'60 Minutes' staff stand by Kamala Harris interview at the center of Trump's major Paramount lawsuit
The ongoing legal showdown between President Donald Trump and Paramount Global could come to a head any day as both parties continue mediation in hopes of resolving his $20 billion lawsuit against CBS News.
The lawsuit stems from the "60 Minutes" primetime election special that aired in early October, just weeks before the 2024 presidential election, which featured interviews with then-Vice President Kamala Harris and her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz. The Trump-Vance ticket snubbed the program's invitation.
"I wish that Donald Trump had agreed to participate in that program," one veteran "60 Minutes" producer told Fox News Digital. "Because we've been doing fair but tough interviews with the candidates of both parties every four years for 50 years."
'60 Minutes' Producers Rail Against Trump's 'Bulls---' Lawsuit, Dread Prospects Of Paramount Making Settlement
Trump had an icy relationship with "60 Minutes" prior to 2024, most notably from his 2020 sit-down with "60 Minutes" correspondent Lesley Stahl, who famously dismissed the Hunter Biden laptop scandal as it emerged during a tense exchange with the then-GOP incumbent.
In the Harris interview, she was pressed by "60 Minutes" correspondent Bill Whitaker about why Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wasn't "listening" to the Biden administration. The exchange first aired in a preview clip on "Face the Nation."
Read On The Fox News App
"Well, Bill, the work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by, or a result of, many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region," Harris responded. Her remarks were immediately ridiculed as "word salad" by conservative critics.
Cbs News Staffers Rattled By Ceo's Abrupt Exit As Trump Lawsuit Looms Over Network
However, in the primetime special that aired the following night, a shorter, more focused answer from the vice president was shown to the same question.
"We are not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end," Harris said in the primetime special.
The answer swap immediately erupted on social media, fueling allegations that CBS News deceptively edited Harris' comments to scrub her viral "word salad" comments from primetime television viewers. Days later, Trump filed his lawsuit alleging election interference.
"60 Minutes" producers tell Fox News Digital, "Everything was above board."
"Every '60 Minutes' interview is edited," the veteran producer said. "'Face the Nation' used part of the answer, and we used a different part of the same answer. And the only reason for that was clarity and brevity."
"Any piece, unless it's live, is not airing the full answer of every question," a second "60 Minutes" producer told Fox News Digital. "And the standard at '60 Minutes' is that you not mix and match questions and answers, which was not done, but is what Trump alleges on social media, which is a lie. So he's lying about what happened, and I think people hear that and think that he's telling the truth."
Sanders, Warren Warn Paramount That Settling Trump Lawsuit Could Be Illegal Bribery Act
Trump has repeatedly asserted in comments to reporters and on social media that CBS News took comments from a completely separate Harris response and inserted them in the exchange about Netanyahu.
The raw transcript and footage released earlier this year by the FCC showed that both sets of Harris' comments came from the same response, but CBS News had aired only the first half of her response in the "Face the Nation" preview clip and aired the second half during the primetime special.
"The fact is that standard journalism procedures were followed," the second producer said.
The "60 Minutes" producers who spoke with Fox News Digital firmly dismissed the notion that the edit was made to aid Harris and her campaign, insisting it was "completely circumstantial" and that there was no motivation behind it besides saving time for the one-hour special.
"They're both, quite frankly, not great," the second "60 Minutes" producer said of the two Harris responses that aired. "She's not great in an interview. She wasn't a great communicator… It's such a sign that this is just a political maneuver. You know, it's just Trump making noise and trying to get people to hate the media."
What was also stressed by the "60 Minutes" journalists was the timeline between "Face the Nation" on that Sunday and the primetime special Monday night. "Face the Nation" had access to portions of the Harris footage and chose what it wanted to air that Sunday morning while "60 Minutes" was still editing the primetime special for the following night.
