Former CBS Head Says Network Settled With Trump Because He Might Have Caught Them Red-Handed

[Always in His Presence]

Former CBS Head Says Network Settled With Trump Because He Might Have Caught Them Red-Handed​

Shari Redstone, the former controlling shareholder for CBS’ parent company Paramount Global, said Paramount agreed to settle with President Donald Trump because of worries about what his legal team may find in discovery, The New York Times reported on Tuesday.​

​

Paramount agreed in July to pay $16 million to Trump to settle his lawsuit pertaining to the editing of a “60 Minutes” interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris. Redstone told the NYT that CBS employees informed her that former President Joe Biden appeared exhausted and needed to be nudged to answer questions during “60 Minutes” correspondent Scott Pelley’s October 2023 interview with him.​

 

[Hans Blaster]

Former CBS Head Says Network Settled With Trump Because He Might Have Caught Them Red-Handed​

Shari Redstone, the former controlling shareholder for CBS’ parent company Paramount Global, said Paramount agreed to settle with President Donald Trump because of worries about what his legal team may find in discovery, The New York Times reported on Tuesday.​

​

Paramount agreed in July to pay $16 million to Trump to settle his lawsuit pertaining to the editing of a “60 Minutes” interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris. Redstone told the NYT that CBS employees informed her that former President Joe Biden appeared exhausted and needed to be nudged to answer questions during “60 Minutes” correspondent Scott Pelley’s October 2023 interview with him.​

Why would we believe Shari Redstone? She was the one paying the bribe so she could sell her shares in Paramount/CBS.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Why would we believe Shari Redstone? She was the one paying the bribe so she could sell her shares in Paramount/CBS.

You shouldn't - absolutely - you should not.

As for others - they do

 

[Hans Blaster]

You shouldn't - absolutely - you should not.

I already didn't believe her. I thought that was clear that I didn't find the scenario trustworthy. What I wanted to know is why "we" collectively (you, me, readers of the article, readers of this thread) should take her word at face value.

As for others - they do

Vague: too many pronouns.

 

[Always in His Presence]

I already didn't believe her. I thought that was clear that I didn't find the scenario trustworthy. What I wanted to know is why "we" collectively (you, me, readers of the article, readers of this thread) should take her word at face value.

Thank you for your opinion - but I don't think you can speak for anyone butt yourself.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Thank you for your opinion - but I don't think you can speak for anyone butt yourself.

Let me ask again (and I speak with my mouth, not the other end):

Why should anyone believe Ms. Redstone?

 

[Always in His Presence]

Let me ask again (and I speak with my mouth, not the other end):

Nice change - or perhaps a neat way of pointing out a minor typo

 

[Hans Blaster]

Nice change - or perhaps a neat way of pointing out a minor typo

I like to be a bit "cheeky".

 

[Always in His Presence]

Nothing like covering yourself with millions of dollars and maybe a non disclosure agreement