CBS stalwart reveals 'the truth' about edited Kamala Harris interview that Trump is suing the network over
Veteran CBS correspondent Lesley Stahl has lashed out in 'anger' at her corporate overloads potentially settling Donald Trump 's $20 billion lawsuit, arguing edits of Kamala Harris' 'word salad' were done to save time rather than deceive its audience.
Speaking candidly on The New Yorker Radio Hour, Stahl, 83, addressed the controversy over an October 2024 60 Minutes segment featuring Kamala Harris, 60, which Trump alleges was edited to make the then-Vice President appear more coherent and electable.
Trump, 78, sued CBS - the parent company of '60 minutes' - just days before the 2024 presidential election for $20 billion.
He and his lawyers claim that the show edited an interview with Harris in a way that hurt his 2024 campaign.
However, according to Stahl, the editing choices stemmed not from political bias but from routine time constraints.
'There was a very long answer,' Stahl explained. '"60 Minutes" ran one part of the answer in Bill [Whitaker]'s piece, and "Face the Nation" chose another part of the same answer to run on theirs. We are under time constraints, and this was done for time.
'We edit to keep our pieces down to a certain length. And this is what Mr. Trump sued over,' the former Face the Nation anchor continued.
Stahl's comments directly dispute Trump's accusation that CBS engaged in deceptive editing to aid Harris's public image during a critical election period.
'What he said was that you made clear what had actually been a word salad,' New Yorker journalist, David Remnick, who conducted Stahl's interview recounted, summarizing Trump's claim.
'In other words, what he was accusing '60 Minutes' of doing was trying to make Kamala Harris look better,' Remnick added.
But, the seasoned journalist emphasized that both programs - 60 Minutes and Face the Nation - merely used different portions of the same answer to accommodate their differing formats.
'That what we did. We just ran two different halves of the same answer,' she affirmed.
At the heart of the legal dispute is Trump's assertion that CBS's editorial decisions were politically motivated. However, Stahl views the lawsuit as little more than a pressure tactic.
'What is really behind it, in a nutshell, is [an effort] to chill us,' she said. 'There aren't any damages. He accused us of editing Kamala Harris in a way to help her win the election. But he won the election.'
Despite the lawsuit's seemingly flimsy legal foundation - Stahl flatly called it 'a frivolous lawsuit' - CBS is reportedly engaged in settlement negotiations.
Shari Redstone, chair of Paramount Global and a key decision-maker in the network's corporate hierarchy, is said to be open to compromise, according to the New Yorker.
Instead of fighting the lawsuit, Redstone wants to settle to stay on good terms with the President while waiting for FCC approval of a major deal.
On Wednesday, The Wall Street Journal reported that Paramount offered Trump $15 million to settle, but his team rejected it, demanding at least $25 million and a formal apology.
But, Redstone's openness to settling has since raised eyebrows within the newsroom, even as Stahl downplays internal discord.
'They're in negotiations to settle this lawsuit. Shari Redstone seems willing to compromise. I have to think that the newsroom at '60 Minutes' must be in incredible turmoil,' Remnick probed.
'Turmoil is too strong a word,' Stahl replied sternly. 'That suggests we almost couldn't function, but that's not true.'
Still, the situation has stirred unease among some staffers, particularly with Bill Owens, the former executive producer of 60 Minutes, who has since left the outlet.
Stahl explained that her former 'hero' ditched the outlet after 37 years because 'he was being asked to either not run pieces or to change parts of the stories.'
A CBS spokesperson told the New Yorker that no stories have been blocked by Paramount or CBS management.
Stahl has since expressed 'anger' at her corporate overlords.
'To have a news organization come under corporate pressure - to have a news organization told by a corporation, "Do this, do that" with your story, "change this, change that," "don't run that piece" - I mean, it steps on the First Amendment, it steps on the freedom of the press.
'It steps on what we stand for. It makes me question whether any corporation should own a news operation. It is very disconcerting. As I said, we have had pressure before, in earlier owners. And yet...'
