Trump Lawyers Claim ‘60 Minutes' Harris Interview Caused Him ‘Mental Anguish,' Argue That the ‘First Amendment Is No Shield to News Distortion' in Motion to Deny Paramount Bid to Dismiss Lawsuit
President Trump's legal team filed an objection to Paramount Global's move to dismiss his $20 billion lawsuit against CBS over a '60 Minutes' segment, arguing that the TV newsmagazine's alleged deceptive editing of an interview with Kamala Harris is not protected by the First Amendment.
Trump filed the lawsuit against CBS just days before the 2024 presidential election, alleging the '60 Minutes' interview with Harris violated a Texas consumer protection law by misleading voters and caused Trump personal financial harm. His suit initially asked for $10 billion in damages. In February, the president amended the complaint to seek at least $20 billion.
More from Variety
Trump Reacts Angrily to Question About Wall Street's 'TACO Trade,' Meaning 'Trump Always Chickens Out' on His Tariff Threats: 'It's Called Negotiation'
Trump Pardons Reality Stars Todd and Julie Chrisley Following Tax Evasion and Bank Fraud Convictions
'Comics Unleashed' Returns to CBS Late-Night Schedule Following 'Midnight' Cancellation
In a March 2025 motion to dismiss Trump's suit, Paramount called the legal action 'an affront to the First Amendment' that is 'without basis in law or fact.' CBS News has maintained that the '60 Minutes' broadcast and promotion of the Harris interview was 'not doctored or deceitful.'
Meanwhile, lawyers for Paramount and Trump have engaged in settlement talks. Paramount offered $15 million to settle the suit — an amount rejected by Trump, according to a report by the Wall Street Journal. Trump's lawyers want more than that, and they want '60 Minutes' to issue an apology to the president, per the Journal article. In addition, Trump's lawyers President's team 'threatened another lawsuit' against CBS amid the settlement talks, according to the WSJ report.
On Wednesday (May 28), lawyers for Trump and his co-plaintiff, Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-Texas), filed their opposition to Paramount's motion to dismiss.
A key point of Trump's legal argument is that the edited versions of the '60 Minutes' Harris interview represent commercial speech, and that — as alleged in the president's lawsuit — CBS competes for advertising with Trump's media businesses, including Truth Social's parent company Trump Media & Technology Group (which is majority-owned by the president).
With the edited Harris interview, CBS's 'conduct, including news distortion, constituted commercial speech which cannot by any reasonable interpretation be found to have constituted editorial judgment, and that speech damaged Plaintiffs,' Trump's filing said. 'The fact that such commercial speech was issued by a news organization does not insulate Defendants from liability under the First Amendment.'
'[T]he First Amendment is no shield to news distortion,' according to the Trump team's filing.
According to the filing, the '60 Minutes' editing of the Harris interview 'led to widespread confusion and mental anguish of consumers, including Plaintiffs, regarding a household name of the legacy media apparently deceptively distorting its broadcasts, and then resisting attempts to clear the public record.'
A copy of the Trump team's motion, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, is at this link.
The legal battle comes as Paramount is seeking government approval for its $8 billion merger with Skydance Media. Three left-wing U.S. senators have warned Shari Redstone, Paramount's controlling shareholder, that such a settlement payment by Paramount to the president would be tantamount to an illegal bribe, although legal experts say it's very unlikely the media company could face such a charge.
The Paramount-Skydance deal is currently pending FCC approval. Trump-appointed FCC chairman Brendan Carr has maintained the agency's approval of Paramount-Skydance is not connected to the president's '60 Minutes' lawsuit. Last November, Carr said in a Fox News interview that a conservative group's 'news distortion' complaint against CBS over the '60 Minutes' Harris interview was 'likely to arise in the context of the FCC review of [the Paramount-Skydance] transaction.' Paramount Global has said Trump's lawsuit 'is completely separate from, and unrelated to, the Skydance transaction and the FCC approval process.'
In February, Redstone asked Paramount's board to resolve the Trump lawsuit, including by exploring the possibility of mediation, Variety has reported. Redstone recused herself from the board's discussions about a settlement with Trump.
In response to an FCC request in its examination of the 'new distortion' complaint, CBS News made public an unedited transcript of the '60 Minutes' interview with Harris that aired Oct. 6, 2024 (available at this link) and said the materials showed that 'consistent with 60 Minutes' repeated assurances to the public,' the broadcast 'was not doctored or deceitful.'
