Law CBS pays out (settles) for election interference

[cottagecheesefan]

Okay sure you're both using it wrong, glad we could clear that up.

How is it not interfering with the election, by deceptively editing the interview, to try and manipulate people so that they are more likely to vote for her?

 

[Scerpi]

Alternate thread title: “CBS Caves to Intimidation , Agrees to Settle Trump’s Frivolous Lawsuit.”

First Amendment scholars are not particularly thrilled with this suit.

“In the case, filed before a Trump-appointed federal judge in Eastern Texas, Trump's legal team argued that CBS engaged in "unlawful acts of election and voter interference through malicious, deceptive and substantial news distortion."

"Am I supposed to take that seriously?" asks University of Richmond law professor Carl Tobias, who specializes in First Amendment issues. "I do not understand how suits that are arguably frivolous or meritless — that have very little substance and wouldn't amount to large judgment if you went to trial — are then settled for millions of dollars."

"It's laughable and it's an affront to the First Amendment," Northwestern University law professor Heidi Kitrosser says of Trump's case. "His concern first and foremost is to intimidate the press."

https://www.npr.org/2025/07/02/nx-s1-5290171/trump-lawsuit-paramount-cbs-60-minutes-kamala-harris

CBS should never have agreed to settle. As usual, when Trump wins, freedom, the Constitution, and the rest of us lose.


EDIT: in case anyone misses it from my first link, this case was judge shopped. Trump filed the suit in Amarillo, TX despite CBS not being located in that state or the Harris interview taking place in that state, so they can get their favorite far right, abortion-pill-banning judge, Matthew Kacsmaryk.

Hahahahaha....

Like your fucktard fake groping case wasn't shopped....

The state of New York created an exception for a 40 year old fake claim and allowed the case to be tried in a district that voted 80% for Biden.

Then canceled the exception immediately after because a Democrat politician was in danger of a similar case being brought against him.

And I can back up each of those statements above

Fuck off douche...

And unlike that lying weirdo, EJ Carroll, CBS did edit this interview to make Kamala sound less like a complete retard

And still failed

 

[Islam Imamate]

How is it not interfering with the election, by deceptively editing the interview, to try and manipulate people so that they are more likely to vote for her?

Election interference refers to tampering with the mechanisms of the election like voting machines or the January 6th certification of the vote, not misleading campaign material.

 

[cottagecheesefan]

Election interference refers to tampering with the mechanisms of the election like voting machines or the January 6th certification of the vote, not misleading campaign material.

So Russian social media influence is not election interference?

And do you have a source for that very specific definition other than your own opinion?

 

[ShadowRun]

Yup, the question is why would they settle if it is just Trump bullying, while FOX is happy to fight Newsom. CBS doesn’t want details to come out, FOX does.

ABC settle with him also, because they didn’t want the court fight about why Trump actually isn’t a “rapist”, based on that court case

I agree didn't they try to settle for less before and Trump said no?

 

[ShadowRun]

Election interference refers to tampering with the mechanisms of the election like voting machines or the January 6th certification of the vote, not misleading campaign material.

Jan 6th is post election as in it was over LOL ..

 

[chardog]

When Newsome decided to sue Fox News last week, it made.me think about Bernie's comments

wholesome newsome would never lie



“Im literally talking to the president right now”
“I don’t have cell service”

 

[BFoe]

Hahahahaha....

Like your fucktard fake groping case wasn't shopped....

The state of New York created an exception for a 40 year old fake claim and allowed the case to be tried in a district that voted 80% for Biden.

Then canceled the exception immediately after because a Democrat politician was in danger of a similar case being brought against him.

And I can back up each of those statements above

Fuck off douche...

And unlike that lying weirdo, EJ Carroll, CBS did edit this interview to make Kamala sound less like a complete retard

And still failed

That case wasn’t shopped numbnuts, the alleged incident happened in New York and the case was tried in New York.

Why was the CBS suit filed in Amarillo, TX?

 

[cincymma79]

How is it not interfering with the election, by deceptively editing the interview, to try and manipulate people so that they are more likely to vote for her?

Just because they changed answers and completely essentially faked the whole thing to benefit one person over the other in an election, and especially since the whole very fine people thing, doesn’t mean they did anything wrong.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Jan 6th is post election as in it was over LOL ..

Not technically under the constitution, the states electoral votes have to be certified on Jan 6th so its still part of the electoral process.

So Russian social media influence is not election interference?

