Trump threatened to leave his interview with 60 Minutes' Norah O'Donnell, which was not only omitted from broadcast, but also the extended version release.
Didn’t they get sued (by trump) and settle over doing this with the Harris interview? Can’t the precedent be used against them for doing it again to win another lawsuit against them very easily? Or couldn’t they use that precedent against trump to force the full interview as well?
I don’t know much about US law but this seems very legally sketchy to me. I guess kissing ass takes over the law in these cases.
No, because the settlement was a bribe, not a decision that CBS made because they were concerned about losing the lawsuit. The owners were trying to complete a merger that required governmental approval and decided that paying that settlement would be better than getting the merger blocked.
I don’t know for sure, but I imagine settling out of court, specifically avoids setting a precedent. Which in this case means if they want to run it, they’d not have the precedent to protect them, but also have to choose settling, or paying to fight an overtly partisan court system right up to the supreme court.
They’ve capitulated enough for us to know that was never going to be N option.
No network is going to do more to draw the attention of the administration, than allow late night hosts to make jokes about him, and even that isn’t going to last much longer I expect.
Didn’t they get sued (by trump) and settle over doing this with the Harris interview? Can’t the precedent be used against them for doing it again to win another lawsuit against them very easily? Or couldn’t they use that precedent against trump to force the full interview as well?
I don’t know much about US law but this seems very legally sketchy to me. I guess kissing ass takes over the law in these cases.
In social contract theory, we are moving from the rule of law to the arbitrary rule of a noxious beast.
This is how newsome should spend his money, suing CBS because of the cut interview.
No, because the settlement was a bribe, not a decision that CBS made because they were concerned about losing the lawsuit. The owners were trying to complete a merger that required governmental approval and decided that paying that settlement would be better than getting the merger blocked.
In what way is that quid pro quo illegal?
IANAL but my elementary understanding is that, no, a settlement results in no ruling from the court, and therefore no precedent is set.
Trump is the law now.
I don’t know for sure, but I imagine settling out of court, specifically avoids setting a precedent. Which in this case means if they want to run it, they’d not have the precedent to protect them, but also have to choose settling, or paying to fight an overtly partisan court system right up to the supreme court.
They’ve capitulated enough for us to know that was never going to be N option.
No network is going to do more to draw the attention of the administration, than allow late night hosts to make jokes about him, and even that isn’t going to last much longer I expect.
And then a conservative company bought Paramount. They can’t call him out anymore.