In a separate case, Trump last year sued ABC News and George Stephanopoulos after the anchor inaccurately stated on-air that Trump had been found liable for rape. (A New York jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming writer E. Jean Carroll.) In December 2024, Disney and ABC News agreed to pay $15 million to settle Trump's defamation lawsuit plus $1 million in legal fees.
Best of Variety
'Harry Potter' TV Show Cast Guide: Who's Who in Hogwarts?
New Movies Out Now in Theaters: What to See This Week
Emmy Predictions: Talk/Scripted Variety Series - The Variety Categories Are Still a Mess; Netflix, Dropout, and 'Hot Ones' Stir Up Buzz
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘It is a whole different environment': Republicans revisit key Biden investigations with new momentum
The House Judiciary Committee is expected to interview former Hunter Biden special counsel David Weiss behind closed doors on Friday, two sources familiar with the interview told CNN, as part of a broader Republican effort to revisit previous probes into the Biden family that stalled last Congress but are gaining new momentum now that Republicans control both chambers of Congress and the White House. The scheduled interview, which could still be moved, would be the second time the Republican-led panel will interview Weiss about his work as Republicans continue to probe whether the investigation was hampered by political interference. Weiss has still never testified publicly about his six-year criminal probe into the president's son, which included three convictions, but was ultimately short-circuited as a result of the former president's unconditional pardon of his son. House Judiciary Republicans have long wanted to call Weiss, the Trump-appointed US attorney, back for questioning after his first closed-door interview in 2023. Committee Republicans were also able to finally secure interviews with two Department of Justice tax division prosecutors involved in the Hunter Biden probe who they had been aggressively pursuing for months, one of the sources familiar told CNN. The Justice Department is working with Weiss to provide access to documents he may need for his interview, a person briefed on the matter said. Any delays in getting access to documents would be a scheduling issue and the ability to have personnel who can oversee it, the person briefed on the matter said. It's not the only Biden investigation Republicans are reexamining that leans into a fresh political appetite with GOP control of Washington. House Oversight Chair James Comer is returning to his probe of the former president's mental fitness in an entirely new landscape after a recent book by CNN's Jake Tapper and Axios' Alex Thompson put Joe Biden's physical and mental decline back in the spotlight. Comer told CNN he is in the process of scheduling key interviews with Biden's White House physician, Dr. Kevin O'Connor, and other senior aides who had all rebuffed his efforts last Congress. Beyond the five initial interviews from Biden's orbit, the Republican Chairman told CNN he wants to look at the executive orders Biden signed in his last six months in office and use of the autopen. In the weeks immediately after Biden's disastrous 2024 debate performance that unraveled his presidential campaign and upended the Democratic party, Comer requested to interview Biden's doctor and subpoenaed three senior Biden aides to discuss their roles in the Biden White House, which never materialized. Now, Comer said in an interview with CNN, 'it is a whole different environment.' At the time of his 2024 interview requests, Comer's impeachment inquiry into the Biden family's business dealings had fallen apart and the Biden administration felt no incentive to comply with the House Oversight Committee. Probing Biden's decline now, Comer says, will be a lot easier than trying to convince his colleagues of an alleged Biden family foreign influence peddling scheme, which even Comer conceded was difficult to do, particularly in a minute or less on Fox News. Republicans failed to uncover evidence to support their core allegations against the president, and lacked the votes in their divided, narrow majority last Congress to impeach the president. 'The money laundering and the shell companies, the average American couldn't understand that. I mean, that was hard to understand,' Comer told CNN. 'You know, I did not do a good job explaining that.' But with his investigation into Biden's mental and physical decline, Comer said, 'people see a president that clearly is in decline. They saw it in the debate.' Democrats sought to dismantle the Republican-led 11 month impeachment inquiry into Biden last Congress at every turn. Comer told CNN that although those Democrats aren't jumping at the opportunity to cooperate now, he does not see them as being obstructive either. 'I take that as a step in the right direction,' he told CNN. Tapper and Thompson's book documents how Biden, his closest aides and his family forged ahead with the former president's doomed 2024 reelection bid despite signs of his physical and mental decline. In a previous statement to CNN, a Biden spokesman criticized the book, saying that evidence shows that 'he was a very effective president.' Former Democratic Rep. Dean Phillips, who launched a long-shot challenge to Biden and was outspoken about his concerns over the former president's age, told CNN he did not think there needed to be an investigation on Capitol Hill at this point into Biden's fitness as president. 'This case already went to trial, the jury of American voters convicted the party of the accused, and handed out the harshest political punishment possible-losing the single most consequential election in modern history,' Phillips told CNN. Instead, Phillips called on Biden to authorize his physician to disclose his health file and condition under oath. 'Only if the former president refuses, or if questioning uncovers possible criminal activity, should an investigation be initiated,' Phillips added. Biden was recently diagnosed with an 'aggressive form' of prostate cancer. CNN's Evan Perez contributed to this report.