"That's why we don't let a 90-second answer run, because then you'd use a tenth of your story on the 'ums' and 'hmms'… like you ask a question in an interview and the person meanders around and then finally gets to the answer, and you're like 'Okay, that's the answer' but they were processing it," the second producer said. "If Trump wants to say that was like some agenda by '60 Minutes' to make Kamala look better, I just don't think it was, and look what happened. That's the other thing: she didn't win."
While the "60 Minutes" producers were confident that what CBS News aired followed the network's standards and practices, they couldn't say if there was any instance similar to the Harris interview where two different portions of the same answer aired separately, sparking so much confusion among viewers.
During the initial uproar, there were loud calls for CBS News to release the unedited transcript, which the network refused to at the time. Earlier this year, FCC Chair Brendan Carr ordered CBS News to hand over the transcript of the interview as part of its investigation into whether the network violated the FCC's "news distortion" policy after a complaint was filed.
Paramount Facing Mounting Pressure From Cbs Stars, Dem Lawmakers As Company Mulls Settling Trump Lawsuit
One producer suggested "60 Minutes" take a page from the playbook of PBS Frontline's Transparency Project, an initiative involving the publishing of full interview footage and transcripts online when their films are released.
"We might be at the point where we need to start doing that," the second "60 Minutes" producer said. "If I were the head of '60 Minutes,' I would probably be thinking about some sort of transparency project like that. Like, fine, watch the whole interview."
Even with the release of the raw transcript, as the "60 Minutes" producers point out, Trump never withdrew the lawsuit and has only doubled down on the "lies."
"What Donald Trump has continued to do for months and months and over and over since we released that transcript is to make charges that are false," the veteran producer said. "He is telling lies. And it's clearly demonstrable that they are lies. And it doesn't stop him from telling them."
Bill Owens, the "60 Minutes" executive producer who resigned last month, was defiant as the Trump lawsuit loomed over CBS News.
"There have been reports in the media about a settlement and/or apology," Owens reportedly told his staff in February. "The company knows I will not apologize for anything we have done."
Owens left CBS News over what he said was his inability to maintain an independent newsroom at "60 Minutes." Leading up to his exit was the growing involvement of Shari Redstone, Paramount's controlling shareholder who favors settling the lawsuit.
Redstone wanted to "keep tabs" on upcoming "60 Minutes" segments involving Trump and urged CBS execs to delay any sensitive reporting on Trump until after the Skydance merger deal closed. CBS News journalists, despite Paramount's denial, have openly linked her desire to settle the lawsuit to the merger deal, which seeks the FCC's approval.
"The conditions that they were attempting to oppose on [Owens] were intolerable… It was not something that any self-respecting editor would tolerate," the first "60 Minutes" producer said about his resignation. "It made all of us feel terrible because it was so wrong and so unfair."
Cbs Correspondent Scott Pelley Hits Trump For Suing Journalists 'For Nothing' In Fiery Commencement Speech
Despite the turmoil that has rocked CBS News in recent months, including Monday's ousting of the network's CEO Wendy McMahon, the "60 Minutes" journalists say they remain committed to their work, but offered a warning to corporate honchos like Redstone if they continue to interfere regardless of the pending outcome of Trump's lawsuit.
"If pressure continues to be exerted on '60 Minutes' journalists from the corporation, then I could see people leaving," the second producer said. "Like if we enter our next season, and I'm reporting on a story that involves the Trump administration and I get the sense that my story is being changed because of something that Shari Redstone likes or doesn't like, I think that for me and I think other people on the staff, that would be the line."
Pressure continues to mount as Paramount mulls settling Trump's lawsuit, possibly to the tune of $30-50 million.
CBS late-night host Stephen Colbert called out the parent company for the huge payout it is currently contemplating, saying "handing over a pile of cash to a president over a frivolous lawsuit to get your broadcast license approved sounds so shady."
Democratic lawmakers, including Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., sent an ominous letter to Redstone suggesting her push to settle Trump's lawsuit to benefit the Skydance merger could be interpreted as bribery.
