get tougher and start playing hardball” advice to heart.

www.msnbc.com

Naturally, the allegation lead to trump devotees similarly becoming quite agitated. Feeding off the whole "MSM is biased against trump" frenzy.

And now, this.

Garcia specifically asked Fox News to turn over internal records about the interview, as well as communications about the interview between the network and the Trump campaign.

“Considering President Trump’s well-documented past social ties with Jeffrey Epstein, Fox News’s selective omission raises serious concerns that the network may have deliberately sought to shield then-candidate Trump from any further association with Epstein,” the letter read, adding, “it is legitimate to ask whether President Trump himself or those close to him may have actively encouraged” the edit.

Fox News issued a statement in response to Garcia's outreach, noting, among other things, “As previously stated, there was no selective or deceptive editing whatsoever."

There’s no shortage of angles to a story like this one, so let’s unpack it.

In the grand scheme of things, that being the abomination of trump 2.0, is this a very big deal? I don't think so. The idea that Faux would deceitfully edit an interview for trump's benefit is hardly surprising to anyone. But the aftermath of the Harris interview dust up does shine a light on how trump is successfully intimidating the media given the retributive powers he holds as POTUS.

Anyone who thinks Late Night on CBS is really being cancelled for financial reasons is naive. Now trump is suing Rupert Murdoch, personally, over the article published in the WSJ even though he has nothing to do with day to day operations. The message is clear. Don't publish negative stories about trump. It's what authoritarians do.

Haha you dembots are desperate

 

[The Duke]

Haha you dembots are desperate

They become more shrill and desperate daily.
This one was a complete foot shooting.

 

[berg80]

They become more shrill and desperate daily.

What do you think the regime's next move will be to get angry MAGAist's who feel betrayed to get off the subject? I see Gabbard is doing her part by going after former Obama admin officials.

 

[The Duke]

What do you think the regime's nest move will be to get angry MAGAist's who feel betrayed to get off the subject? I see Gabbard is doing her part by going after former Obama admin officials.

Look at you, derailing your own OP.

 

[berg80]

Remember Trump won a settlement for that?
$15 million.

Yes I do. Most legal experts who have issued an opinion say CBS would have won the suit. The thing is, CBS has merger business pending before the regime so $15M was a reasonable price to pay to get it approved. One might call that extortion by Dotard.

 

[berg80]

They become more shrill and desperate daily.
This one was a complete foot shooting.

From AI...........Legal experts widely criticized Paramount Global's decision to settle President Trump's lawsuit against "60 Minutes" for $16 million, arguing that the suit was baseless and the settlement a capitulation that undermines press freedom. Many believe CBS had a strong legal position and could have successfully defended itself in court. The settlement, they argue, sets a dangerous precedent, emboldening powerful individuals to target the media with frivolous lawsuits.

 

[berg80]

Look at you, derailing your own OP.

A top oversight Democrat sent a letter on Thursday to Fox Corp chairman Lachlan Murdoch and Fox News Media CEO Suzanne Scott demanding answers about Fox’s editing of a Donald Trump interview from June 2024 concerning Jeffrey Epstein — an edit they say both misled the public and distorted the former president’s position. The letter from the ranking Democratic member on the House Oversight Committee, obtained first by CNN, accuses Fox of omitting key qualifiers in Trump’s response to a question about whether he would release Epstein-related documents.

 

[buckeye]

I see Gabbard is doing her part by going after former Obama admin officials.

What do you think of all that was released by Tulsi?

 

[struth]

Yes I do. Most legal experts who have issued an opinion say CBS would have won the suit. The thing is, CBS has merger business pending before the regime so $15M was a reasonable price to pay to get it approved. One might call that extortion by Dotard.

CBS lawyers, who knew far more then msdnc legal experts, obviously didn’t see it your way

 

[Oddball]

Yes I do. Most legal experts who have issued an opinion say CBS would have won the suit. The thing is, CBS has merger business pending before the regime so $15M was a reasonable price to pay to get it approved. One might call that extortion by Dotard.

Funny how that same basic argument is rejected out-of-hand by you cretinous moonbats over the settlement of Fakes Nooz with Dominion.

Not "funny" as in ha-ha, but as in pathetic.

 

[berg80]

What do you think of all that was released by Tulsi?

Ever since Dotard found out about Crossfire Hurricane he has sought to get revenge against those who participated in the investigation and to re-write the history of what happened. Tulsi is accommodating that desire.

The whole point of placing sycophantic hacks in high positions in the regime was because they could be relied on to do this very kind of thing.

If you want to make comments on that topic there's a thread for that. But not this one.

 

[MarcATL]

Republicans are the party of snowflakes led by the biggest snowflake of them all OP.

That's all this is.

 

[buckeye]

he has sought to get revenge against those who participated in the investigation and to re-write the history of what happened.

Please explain how Trump is rewriting history. What was the purpose of Crossfire Hurricane?

 

[struth]

Ever since Dotard found out about Crossfire Hurricane he has sought to get revenge against those who participated in the investigation and to re-write the history of what happened. Tulsi is accommodating that desire.

The whole point of placing sycophantic hacks in high positions in the regime was because they could be relied on to do this very kind of thing.

If you want to make comments on that topic there's a thread for that. But not this one.

To be fair ever since the American people learned of crossfire hurricane and the demafasict coup, they have sought revenge and got it in 2024

Now we seek justice

Demafascit are a cancer on our republic

 

[Crepitus]

Remember Trump won a settlement for that?
$15 million.

A payoff to get him to approve a merger CBS desperately wanted.

 

[berg80]

What do you think of all that was released by Tulsi?

It's recently declassified info that had already been in the possession of John Durham, Bob Mueller, and the Senate Intel Comm. (lead by Marco Rubio) when are three investigations came to conclusions in refute of Gabbard's allegations.

As transparent attempts at deflection go this one is bigly transparent.

 

[berg80]

Well, the deal is done. All it took was a $16M bribe and firing Stephen Cobert.

The Federal Communications Commission cleared the way Thursday for an $8 billion merger between Paramount and Skydance Media.

The deal, which was announced more than a year ago, includes the CBS broadcast television network, Paramount Pictures and the Nickelodeon channel.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/07/24/fcc-approves-8-billion-paramount-skydance-merger.html

 

[buckeye]

It's recently declassified info that had already been in the possession of John Durham, Bob Mueller, and the Senate Intel Comm. (lead by Marco Rubio) when are three investigations came to conclusions in refute of Gabbard's allegations.

Please link how you know this to be true.

The House report, which the committee's Republican staff finalized in December 2017 but updated through 2020, was so highly classified that it was stored at CIA headquarters before Ratcliffe sent it back to the House panel and ultimately toward public release, CBS News has learned.

The committee made it available to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, or ODNI, according to an ODNI official with knowledge of the declassification process. Gabbard would normally have been required to consult with the intelligence agencies that had contributed sensitive information to the report before declassifying it, but Mr. Trump — who made the decision to declassify the document with relatively few redactions — was not under the same obligations, the official said.

CIA Director Ratcliffe "strongly supports" Gabbard declassification of sensitive documents, agency says

The CIA chief "strongly supports" Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard's release of documents on Russian activity in 2016 — which sparked concerns about risks to sensitive sources and methods.

www.cbsnews.com