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Internal Docs Raise Questions About Trump IRS Pick Billy Long's ‘No-Show Jobs' And ‘Strange' Schedule Inside A Powerful Agency
It's not quite clear what is happening with former Missouri Congressman Billy Long and his associates at the federal Office of Personnel Management, where he has been a senior advisor to the director since March. And Long's internal OPM calendar, which was obtained and reviewed by TPM, doesn't exactly shed light on the situation. In fact, multiple former OPM employees who discussed the matter with us said Long's schedule — which shows him averaging less than three items per week over the past three months — only adds to the questions about his workload and whether he is complying with recordkeeping requirements. In a statement to TPM, Oregon Senator Ron Wyden, who is the ranking Democrat on the Finance Committee, suggested the calendar data from OPM indicates Long and some of his associates were taking advantage of the agency, which plays a crucial part in the federal bureaucracy. 'If you ask me, it sure looks like Congressman Long got himself and some pals no-show jobs with maxed-out federal salaries,' Wyden said, adding, 'Somebody who abuses taxpayer dollars like that shouldn't come within 100 miles of the IRS.' Long and an OPM spokesperson did not respond to detailed questions from TPM about his schedule and role at the agency. OPM, which essentially serves as the chief human resources office and personnel policy manager for the federal government, is not the most high profile agency, but it is an influential one. During the second Trump administration, it has played a particularly central role, working closely with the Department of Government Efficiency — the initiative spearheaded by Elon Musk — to slash the federal workforce. Even as his current job is raising eyebrows, Long is on his way to taking a more powerful post. On Tuesday, members of the Senate Finance Committee voted 14-13 along party lines to advance Long's nomination to become commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service. That sets the stage for a Senate floor vote that could end in Long's confirmation. President Trump announced his intention to have Long lead the tax agency on Dec. 4, 2024. Long, who represented Missouri's Seventh Congressional District from 2011 until 2023, previously pushed to abolish the IRS and earned a reputation as a staunch Trump loyalist. As TPM has previously reported, Long was one of the members of Congress who promoted bogus conspiracy theories in texts with Trump's former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, during the president's fight to overturn his loss in the 2020 election. In the announcement about the nomination, which came before Trump took office for his second term, the president boasted of Long's past work as an auctioneer and described him as the 'consummate 'people person.'' Since then, Long has been installed at OPM as his nomination has worked its way through the Senate. In that time, various controversies have erupted around his nomination to lead the IRS. These include questions about Long's tax credentials, which seem to come from a Florida business that offers a three-day seminar, and about his past private-sector work promoting a non-existent tax credit as well as another credit that has been described as 'riddled with fraud.' And, in recent weeks, Long's stint at the OPM has added to those concerns. On May 23, shortly after Long appeared before the Senate Finance Committee, members provided him with additional written questions for the record. Wyden, who cited the internal OPM calendars, took the opportunity to ask Long about the work that he and three associates — Ben Elleson, Karen Meads, and Mark Czuchry — are doing at OPM. According to Wyden, Long's in-person answer about the role that he and his associates play at the agency left much to be desired. 'If Congressman Long and his associates had real jobs doing serious work at OPM they'd have proven it to us when we gave him the opportunity,' Wyden said. 'The best he could do when staff questioned him on this was to read aloud a printout of a random press release and garble a few brief answers about proofreading and retirement issues, and it wasn't believable at all.' In his written questions to Long, Wyden claimed that both Long and Elleson, who was previously deputy chief of staff and legislative director in Long's House office, were both earning $195,200, which is the maximum salary for a federal worker in Washington D.C. Wyden also referenced the calendars as he asked Long, 'How many hours per week do you work?' Long's response did not directly answer that question or several others that were asked by the senator about his specific accomplishments and schedule. Instead, Long offered a terse three sentence reply. 'As a Senior Advisor at OPM, I work with the Acting Administrator in modernizing and digitizing the federal government retirement system,' Long wrote. 'This includes identifying improvements and discussing options to better serve federal employees. I work at OPM in the Washington, D.C. headquarters.' TPM obtained and reviewed internal OPM calendars that were provided by a source involved in Long's confirmation. They show Long had a total of 34 items on his schedule during March, April, and May, a period that included thirteen weeks and 64 working days. The calendars did not detail the appointments on Long's schedule, but none appeared to last a full day. And many of the items on Long's calendar may not have been work at all. Eleven of them were identified as 'tentative,' rather than scheduled commitments, and one of the blocked off periods was explicitly listed as 'free.' Long's associates at the agency had similarly open schedules. The calendars show Elleson, whose title at OPM is reportedly 'senior adviser,' had 65 items scheduled, an average of slightly more than one thing per day for the three-month period. Of these, eight were listed as 'tentative' and three were identified as 'free.' According to Wyden's questions for the record, Meads, who spent a dozen years serving as the scheduler in Long's district office, is earning a salary of $175,000. Her OPM calendar shows just six items for all of March and April. Everything on Meads' schedule during that two month period was identified as either 'tentative' or 'free.' Meads' calendar for the month of May was completely empty. In his written responses to Wyden, Long defended the work of both of his associates while providing few details. 