According to what was stated in the mediation today, Today 101 Donald Trump from his second term, between the Trump legal team and the parent company, the parent company CBS, to try to resolve the president's suit of $ 20 billion against the network on the way that a 60 minutes An interview with Kamala Harris was edited.
Since Paramount Global seeks to obtain the Trump administration's approval to integrate with Skydance, the company is keen to close the deal, and the lawsuit is seen as a comment. The president said he was asking “a lot” to settle the case.
There is a reason for many in CBS News, and 60 minutes In particular, they feel panic from the idea of settlement: Many legal experts believe that Trump's suit is doubtful. CBS lawyers have made this argument in their files in the case, and a monetary settlement is likely to be seen as a reward for paving the way for organizational approval in the end.
Looking at the conspiracies of companies and multiple regulatory tapes that revolve around the issue and review the integration, the actual advantages of the issue are often lost.
File a lawsuit against Trump on a 60 minutes An interview about an answer that Harris gave to the correspondent Bill Whitaker. He asked her why Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was not listening to the Biden administration.
Harris replied, “Well, Bell, that the work we have done has led to a number of movements in that region by Israel that Israel has largely pushed, or as a result of many things, including our call to what is happening in the region. We will not stop doing so. We will not stop following up on what is necessary for the United States to reach the place where we take care of this need for war.”
The second part of Harris's answer was shown 60 minutes Broadcast on October 7. The first part was shown one day ago, in a preview slice of Facing the nation.
Bill Whitaker and Kamala Harris in the “60 minutes” elections, especially last October
CBS news
CBS says that the non -free text shows that 60 minutes Harris's imitated answer is in the interest of time, which is a common practice in the industry. Trump, though, claims that the network was deceptive to make Harris look better, to enhance its electoral chances.
Therefore, in the current environment of the growing attacks on the media by the administration and others, here Six reasons Legal experts say that Trump's lawsuit is trivial:
1) This is not a defamation. Unlike a number of other Trump lawsuits against the media, this is not an issue about anything that was said about it. In fact, Trump did not participate in 60 minutes An episode, which is a special election characterized by traditionally sit -in interviews with both main candidates for parties.
Instead, Trump claims this 60 minutes Texas deceptive commercial practices law, a law usually used by consumers against wrong ads. CBS argued that its editorial rulings are a non -commercial speech, the first protected amendment, which falls outside the law, as well as a federal law cited by the Trump team, Lanham Law, which is usually used in wrong declaration cases.
Noah Feldman, a law professor at Harvard University, wrote about the opinion of Bloomberg in November, “CBS is not commercial, it is news. It does not provide anything for sale. If the news is on a network with ads calculated as a commercial speech, then the first amendment as we know that it will occupy its most important effects.
Feldman also wrote that there was a reason the case was presented as Amarilo, Texas. Feldman noted that there is only one federal judge, Matthew Kacmarik, who is appointed by Trump, and has issued a number of “very conservative” positions in recent years. In the class request, the CBS legal team argues that the issue is “shopping in the forum” and that it was the improper place to be presented.
The network's legal team also indicated that Trump's lawsuit lacks evidence of a claim under the Texas Law. They pointed out that Trump did not even provide evidence that he and the other prosecutor were in the case, former White House doctor Ronnie Jackson (R-TX), consumers “bought or rented” CBS goods or services, or that they were “really confused or misleading”, or that they “adopted harm to any wrong or misleading representation.”
Trump, for his part, has repeatedly defended the lawsuit. Today, he called his issue as a “real winner”, and that the network “deceived and defrauded the American people at unprecedented levels in the political arena.” His lawyers wrote in their complaint that Facing the nation The inspection was “a commercial speech calculated to attract attention to the special elections; and the inspection that was ultimately promoted the content, which was completely different from what the defendants announced.”
In other words, Trump's team claimed that Facing the nation Promoter 60 minutes It represents an advertisement that falls within the Texas Law. But the clip that was broadcast Facing the nation It was inside this broadcast, not during a commercial break.
2) 20 billion dollars in damage. Trump is looking for a huge personality is (A) more than twice the value of Skydance-Paramount; And (b) more than what was spent by all the presidency, the Senate, the House of Representatives, political parties and interest groups in the 2024 elections, according to the respondent policy center.
