Trump has given his "enemies" a harsh lesson: "fake news." CBS News, an American media outlet, had in the last election period cut and edited an interview with Kamala Harris too cleverly and neatly, which angered Trump, then the candidate and now the president. Vengeful, he sued CBS along with its financial backer, Paramount Global, demanding a $2 billion compensation, claiming they "glorified the opponent and defamed me personally."

Thus, the most expensive and dramatic "news editing case" in U.S. history emerged. On one side was the veteran media CBS, insisting on "standard news editing operations," and on the other side was President Trump, who wielded power and opposed left-leaning mainstream media. In the end, this Hollywood giant that produced "The Godfather" paid out $16 million (about RMB 112 million) in settlement, admitting defeat.

It All Began with "Editing Harris"

The story started during the 2024 presidential election, when CBS's "60 Minutes" program aired an interview with Kamala Harris, Trump's opponent and former vice president. After watching it, Trump was furious: the editing was too smooth and clear, making Harris seem like a political elite — how could that be allowed?

So he immediately launched a high-profile lawsuit, claiming that CBS had engaged in "deceptive editing," intentionally manipulating public opinion to influence the election. He initially demanded $1 billion in damages, then doubled it to $2 billion, and required CBS to publicly release the full video and apologize.

CBS certainly wouldn't agree. They responded that the editing followed industry standards, did not distort any original meaning, and even submitted the full interview video to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to prove their innocence. But what really panicked was CBS's parent company, Paramount Global.

Paramount's "Wallet" and "Nerves"

Paramount was trying to complete a merger deal with Skydance Media worth billions of dollars, and if it was blocked, it would be a major blow to shareholders, assets, and future valuations.

Trump's lawsuit was like a time bomb, mixing media ethics, political struggles, legal risks, and capital games. On one hand was the insistence on press freedom; on the other, the company's cash flow and the fate of the merger. Paramount found itself in a dilemma.

Internally, there was soon chaos. The CBS News department stood firm, refusing to apologize. Board members were anxious. The legal team quickly brought in top law firm Gibson Dunn to assess the risk and try to "pay money to settle without going to jail."

Meanwhile, there was turmoil at the top of "60 Minutes," with several executives resigning. External media people began discussing a question: Was Paramount "compromising" or "defecting"?

Settlement or Bribery?

After months of back-and-forth, Paramount finally chose to "spend money to avoid trouble." By the end of June, both sides reached an agreement: Paramount paid $16 million; this included a donation to Trump's future presidential library foundation and covering part of the legal fees; "60 Minutes" published the full interview record; but still refused to apologize and did not air the public service ads that Trump had requested.

Trump's side announced, "The American people have won again," saying that he had made fake news pay for its wrongdoings. However, as Trump was still declaring victory, another storm began.

"You're Bribing the President!"

As soon as the news broke, Democratic lawmakers exploded.

Senator Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts fired off: "This looks like naked bribery."

Warren directly called it bribery

Senator Ron Wyden from Oregon posted angrily on X: "Paramount just bribed the president to get his approval for the merger." And promised that once the Democrats regain power, they will immediately push for a federal investigation.

Senators Bernie Sanders and Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez from the left-wing faction also quickly joined in, criticizing Paramount for using "corporate donations for political favors," letting press freedom and business ethics fall flat.

So the question is: Does this constitute criminal bribery?

Experts Say: It Looks Like Bribery, But Doesn't Meet the Standard

Legal experts said that this situation indeed "looks like bribery" — but it's far from meeting the standard for criminal bribery.

Former federal prosecutor and law professor Randall Eliason put it bluntly: "You can say this smells of corruption, but you can't convict based on smell alone." He pointed out that to establish criminal bribery, there must be "clear evidence of an exchange." That is, you need to catch Paramount writing a note to Trump: "Dear: $16 million for FCC approval, signed by your loyal fan."

Without an exchange clause, it's just "uncomfortable but legal political behavior."

Another former prosecutor and current congressional candidate Ryan Crosswell added: "All bribery is abuse of power, but not all abuse of power is bribery."

This may sound like a tongue twister, but translated simply, it means: "It's not decent, but it's not illegal."

"Free Law Firm Army" Also Under Scrutiny

In fact, this is not the first time the Democrats have accused Trump of accepting "political deals." Earlier this year, 16 Democratic House members sent inquiries to nine large law firms: Are you providing nearly $1 billion in free legal services for Trump's causes, which could be considered "backdoor bribery," in exchange for the president not harming your clients?

Experts also responded: "There is a risk, but no direct evidence of illegality." This is like the norm in American politics: gray, slippery, and ambiguous.

The Aftermath Is Not Over: Shareholders Are Also Unhappy

Don't forget, apart from dealing with public opinion and political pressure, Paramount also faced internal unrest due to this payout — shareholder lawsuits.

Last month, the Foundation for Freedom of the Press, representing some Paramount shareholders, stated that if the company proceeded with the settlement agreement, they would file a shareholder derivative suit, accusing the board of "acting hastily without adequately informing the shareholders."

They even hired the renowned Washington lawyer Abe Lowenthal, preparing for battle. Meanwhile, some executives within Paramount continued to insist, "We are doing this to avoid prolonged litigation costs." But this argument couldn't convince the angry public and journalists.

In the end, this "editing incident" didn't truly reveal the truth, but instead created a farce: a smug moment in the White House, a "windfall" for Trump's library foundation; CBS claimed innocence, Paramount claimed injustice; as for Trump, after this victory, he might already have his eyes on the next target: Will CNN and The New York Times "stand their ground" or are they already "shivering"?

Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7523766482057167406/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author and others. Please express your attitude by clicking on the 【top/down】 buttons below.