'Mr. Elleson is a trusted and respected employee with years of experience. He was brought on following normal hiring practices and procedures,' Long wrote, later adding, 'Ms. Meads is a seasoned employee with extensive government experience. She was brought on following normal hiring practices and procedures.' Elleson and Meads did not respond to requests for comment from TPM. A former senior OPM staffer who left the agency prior to Trump's second term and requested anonymity to avoid retaliation said the lack of activity on these calendars is unusual. 'I can't imagine a day that I had less than six or seven meetings when I was at OPM — or more — that were back to back. That's especially true for senior directors,' the former senior staffer said. The ex-staffer went on to point out that DOGE, the so-called government efficiency agency, has extensively focused on OPM and placed personnel inside the agency. One of the items highlighted by DOGE as part of efforts to eliminate 'waste, fraud, and abuse' is a decommissioned mine in Pennsylvania that OPM has used to warehouse retirement records. Because many of the retirement functions that Long has suggested he is focused on are based there rather than in D.C., the former staffer suggested his work should include an abundance of online meetings that would crop up on the calendar. 'As DOGE mocked or made clear, retirement services is based in a mine in Pennsylvania, so your work cannot be done in person,' the former staffer said. Obviously, it is possible that Long and his associates are simply not inputting all of their activity on the internal calendar system. However, the former senior staffer suggested this would raise other issues since federal recordkeeping requirements call for detailed tracking. Long's third associate at OPM, Mark Czuchry, brings up a whole host of other issues unrelated to workload and bookkeeping. Czuchry is a Minnesota lawyer and partner at the financial firm Lifetime Advisors, which employed Long after he left Congress in 2023. Czuchry, a member of his family, and other employees at Lifetime Advisors were among a group of donors who provided Long with an influx of campaign donations after Trump announced his nomination. Long used that cash to reimburse himself for a personal loan he had made to the failed Senate bid that led him to abandon his House seat. And, last month, the news outlet The Lever surfaced a recording where the CEO of a financial services company touted his relationship with Long and asserted that, if he was confirmed, Long planned to bring Czuchry on board at the IRS. In his written questions to Long, Wyden said Czuchry is also earning a $195,200 salary at OPM. Wyden also noted the fact 'Czuchry was one of many individuals who recently contributed to your Senate campaign fund.' Wyden went on to ask about Czuchry's role at OPM and whether Long wanted to have the attorney 'join' him at the IRS. 'Mr. Czuchry is not employed at OPM and does not plan on being employed by the IRS,' Long wrote in his response, which was submitted on Friday. However, OPM records obtained by the Project on Government Oversight last month described Czuchry as a 'senior advisor' at OPM. While Czuchry seems to have worked at the agency in the past, an OPM spokesperson told Bloomberg for a May 15 story that he had left. Czuchry also had an internal OPM calendar. Like the others belonging to Long and his associates, it was conspicuously empty. There were 27 items on Cuzchry's calendar in March and April of this year. Of those, ten were listed as 'tentative' and one was identified as 'free.' In May, Czuchry's calendar displayed six items, all of which were listed as either 'tentative' or 'free.' A second former OPM employee who left the agency earlier this year and declined to be named for fear of retaliation described Long and his associates' calendars as 'pristine' and said the absence of appointments on them was 'incredibly unusual and disturbing.' The employee had firsthand knowledge of the calendars and said they had raised concerns among others at the agency. 'To be a senior adviser and not be having meetings with various teams — particularly for these sweeping policy initiatives — is strange. They're trying to reimagine the federal workforce,' the employee said. 'They would be meeting with multiple teams. You would be seeing advising or fact finding scheduled throughout the day.' The employee also stressed that, due to its role providing oversight to other agencies, OPM is especially concerned with maintaining standards and procedures. Because of this, the person said, it was particularly problematic to 'have a pocket of four people who aren't contributing to personnel policy in any way but are taking salary.' They also echoed the concerns about recordkeeping and suggested the situation with Long and his associates is even more troubling given the Trump administration's supposed commitment to government efficiency. 'What are these people adding? Why are the American taxpayers paying for him and these three people? What are the taxpayers getting for this time that they have purchased? It doesn't look like anything and that's incredibly disturbing,' the former employee said, adding, 'Talk about 'waste, fraud, and abuse.' What is going on at the government personnel agency? … We always talk about the tone being set, so if this is happening at the personnel agency, what else is happening?'