"Under the federal bribery statute, it is illegal to corruptly give anything of value to public officials to influence an official act. If Paramount officials make these concessions in a quid pro quo arrangement to influence President Trump or other Administration officials, they may be breaking the law," the lawmakers told Redstone.
A spokesperson for Paramount told Fox News Digital "This lawsuit is completely separate from, and unrelated to, the Skydance transaction and the FCC approval process. We will abide by the legal process to defend our case."
A spokesperson for Redstone told Fox News Digital she recused herself from Paramount discussions of a potential settlement in February. CBS News and President Trump's attorney did not respond to requests for comment.
The prospects of an announced settlement in the coming days isn't out of reach. "60 Minutes" aired its final episode of the season this past Sunday and won't be airing new episodes until the fall, preventing someone like Scott Pelley from sounding off to viewers on the network drama like he did last month following Owens' exit.
Earlier this month, in the midst of the legal drama plaguing Paramount and CBS News, the "60 Minutes" election special at the center of it all received an Emmy nomination for Outstanding Edited Interview.Original article source: '60 Minutes' staff stand by Kamala Harris interview at the center of Trump's major Paramount lawsuit
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
24 minutes ago
- Newsweek
LAPD Chief Pushes Back on Trump National Guard Claim
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) Chief Jim McDonnell said the protests and riots in portions of downtown Los Angeles on Wednesday are "nowhere near" the level of needing the National Guard, denouncing President Donald Trump's assertion that without the troops, the city would be "burning to the ground." Newsweek reached out to the White House via email for comment on Wednesday. Why It Matters Since his January 20 inauguration, Trump has implemented sweeping change, mainly through executive orders, and has prioritized immigration control as a key pillar within his second administration. Trump last month utilized the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a wartime law granting the commander in chief authority to detain or deport non-citizens. The implementation was originally blocked in federal court and sparked a contentious legal back-and-forth. The president also campaigned on the promise of mass deportations and appointed Tom Homan as his administration's border czar to execute his agenda. What To Know Protests broke out on Friday in reaction to numerous U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids throughout Los Angeles. Amid the ongoing tumult, city officials including Mayor Karen Bass implemented a curfew for portions of downtown, from 8 p.m. Tuesday to 6 a.m. Wednesday, and it was extended into Wednesday night as well. The LAPD warned that people who break the curfew and who are not exempt—like first responders, credentialed media and those who live in the affected area—will be subject to arrest. While speaking to CNN's Kaitlan Collins, McDonnell said that Wednesday was a "better day," adding that it is "calmer." "No, we were not in a position to request the National Guard," McDonnell said. "We have a protocol that we work up through; first we bring in all internal resources to bear on the issue, whatever it is. Then we mobilize the department or part of the department to be able to get everybody out there dealing with the issue. If we don't have the capacity at that point to be able to do that, then through the sheriff we request mutual aid and we get our law enforcement partners from police departments and sheriff's departments throughout the Southern California region to assist us in doing what it is we need to do." "We're at that level now," McDonnell added. "And we're nowhere near a level where we would be reaching out to the governor for National Guard at this stage. And my hope is that things are going in the right direction now and that we wouldn't have had to have done that, or we won't either." Trump said in part on Wednesday while speaking to reporters that if he didn't bring in the National Guard and the Marines, the city of Los Angeles would be "burning to the ground, just like it was a number of months ago." The president's reference was to the deadly wildfires that inundated Los Angeles County, torching thousands of buildings and displacing thousands of Angelenos. Democratic California Governor Gavin Newsom in a formal address to the Golden State on Tuesday ripped Trump and his administration for inflaming an already combustible situation. Newsom also denounced any violence or harm to law enforcement, vowing to prosecute any lawlessness. Protesters confront California National Guard soldiers and police outside a federal building on June 9 as protests continue in Los Angeles following three days of clashes with police after a series of immigration raids. (Photo... Protesters confront California National Guard soldiers and police outside a federal building on June 9 as protests continue in Los Angeles following three days of clashes with police after a series of immigration raids. (Photo by) More What People Are Saying Newsom posted to X, formerly Twitter, on Wednesday: "Trump is politicizing our military and pulling them off critical missions to further his own agenda." Trump said on Truth Social Wednesday: "If our troops didn't go into Los Angeles, it would be burning to the ground right now, just like so much of their housing burned to the ground. The great people of Los Angeles are very lucky that I made the decision to go in and help!!!" California Attorney General Rob Bonta posted to X on Wednesday: "18 Attorneys General from across the nation speaking out against the President's abuse of power. The Trump Administration's unlawful efforts to force federalized national guard forces and the U.S. military to patrol our streets is deeply alarming and cannot go unchecked." Bass said on X Wednesday: "Curfew remains in effect tonight 8 PM - 6 AM for Downtown Los Angeles to stop bad actors who are taking advantage of the President's chaotic escalation. If you do not live or work in Downtown L.A., avoid the area and follow guidance from law enforcement. Vandalism and violence will not be tolerated." What Happens Next There is a hearing scheduled for 1:30 p.m. Thursday to discuss the legality of the National Guard activation in Los Angeles.