However, the CBS correspondent stood firm in her journalistic duty to the people, telling the New Yorker she hopes her higher-ups 'hold the freedom of the press up as a beacon.'
'I'm just, frankly, and this is being a little Pollyannaish, hoping that [Larry's son] David Ellison and the people he brings in to run his organization hold the freedom of the press up as a beacon, that they understand the importance of allowing us to be independent and do our jobs.'
'That would be the best outcome,' she added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
31 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Dr Martens returns to growth as bootmaker pledges to stamp out costs
Dr Martens shares soared more than 20 per cent on Thursday after the iconic bootmaker revealed it expects to return to profit this year. The retailer, which has struggled for momentum over the last two years, outlined plans to cut costs and scale back discounting in its key markets, including the US and Europe. Dr Martens revealed an annual profit slump as sales came under pressure and it cautioned over ongoing falling revenues in Britain. The footwear group reported pre-tax profits of £8.8million for the year to 30 March, down from £93million the previous year, after seeing sales fall 10 per cent. On an underlying basis, the group's pre-tax profits fell sharply to £34.1million from £97.2million. The company said sales to consumers in the US returned to growth in the second half of the year and had continued to increase, but revealed revenues had remained lower since the year-end 'due to a challenging market'. It added that unfavourable foreign exchange rates would see it take a hit to group sales and profits of around £18million and £3million respectively this year. However, Dr Martens said it expects its underlying profit to rise 'significantly' over the financial year ahead, with analysts expecting a jump to between £54million and £74million. Dr Martens shares rose 21.77 per cent or 13.05p to 73.00p on Thursday, having fallen over 13 per cent in the last year. On curbing discounts, the group said: 'As we look forward into FY26, we will reduce discounting in Americas and EMEA, across both our own ecommerce channel and through wholesale, with the aim of driving full price sales.' The group flagged uncertainty over the impact of higher tariffs, but said it was holding off from price rises for the the remainder of 2025. Its stock is already in the US market for the spring and summer season and either there or on its way for the autumn and winter months. Dr Martens said: 'We do however recognise that there is continued macroeconomic uncertainty and the full outcome of tariffs is still unknown, and we will monitor this closely through the year and take action as appropriate.' The Northamptonshire-based company outlined new plans for growth alongside its results, with aims to attract new shoppers and hold off from discounts in EMEA and the Americas. Annual figures showed sales sales fell 11.4 per cent over the year, although retail lifted 1 per cent in the final six months of the period. In the Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA) region, sales fell 11 per cent, with direct-to-consumer difficulty amid a highly promotional market, particularly in Britain, the group said. The company, whose yellow-stitched boots have been a retro mainstay for decades, has been in the doldrums in recent years, with declining revenues exacerbated by the cost-of-living crisis. It listed on the London Stock Exchange in 2021, and has since issued a slew of profit warnings and replaced its chief executive. Many of Dr Martens' recent problems have come from steep declines in sales in the US, but new chief executive Ije Nwokorie said the group had stabilised in the past year. He said: 'Our single focus in 2024-25 was to bring stability back to Dr Martens. 'We have achieved this by returning our direct-to-consumer channel in the Americas back to growth, resetting our marketing approach to focus relentlessly on our products, delivering cost savings and significantly strengthening our balance sheet.' Nwokorie, previously the firm's head of marketing before taking on the top job from Kenny Wilson on 6 January, said: 'I am laser-focused on day-to-day execution, managing costs and maintaining our operational discipline while we navigate the current macroeconomic uncertainties.' Russ Mould, investment director at AJ Bell, said: 'Dr Martens is on the front foot with a strategy that seeks to kick out the troubles of old and return the business to profitable growth. 'This should shift the market's focus from earlier problems in the US and a sharp drop in earnings to a business intent on regaining its power. 'Having a plan is a good start, but the proof will be in the execution. It has laid out ambitions to get back on top. Turning those dreams into reality might not be easy. 'Fundamentally, it's all down to marketing and product innovation. Dr Martens needs to convince the consumer they need its products – get that right, and it could reclaim its crown in the footwear market. 'The brand still has considerable strength, the business just needs to be more creative at the front end and agile at the back end.'