Trump's initial lawsuit, submitted in October, requested $ 10 billion as compensation. Raise a modified lawsuit in February, doubled the number. These enlarged claims may be a sign that the plaintiff seeks to intimidate the other side, even if they have difficulty proving that they were exposed to these losses.
Directv
3) Donald Trump won the elections. Trump's preliminary lawsuit focused on claiming that, by strengthening Harris's election horizons, 60 minutes He was hurting him.
But Trump went to win the elections. CBS says that the truth concludes its claim with harm, and that even if the argument is that he suffered from the dollars of collecting lost donations, the damage to the campaign, not Trump personally. The campaign is not claiming in the case.
4) The new president's theory of damage. In a modified lawsuit, Trump presented a new argument on how he was in Harris Strip: by broadcasting 60 minutes An interview, CBS “incorrectly” transforming “from his media platforms, including the social fact. This has led to the loss of consumer participation, advertising and profits for the Trump group of media, technology and other holdings.
The CBS legal team indicated that Trump's claims depend on the “speculative assumptions” that the courts rejected. But think about what it is in fact to prove that a group of viewers decided on October 7 to move away from the social truth and its operation 60 minutes. The numbers also showed that the broadcast was not good, overlooking the other broadcast shows in that evening, but it was hardly great: that night, on Monday, 60 minutes Drew 5.7 million viewers, for each Nielsen. This is also less than 7.4 million, and the average offer during the season was usually broadcast on Sunday evening.
Meanwhile, Trump's shares jumped 60 minutes The Stock Exchange, from $ 18.39 on October 7 to $ 51.51 on October 29. Then, the stocks were in a group of cylinder in the days before the elections, which are likely to be affected by the Trump election prospects and the results of the company's profits.
Clarification of photos by Adrien Fillon/Nurphoto via Getty Images
An event that caused such a alleged financial strike, the Trump group did not mention the media and technology 60 minutes The broadcast in its press statement in February, which was reported to the results of 2024, and was not specifically cited in his annual report. Instead, losses are attributed to other factors. TMTG is also not the plaintiff in the case. Trump.
Another one note: The maximum market for TMTG is about $ 5.3 billion, or about a quarter of the subsidized Trump damage.
[Disclosure: Deadline Media, LLC and more than a dozen other media outlets are defendants in a lawsuit filed by Trump Media and Technology Group, Inc., parent company of Truth Social, regarding reporting on the company’s financial status.]
5) Harris answers. Facing the nation One part of Harris's answer ran 60 minutes The other part ran. While the first is a little more mixed than the latter, the answer is mysterious. The president at the time had already had a reputation in giving such types of responses. Its authorities were well known, and even were the subject of the pre -election book, while its supporters embraced some of them as the imams.
In short, it is difficult to see how either the answer to the question, or combined together, would suddenly change feelings in the presidential competition. Harris lost.
6) There is the first amendment. “Whatever the legal reasons for taking action may be invented by the prosecutors, the first amendment prevents their attack on the freedom to liberate CBS,” CBS lawyers said last month. They also referred to the judicial precedents that support their claim that the LANAM law and the deceptive commercial practices law in Texas does not extend to a non -commercial discourse, such as the editorial decisions of the media, including the materials listed in a story and what is otherwise.
“These cuts are protected by the first amendment, which guarantees the extensive press freedom to make editorial decisions about the content that cooks or air. The laws like Texas are designed to prevent used car vendors from moving to unprecedented buyers, not to invite the police,” wrote Will Kerily, the legal director of the Rights and Expression Corporation last month.
Think about the alternative: Any candidate is upset with coverage that can simply sue the law if he or she hates the way the news broadcast or published online, written or mode, even those that revolve around their opponents. There are also many more important examples of the real autumn campaign bomb that did not lead to huge lawsuits and billions of dollars, such as 60 minutes the secondAn apology for the 2004 report on George W. Bush's military service, or Brett Bayer Lester's regret for the 2016 statement that it is likely to result in the indictment from a federal investigation at the Clinton Foundation.
The CBS Legal team noticed the opinion of Judge Neil Jorsh in Tiktok's decision last year. “The good content of one man is the” editorial estimate “of another. Journalists, publishers and speakers of all kinds routinely shall have transparent rulings about the stories that must be listed and how to tell them.
