Paramount Settlement With Trump Would Set ‘Dangerous Precedent,’ But Likely Wouldn’t Draw Bribery Charge, Experts Say

by

Many legal experts view President Trump’s lawsuit over the editing of his “60 Minutes” interview with Kamala Harris as unnecessary. However, the parent company Paramount Global is trying to resolve this case since the current administration holds the ability to delay or prevent their planned merger with Skydance.

Performing this action might provoke criticism from CBS journalists and others, as they could view it as yet another media company yielding to the president’s demands in an attempt to gain his approval.

In his post on BlueSky, Ian Bassin, who previously worked as an advisor in the Obama administration, stated, “These are not ‘settlements’ – they are ‘payments intended to influence,’ and it’s crucial that they are correctly labeled.” He further explained, “The reporting reveals that CBS executives believe this payment could prevent Trump from obstructing their merger. In simpler terms, that’s a form of payment with the intention to influence.

Regardless of whether Paramount provides cash compensation to the president or his library as an attempt to secure approval for a merger, legal professionals argue that they may not face charges related to bribery.

This version maintains the original meaning while using simpler and more natural language.

Richard Painter, a professor at the University of Minnesota and former White House ethics advisor under President George W. Bush, stated that it’s almost impossible to prove a ‘quid pro quo’ in this case using the bribery statute. He explained that one must demonstrate an explicit exchange, but finding such proof is extremely challenging.

The federal law on bribery prohibits the act of providing something valuable to a government official with the intention of influencing their decisions or actions, such as what happened with former U.S. Senator Robert Menendez. In his case, he was found guilty last year of accepting gold bars and a Mercedes in exchange for performing certain favors.

In the Paramount case, the supposed “valuable item” wouldn’t be as straightforward as a stack of gold bars. Instead, it could be a legally binding agreement, meticulously drafted by teams of lawyers. Demonstrating that this was merely a disguise and its real intention was something else would be quite difficult.

Dmitry Gorin, a criminal defense lawyer with experience in federal corruption cases, stated, ‘What I perceive is not a bribe, but rather a calculated business move.’ He explained, ‘In my opinion, companies are weighing the costs and benefits, and they aim to maintain positive relations with the administration.’

Paramount Global and CBS declined to comment.

Trump brought a lawsuit against CBS last year using the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. He claimed that CBS had misled consumers by airing an extended part of Harris’ response to a Gaza-related question during “Face the Nation,” and another brief segment of the same answer on “60 Minutes” the following day.

Due to the Federal Communications Commission’s insistence, CBS News recently made public the complete footage and transcript of their interviews with Harris for the October 7 special. In response, Trump’s freshly appointed FCC chairman, experienced agency member Brendan Carr, swiftly reinstated a complaint alleging “news distortion” against WCBS-TV New York regarding the “60 Minutes” interview with Harris last month.

At that time, CBS stated that each clip accurately represented the Vice President’s response, and that the editing process was neither manipulated nor misleading.

CBS contends in court that the First Amendment safeguards their editorial judgments, implying that President Trump lacks the authority to contest these decisions based on a law designed to restrict misleading advertising.

If Paramount were to reach an agreement, it would simply be another instance of such settlements. Just recently, ABC News consented to pay $16 million, with $15 million going towards the Trump Presidential Library, to settle a defamation lawsuit that many thought they could have successfully defended in court. Last month, Meta decided to fork over $25 million to wrap up Trump’s lawsuit for banning him from their platform. And this week, X, previously known as Twitter, agreed to part with roughly $10 million to settle a similar dispute.

Norman Eisen, previously serving as an ethical advisor within the Obama Administration, expressed that resolving the CBS lawsuit could be considered “without legal basis” and an instance of “premature compliance,” also representing a breach of journalistic and democratic duty.

Eisen, currently a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, mentioned that making it seem like dropping this case is linked to merger approval wouldn’t generally lead to substantial legal battles. These cases are challenging to pursue due to their high burden of proof.

He also pointed out that just because things aren’t going well for CBS, it doesn’t imply that anything about the situation is pleasant. In fact, he mentioned the part the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has had in increasing the stress on CBS.

It’s quite clear that there’s a strong scent of excessive political influence, he stated, pointing out that Trump seems to be growing more bold in his criticism towards the media. He advised CBS not to give in or else they may set a harmful precedent.

An artist has discussed the influence exerted by both the Trump and Biden administrations on digital platforms regarding their content moderation practices. He considers this pressure as concerning because it appears they seek more power over the information disseminated to the wider population. He argues that financial penalties are insignificant compared to what the presidents really aim for: extensive control of the messages people receive.

As a movie enthusiast, I’d put it this way: “The greatest concern lies in the potential for the president to manipulate his position to impact the content broadcast on media platforms. Essentially, this could lead to an unofficial takeover of media by the state.

Read More

2025-02-15 21:47