Daily Mail
31 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Marjorie Taylor Greene split with Trump over 'big beautiful bill'
Elon Musk has loudly been bashing the bill online, calling it a pork-filled abomination while Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., has also skewered the bill for growing the debt. Since voting for president Donald Trump's signature 'big, beautiful bill' legislative package at the end of May, Greene has since renounced her support for the package. In a stunning reversal, the Georgia Republican has said that a portion of the massive bill that would force states to cede power to the federal government when it comes to artificial intelligence is so rotten that she no longer can support it. Now as the bill is before the Senate, Greene is urging lawmakers in the upper-chamber to take out the AI regulations. 'This is an incredible clause, and I hope the Senate fixes it, and it's so important, and I believe it's so important that it's worth saying that if it doesn't come out, I don't think I can vote for it,' Greene told the Daily Mail in a phone call Wednesday. Her issue is not with the president or GOP leadership though, she claims. 'It's incredibly important to clarify that there's no daylight between President Trump and I,' she added, noting that the bill should be about securing the border and cutting taxes and not about regulating how states oversee artificial intelligence. Greene has already told the White House's Office of Legislative Affairs and Speaker Mike Johnson about her opposition to the AI regulations. The bill specifically prohibits states from 'limiting, restricting, or otherwise regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems entered into interstate commerce' for the next ten years. Taking her grievances to the House floor, Greene delivered an impassioned speech about her opposition to the bill on Wednesday. Her broadside is the latest in a GOP civil war that is brewing over the measure. 'This clause would take away state rights to make laws or regulate AI for 10 years,' Greene shared on the floor. She explained how the federal legislation would hamper state's ability to self-regulate the nascent technology, posing a threat to federalism. 'I think federalism is something that we must always protect, and I warn against the dangers of protecting a tech industry where we have no idea the future of what this industry will hold.' MTG reasoned that since AI is 'rapidly developing' it is unwise to shackle state's ability to regulate the space. 'When we look to the future, we cannot take away states rights to regulate or make laws to protect the people in their state, or to regulate businesses that operate in their state. That would be destroying the very foundation of this country, which is federalism,' she added. 'We must always limit federal power and protect state power.' If the GOP goes ahead with the bill and its AI measure, the GOP and Trump could open themselves up to attacks over federalism. 'I don't want to be the Congress that destroys federalism, and I don't think President Trump wants to be accused of that as well,' she told the Daily Mail. Greene's opposition to the measure comes as it has faced increasing scrutiny from Republicans. Though the Georgia Republican voted for the measure when it passed out of the House on May 22, she admitted that she did not read the entire bill, which is over 1,000 pages. The shocking admission came as she announced her opposition to the measure unless the AI-related provision is taken out. That opposition may prove to be a headache for GOP leadership as the bill may get sent back to the lower chamber after the Senate makes revisions to the package. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (pictured), R-S.D., and Trump have said they want the Senate to finish tweaking the Big Beautiful Bill Act before July 4th. Once the upper chamber finishes its edits, the bill will likely head back to the House for them to sign off on the changes. This is politically tenuous for Speaker Mike Johnson, who was able to just barely pass the measure the first go around. The measure passed 215 - 214 - 1, meaning if Johnson loses a single vote, the entire Trump-backed package is at risk. If the bill needs a second vote in the House, MTG's opposition could mean that the bill won't move on to the president's desk for final authorization. Other conservatives in the House have also expressed frustration with the bill, including many dissatisfied House Freedom Caucus members, who generally want deeper cuts to social programs like Social Security and Medicaid. If the Senate does not scrape the AI measure before sending the bill back to the House for another vote, MTG says she will withhold her support for it. 'With this warning, I urge all of my colleagues that when the House gets to vote on the one big, beautiful bill again after it leaves the Senate, that we make sure we protect federalism,' Greene said Wednesday. 'At the same time [I] urge our colleagues in the Senate to pull this clause out of the one big, beautiful bill,' she concluded.