In a colloquial sense it is but legally if someone was charged in connection with a hostile foreign power clandestinely trying to meddle in our elections in that way they would likely be charged under laws regulating foreign agents and not elections.

And do you have a source for that very specific definition other than your own opinion?

Not even Trump is claiming election interference here, he sued CBS under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act. He alleged that CBS' "deceptively" edited interview constituted "consumer fraud"

In the joint proposed scheduling order filed last week, the plaintiff’s statement claims the nature of the case is that the plaintiffs and their constituents were “subject to deception about candidate Harris and deprived of the accurate media services that they paid for.” It alleges that editing the interview was an unlawful act of competition against Trump as a direct competitor in digital media content creation.

“Defendants’ manipulation was also an act of consumer fraud against President Trump and Representative Jackson, actionable under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, as they both acquired Defendants’ broadcast and digital services, and like tens of millions of Americans, were confused and deceived by the manipulated Interview,” the statement said.

Which I think is a pretty absurd reading of that law and the CBS lawyers explain why:

The defendants’ statement said that the plaintiffs failed to allege that CBS’s news programming was commercial advertising or promotion, that CBS misrepresented facts or that the plaintiffs have suffered an injury to a commercial interest in reputation or sales. It reasserts that the plaintiffs have not suffered any concrete injury caused by the defendants.

“Plaintiffs do not allege any injury whatsoever to Representative Ronny Jackson, who has plainly been added in a vain attempt to create a nexus to the forum (and who in any event agreed to arbitrate this claim),” the statement said.

https://amarillotribune.org/2025/02/24/trump-v-cbs-case-to-move-to-trial/

 

[cottagecheesefan]

Not technically under the constitution, the states electoral votes have to be certified on Jan 6th so its still part of the electoral process.

In a colloquial sense it is but legally if someone was charged in connection with a hostile foreign power clandestinely trying to meddle in our elections in that way they would likely be charged under laws regulating foreign agents and not elections.

Not even Trump is claiming election interference here, he sued CBS under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act. He alleged that CBS' "deceptively" edited interview constituted "consumer fraud"

Which I think is a pretty absurd reading of that law and the CBS lawyers explain why:

https://amarillotribune.org/2025/02/24/trump-v-cbs-case-to-move-to-trial/

Just provide me a source to your very specific definition of election interference

and trump did claim it as such. Maybe they should counter sue him for using election interference incorrectly

Paramount settles Trump’s ‘60 Minutes’ lawsuit with $16 million payout and no apology | CNN Business

CBS News parent Paramount Global has agreed to pay $16 million to resolve an extraordinary lawsuit filed by President Donald Trump over a “60 Minutes” news report last fall.

amp.cnn.com

Trump went on the warpath, claiming “election interference” and calling it “the biggest scandal in broadcast history.” He accused CBS News of violating a Texas consumer protection law and demanded $10 billion in damages. His lawyers later raised the total to $20 billion.

 

[Islam Imamate]

That case wasn’t shopped numbnuts, the alleged incident happened in New York and the case was tried in New York.

Why was the CBS suit filed in Amarillo, TX?

As the basis for jurisdiction, the plaintiffs claim that CBS targeted its “deceptive services” toward the state and that the Northern District of Texas is among America’s leading media markets and population bases.

“If Texas’s sizeable ‘population’ meant any publication distributed nationally was ‘targeted’ at Texas, there would always be jurisdiction in states like Texas, New York, and California. That is not the law,” the defendants’ statement said.

https://amarillotribune.org/2025/02/24/trump-v-cbs-case-to-move-to-trial/

Its completely nonsensical, sad to see Paramount fold on such an obvious farce of a case.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Just provide me a source to your very specific definition of election interference

Gonna just completely ignore what I wrote there, about how not even Trump is alleging so called election interference in his lawsuit and that's he's obviously misusing the law he cites?

 

[lifelessheap]

Alternate thread title: “CBS Caves to Intimidation , Agrees to Settle Trump’s Frivolous Lawsuit.”

First Amendment scholars are not particularly thrilled with this suit.

“In the case, filed before a Trump-appointed federal judge in Eastern Texas, Trump's legal team argued that CBS engaged in "unlawful acts of election and voter interference through malicious, deceptive and substantial news distortion."

"Am I supposed to take that seriously?" asks University of Richmond law professor Carl Tobias, who specializes in First Amendment issues. "I do not understand how suits that are arguably frivolous or meritless — that have very little substance and wouldn't amount to large judgment if you went to trial — are then settled for millions of dollars."

