Trump's Lawyers Claim Kamala Harris' '60 Minutes' Interview Caused Him 'Mental Anguish'
President Donald Trump has apparently suffered from 'mental anguish' as a result of a CBS News '60 Minutes' interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris last year, his lawyers alleged in court documents.
Trump's attorneys made the claim Wednesday in a motion to deny Paramount Global's request to dismiss Trump's lawsuit, which First Amendment experts have called 'frivolous and dangerous,' against CBS over the editing of the interview. (Paramount Global is the parent company of CBS.)
In the October-filed lawsuit obtained by HuffPost, Trump accuses the network of 'partisan and unlawful acts of election and voter interference through malicious, deceptive, and substantial news distortion.' This, according to the suit, was exhibited through two slightly differing clips of Harris discussing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with journalist Bill Whitaker.
According to court documents filed Wednesday, Trump's attorneys claim 'this 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.'
The interview 'forced' Trump to 'redirect significant time, money and effort to correcting the public record,' the document said.
The motion also called the president a 'content creator,' whose content creation 'was damaged by the attention diverted to Defendants' distorted programming.'
The network maintains that the interview was 'not doctored or deceitful.'
'In reporting the news, journalists regularly edit interviews – for time, space or clarity. In making these edits, 60 Minutes is always guided by the truth and what we believe will be most informative to the viewing public – all while working within the constraints of broadcast television,' CBS said in a February statement.
The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that the president turned down a $15 million settlement offer, which falls short of his desired compensation: more than $25 million and a CBS News apology.
The president has also threatened to file another lawsuit against the company over what he claims is biased reporting, according to the WSJ.
Trump has repeatedly gone after '60 Minutes' and has so far unsuccessfully called on CBS to lose its broadcast license on multiple occasions.
In one of his countless social media rants in April, he slammed the show after choosing to hate-watch it.
'They are not a 'News Show,' but a dishonest Political Operative simply disguised as 'News,' and must be responsible for what they have done, and are doing,' the president wrote at the time. 'They should lose their license!'
At least two top executives, including CBS News CEO Wendy McMahon and '60 Minutes' executive producer Bill Owens, have stepped down as the network seeks to make a deal with Trump.
SEC Dismisses Lawsuit Against Binance As Trump Continues To Cozy Up To Crypto
Trump Turns Down $15 Million Offer To Settle '60 Minutes' Lawsuit: Report
The Extremely Dumb Excuse That Republicans Are Using To Justify Trump's Corruption
The Trump Administration Is Trapping Migrant Kids In Shelters
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
22 minutes ago
- New York Times
Quote of the Day: Pardons Prop Up Crimes of a Certain Collar
'Of course, stealing by fraud is still stealing. It's just that this is the way rich people do it.' BARBARA L. MCQUADE, a U.S. attorney in Michigan during the Obama administration, on how President Trump's pardons of white-collar criminals could normalize nonviolent offenses.
Politico
43 minutes ago
- Politico
Appeals court keeps block on Trump administration's downsizing of the federal workforce
SAN FRANCISCO — An appeals court on Friday refused to freeze a California-based judge's order halting the Trump administration from downsizing the federal workforce, which means that the Department of Government Efficiency-led cuts remain on pause for now. A split three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that the downsizing could have significant ripple effects on everything from the nation's food-safety system to veteran health care, and should stay on hold while a lawsuit plays out. The judge who dissented, however, said President Donald Trump likely does have the legal authority to downsize the executive branch and there is a separate process for workers to appeal. The Republican administration had sought an emergency stay of an injunction issued by U.S. Judge Susan Illston of San Francisco in a lawsuit brought by labor unions and cities, including San Francisco and Chicago, and the group Democracy Forward. The Justice Department has also previously appealed her ruling to the Supreme Court, one of a string of emergency appeals arguing federal judges had overstepped their authority. The judge's order questioned whether Trump's administration was acting lawfully in trying to pare the federal workforce. Trump has repeatedly said voters gave him a mandate to remake the federal government, and he tapped billionaire Elon Musk to lead the charge through the Department of Government Efficiency. Tens of thousands of federal workers have been fired, have left their jobs via deferred resignation programs, or have been placed on leave. There is no official figure for the job cuts, but at least 75,000 federal employees took deferred resignation, and thousands of probationary workers have already been let go. Illston's order directs numerous federal agencies to halt acting on the president's workforce executive order signed in February and a subsequent memo issued by DOGE and the Office of Personnel Management. Illston, who was nominated to the bench by former President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, wrote in her ruling that presidents can make large-scale overhauls of federal agencies, but only with the cooperation of Congress. Lawyers for the government say that the executive order and memo calling for large-scale personnel reductions and reorganization plans provided only general principles that agencies should follow in exercising their own decision-making process.
an hour ago
Appeals court keeps block on Trump administration's downsizing of federal workforce
SAN FRANCISCO -- An appeals court on Friday refused to freeze a California-based judge's order halting the Trump administration from downsizing the federal workforce, which means that the Department of Government Efficiency-led cuts remain on pause for now. A split three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that the downsizing could have significant ripple effects on everything from the nation's food-safety system to veteran health care, and should stay on hold while a lawsuit plays out. The judge who dissented, however, said President Donald Trump likely does have the legal authority to downsize the executive branch and there is a separate process for workers to appeal. The Republican administration had sought an emergency stay of an injunction issued by U.S. Judge Susan Illston of San Francisco in a lawsuit brought by labor unions and cities, including San Francisco and Chicago, and the group Democracy Forward. The Justice Department has also previously appealed her ruling to the Supreme Court, one of a string of emergency appeals arguing federal judges had overstepped their authority. The judge's order questioned whether Trump's administration was acting lawfully in trying to pare the federal workforce. Trump has repeatedly said voters gave him a mandate to remake the federal government, and he tapped billionaire Elon Musk to lead the charge through the Department of Government Efficiency. Tens of thousands of federal workers have been fired, have left their jobs via deferred resignation programs, or have been placed on leave. There is no official figure for the job cuts, but at least 75,000 federal employees took deferred resignation, and thousands of probationary workers have already been let go. Illston's order directs numerous federal agencies to halt acting on the president's workforce executive order signed in February and a subsequent memo issued by DOGE and the Office of Personnel Management. Illston, who was nominated to the bench by former President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, wrote in her ruling that presidents can make large-scale overhauls of federal agencies, but only with the cooperation of Congress. Lawyers for the government say that the executive order and memo calling for large-scale personnel reductions and reorganization plans provided only general principles that agencies should follow in exercising their own decision-making process. __