Hamilton Spectator
26 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
NDP leader says Carney needs to keep Parliament in the loop on trade talks
OTTAWA - Interim NDP Leader Don Davies is accusing Prime Minister Mark Carney of not being transparent about negotiations with the U.S. on getting President Donald Trump's tariffs lifted. Davies said Wednesday that Parliament has not been kept in the loop on what Carney and Trump are talking about behind closed doors, or whether Ottawa has involved stakeholders in negotiations with the U.S. 'Previous Liberal governments have made quite a deal out of appointing different stakeholders from society to be present in advising them. Yet we don't know anything about that in these negotiations,' Davies told reporters outside the House of Commons just ahead of question period. 'It's time that Carney government became more transparent with Canadians, let us know who's negotiating, and definitely explain to Canadians why he's pursuing deeper military and economic integration with the United States when he promised Canadians that he would do exactly the opposite.' Carney declared during the recent federal election that Canada's old relationship with the United States, based on deepening economic integration and military cooperation, had come to an end and he vowed to stand up to Trump in the face of steep U.S. tariffs. CBC/Radio-Canada reported earlier Wednesday that the U.S. and Canada are hashing out a 'working document' that outlines details of a potential trade deal and states that Canada will participate in Trump's Golden Dome missile defence project. The prime minister's office is neither confirming nor denying that report. Asked by reporters about talks on the U.S. tariffs, Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne said the government's 'endgame' is to have all of Trump's tariffs removed, but he referred journalists to Carney and Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Dominic LeBlanc for the most up-to-date information. 'It's a very dynamic situation,' Champagne said. 'We've been engaging with our friends in the United States. You know, we talk to different people in the administration.' But Carney and Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand breezed past reporters who shouted questions at them on Wednesday, while LeBlanc was not seen in Parliament. Ontario Premier Doug Ford publicly confirmed the secret, top-level discussions last week, saying that Carney and Trump are in 'deep discussions' on trade and working 'around the clock to get a deal.' 'They're right at the brink,' Ford said in Toronto on June 5. Pete Hoekstra, Trump's ambassador to Canada, said in an armchair talk at the Canadian Club of Ottawa on Wednesday that he thinks there's a 'possibility to have a great deal.' He said that 'all indications' are that the two countries could reach a 'very positive agreement,' but couched that 'there's also the possibility you could end up with something like no deal or whatever.' 'Until a deal is announced, you really won't know what's it in it,' Hoekstra said. Trump has insisted that Canada could join his unbuilt Golden Dome continental missile defence program at a cost of $61 billion. Carney confirmed last month that he is in talks with Trump about the project. 'It's something that we are looking at and something that has been discussed at a high level,' Carney said at a press conference in Ottawa on May 21. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 11, 2025.