"It's laughable and it's an affront to the First Amendment," Northwestern University law professor Heidi Kitrosser says of Trump's case. "His concern first and foremost is to intimidate the press."

https://www.npr.org/2025/07/02/nx-s1-5290171/trump-lawsuit-paramount-cbs-60-minutes-kamala-harris

CBS should never have agreed to settle. As usual, when Trump wins, freedom, the Constitution, and the rest of us lose.


EDIT: in case anyone misses it from my first link, this case was judge shopped. Trump filed the suit in Amarillo, TX despite CBS not being located in that state or the Harris interview taking place in that state, so they can get their favorite far right, abortion-pill-banning judge, Matthew Kacsmaryk.

CBS blatantly lied and tried to influence an in election. Kamala is a retard.

 

[cottagecheesefan]

Gonna just completely ignore what I wrote there, about how not even Trump is alleging so called election interference in his lawsuit and that's he's obviously misusing the law he cites?

There is now legal definition or specific law regarding election interference.

This indicates though interfering with the election through what they cite. That the edits were unlawful because it influenced the competition (between two candidates in an election), and defrauded the consumer (the voter) of the information, which is manipulating them (the voter)

 

[Islam Imamate]

There is now legal definition or specific law regarding election interference.

This indicates though interfering with the election through what they cite. That the edits were unlawful because it influenced the competition (between two candidates in an election), and defrauded the consumer of the information, which is manipulating them

Wrong, the claim was that the "deceptively" edited interview constituted unlawful competition between CBS and Trump as digital media content creators. Think about how absurd that is, imagine I do a podcast with someone and edit the interview for clarity or to generate small clips and another podcaster sues me for fraud. It would never work on the merits, it only worked here because Trump is wielding his leverage as POTUS, specifically the power to approve corporate mergers, against Paramount.

 

[BFoe]

https://amarillotribune.org/2025/02/24/trump-v-cbs-case-to-move-to-trial/

It’s completely nonsensical, sad to see Paramount fold on such an obvious farce of a case.

Oh I know full well why they filed there, they wanted to get their favorite far-right judge, Matthew Kacsmaryk. I was just talking about him the other day.

We went through that when abortion opponents judge shopped the mifepristone case to that wackjob far right judge in TX (Matthew Kacsmaryk) who issued a nationwide injunction at the same time that another judge forced the FDA to continue distribution in 17 states. That jackwagon issued a lot of those types of injunctions and is a go-to for conservatives since he’s the only federal judge in that district.

I think Paranount should’ve fought it as well, but they’re too roided about losing their 8 billion dollar merger in retaliation. I don’t think the plaintiffs had any standing to sue, nor was the law they sued under even applicable to this situation. Joke of a lawsuit.

 

[BFoe]

CBS blatantly lied and tried to influence an in election. Kamala is a retard.

That’s weird, why didn’t Trump sue under an election tampering statute, I wonder?
We know why. Because CBS didn’t do anything of the sort.
They ran a longer version of Kamala’s answer in a longer segment, and a shorter version of in a shorter segment. The horror!

 

[cottagecheesefan]

Wrong, the claim was that the "deceptively" edited interview constituted unlawful competition between CBS and Trump as digital media content creators. Think about how absurd that is, imagine I do a podcast with someone and edit the interview for clarity or to generate small clips and another podcaster sues me for fraud. It would never work on the merits, it only worked here because Trump is wielding his leverage as POTUS, specifically the power to approve corporate mergers, against Paramount.

They didn’t edit the interview for clarity, they edited to completely change her answer and manipulate people into thinking she gave a coherent answer. Defrauding the voter of information, interfering with the election (which there is no specific legal definition of, which is why you cannot provide one)

I am sure Harris could sue a podcaster if they wanted to.

Trump did a lot of podcast interviews that help him gain more voters. There should be plenty for them to pick and choose from

 

[cincymma79]

Wrong, the claim was that the "deceptively" edited interview constituted unlawful competition between CBS and Trump as digital media content creators. Think about how absurd that is, imagine I do a podcast with someone and edit the interview for clarity or to generate small clips and another podcaster sues me for fraud. It would never work on the merits, it only worked here because Trump is wielding his leverage as POTUS, specifically the power to approve corporate mergers, against Paramount.

They completely changed her answers. They didn’t make clips. Come on. This is old news. Don’t fucking lie about it