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
GOP senators express 'concerns,' 'skepticism' over Trump's spending bill after Musk rant
A cohort of Senate Republicans already troubled by the House GOP's version of President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful bill" found a common ally in Elon Musk, who again trashed the legislation on Tuesday. Musk, who just exited his tenure as Trump's efficiency bloodhound leading the Department of Government Efficiency (Doge) last week, doubled down on his position that the House's reconciliation package was an "abomination." White House Stands By Tax Bill After Musk Calls It A 'Disgusting Abomination' "I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore," Musk said on X. "This massive, outrageous, pork-filled congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination." "Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong," he continued. "You know it." Senate Republicans have already vowed to make changes to the colossal bill, which includes the president's desires on tax, energy, immigration, defense and national debt policies. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., lauded Musk for his work with DOGE, but noted that the Senate GOP and the tech-billionaire had "a difference of opinion." Read On The Fox News App Elon Musk Criticism Of Trump Tax Bill Frustrates Some Republicans: 'No Place In Congress' He didn't believe that Musk's comments would derail the bill entirely in the upper chamber, either. Thune has pledged to get the bill to the president's desk by Independence Day. "The legislation, as passed by the House, can be approved here in the Senate, can be strengthened in the Senate, in a number of ways," Thune said. "We intend to do that, but when it's all said and done, we'll send it back to the House and hope that they can pass it and put it on the president's desk." Still, fractures have emerged among lawmakers, with some viewing the bill through the same lens as Musk. "Well, he has some of the same skepticism I have, you know, towards the big, beautiful bill," said Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. Trump Criticizes Rand Paul Over Tax Bill Opposition: 'Votes No On Everything' Paul has vowed not to support the bill as is without a serious overhaul to the legislation that would nix a $5 trillion increase to the nation's debt ceiling — a stance that has gotten him into hot water with Trump. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., has similarly pledged not to support the bill unless much steeper spending cuts are achieved. The House's product includes $1.5 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade, but Johnson would like to see a return to pre-pandemic spending levels, which would effectively amount to a roughly $6 trillion cut in spending. "I share his concerns," Johnson said of Musk. "I also appreciate what he and President Trump did with his DOGE effort." And Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, a fiscal hawk whose views are closely aligned with Johnson's, argued in response to the tech billionaire's social media post that "federal spending has become excessive." "The resulting inflation harms Americans and weaponizes government," Lee said on X. "The Senate can make this bill better. It must now do so." Other Senate Republicans, including those with outstanding concerns with the current legislation, were much less receptive to Musk's tirade against the bill. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., has remained steadfast in his position that he would not support the current Medicaid proposals in the House's bill, especially if they cut benefits to his constituents and people across the country. When asked his reaction to Musk's rant, he shrugged, "Well, he's entitled to his opinion, it's a free country." Sen. Jim Justice, R-W.V., who has expressed reservations on the contents of the megabill, was more blunt. "My reaction to that is just simply this — and y'all may like this or not like this — but you know, Donald Trump is our president, not Elon Musk," he article source: GOP senators express 'concerns,' 'skepticism' over Trump's spending bill after Musk rant