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How the $1,000 ‘Trump accounts' for American babies compare to 529s and custodial Roth IRAs
President Donald Trump and American business leaders this week celebrated a provision in his tax bill that would create and fund investment accounts for babies born in the next few years. The accounts would be allowed to compound and grow tax-deferred, similar to the way some retirement accounts work. 'In addition to the substantial financial benefits of investing early in life, extensive research shows that children with savings accounts are more likely to graduate high school and college, buy a home, start a business and are less likely to be incarcerated,' Trump said. 'Trump accounts will contribute to the lifelong success of millions of newborn babies.' Here's what you should know about these 'baby 401(k)s' and how they compare to other savings plans for children. The so-called Trump accounts are part of Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' that passed through the House of Representatives last month. Republicans are aiming to get the bill through the Senate and signed by Trump by July 4th. Here's how the accounts would work: The federal government would contribute $1,000 to an investment account for every American baby born between Jan. 1, 2025, and Dec. 31, 2028. An additional $5,000 in after-tax contributions could be made annually to the accounts by parents, employers or other private entities. The money would be invested in index funds that track the overall U.S. stock market. Accounts would be controlled by a child's legal guardians until age 18. Earnings would grow tax-deferred and qualified withdrawals would be taxed at the long-term capital gains rate. 'The compounded growth of an initial $1,000 investment at the time of birth, at an average annual return of 8 percent, would amount to nearly $4,000 by age 18, more than $10,000 by age 30, and over $148,000 by age 65,' according to Bankrate Chief Financial Analyst Greg McBride. 'The key to achieving this type of growth is leaving the money untouched. As Warren Buffett espouses, 'Never interrupt compounding.'' Several business leaders praised the accounts and said they'd make contributions to their employee's kids' accounts. 'We see … the establishment of these Trump Accounts as a simple yet powerful way to transform lives,' Dell Technologies CEO Michael Dell said. 'Decades of research has shown that giving children a financial head start profoundly impacts their long-term success.' Get started: Match with an advisor who can help you achieve your financial goals Trump Accounts have some similarities with 529 savings plans, but there are some notable differences. Funding: Trump accounts would be initially funded by the federal government, while 529 plans are typically funded by parents, grandparents or other relatives. Withdrawals: Withdrawals from 529 plans are tax-free as long as they're used for qualified educational expenses. Withdrawals from Trump accounts would have fewer restrictions on their uses, but are taxed at long-term capital gains rates. Contribution limits: Annual contributions for Trump accounts would be limited to $5,000, while 529 plans allow for much higher limits, from about $235,000 to more than $600,000, depending on the state that sponsors the plan (these are lifetime limits; there's no annual limit for 529s). Many people assume that the maximum 529 plan contribution is $19,000 per child in 2025 — or $38,000 if you file jointly — but that's the maximum amount you can contribute without exceeding the annual gift tax limit. (If you give someone more than that limit in any given year, then you're required to file a gift tax return, though you likely still won't owe taxes on the gift.) Here's what else you should know about using a 529 plan to save for your kids' education. Compare advisors: Bankrate's list of the best financial advisors Custodial Roth IRAs also allow kids to set aside money and have it be invested so it grows over time. Here's how they compare to the proposed Trump accounts. Earned income requirement: Trump accounts would be funded at birth and allow for additional contributions each year, while custodial Roth IRAs require a child to have earned income during the year in order to contribute. Contribution limits: Custodial Roth IRA contributions are limited to $7,000 in 2025, or the total amount of earned income a child has during the year, whichever is less. Trump accounts would allow for annual contributions of $5,000. Taxes on withdrawals: Withdrawals from Roth IRAs during retirement are tax-free, while withdrawals from the proposed Trump accounts would be taxed at the long-term capital gains rate. Here's more on custodial Roth IRAs. The proposed Trump Accounts would create new investment accounts for every American baby born in the next few years, funded with $1,000 from the federal government. The accounts would be invested in index funds that track the U.S. stock market and could receive additional contributions each year of $5,000 from private entities. The plan is subject to change as the bill makes its way through the legislative process. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