Daily Mail
32 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Musk's stern warning as he challenges Trump's spending bill
By He spent much of Wednesday fine tuning his attacks against what he called an 'insane' spending package that Trump is pushing GOP leadership to have on his desk by the fourth of July. Musk wrote on X: 'Call your Senator, call your Congressman, bankrupting America is NOT ok!' He bulleted his message by demanding: 'KILL the BILL.' The Tesla CEO also reiterated his attack line that the bill was forcing Americans into 'Debt Slavery' in a quote tweet of fellow anti-bill Republican Rand Paul. 'This spending bill contains the largest increase in the debt ceiling in US history! It is the Debt Slavery Bill.' Notably, earlier Wednesday, Trump admitted he agreed with longtime liberal rival 'Pocahontas' Elizabeth Warren in saying that the debt ceiling should be scrapped. Undeterred, Musk also posted an image visualizing the increase in the national debt since 1900 and said: 'Flatten the curve.' He proposed that the Congressional GOP leaders - who have stood behind the bill despite a MAGA 'civil war' taking place over it - draft 'a new spending bill... that doesn't massively grow the deficit and increase the debt ceiling by 5 TRILLION DOLLARS.' Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed the House last month but is now held up in the Senate where some Republicans agree with Musk's outrage. The SpaceX boss began criticizing Trump's bill earlier this month, then really began tearing into his former best friend with a series of posts on X Tuesday and Wednesday. Musk is highly influential in MAGA world because of his billions and his control over one of the most popular social media platforms in the U.S. With 220 million followers on X, and control over the algorithm, Musk could attempt to turn the tide against Trump. Musk has slammed pro-MAGA lawmakers in Congress who voted for the bill. 'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore,' he wrote on X on Tuesday. 'This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.' The MAGA civil war intensified when Trump loyalist Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) sided with Musk. Musk said enough was enough in another Tuesday post where he claimed: 'Mammoth spending bills are bankrupting America!' Around 2am on Wednesday morning, Musk continued his tirade on his social media platform. He also reposted a series of tweets where Musk aligned himself with Republican Sen. Ran Paul of Kentucky, who has been vocal about his opposition to the Big Beautiful Bill. 'I've been pretty consistent in my time in the Senate: I oppose deficit spending—no matter which party is in charge. If we don't get serious about reigning in the debt, the next generation will pay the price,' Paul wrote in an X post that Musk reposted to his page. 'Fiscal responsibility isn't a campaign slogan,' Paul continued. 'It's a duty which I take very seriously.' Greene is a longtime ally of Trump in the House – but she said Tuesday she voted to pass the bill without reading a section that would have reversed that decision. 'Full transparency, I did not know about this section... that strips states of the right to make laws or regulate AI for 10 years,' she admitted. 'I am adamantly OPPOSED to this and it is a violation of state rights and I would have voted NO if I had known this was in there.' She promised she would change her vote if the bill retained that section when it returned to the House of Representatives for reconciliation following any changed made by the Senate. Experts predict the bill's passage would be dire for the U.S. economy and claim the interest on America's debt alone would be crippling. 'Interest payments already consume 25% of all government revenue,' Musk wrote on X around 2:30 a.m. EST on Wednesday. The Tesla and SpaceX boss continued: If the massive deficit spending continues, there will only be money for interest payments and nothing else! No social security, no medical, no defense … nothing.' It became clear that the bromance between Musk and Trump was over earlier this year as reports emerged regarding clashes the billionaire had with hose in the president's inner circle . Additionally, last month Musk left his role with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), laying the ground work for him to break with Trump after his job within government was done.
