Donald Trump’s campaign is suing Paramount’s national broadcast network CBS for up to $10 billion in damages alleging it deliberately doctored an interview of his opponent to harm his electoral chances.
Airing on October 6, the 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris included a question on the Middle East to which Harris initially gave a meandering, wordy answer. The interview was edited to include a more succinct answer that Harris gave later in the conversation—a routine practice in TV production.
Trump claims, however, it was deceptively edited with the express intent to help her get elected next week by casting her in a more flattering light. The former president is seeking financial recompense to address the “immense harm” done to him by CBS's "unlawful acts of election and voter interference."
“Although CBS has the right to exercise reasonable judgement in editing, CBS crossed a line when its production reaches the point of so transforming an interviewee’s answer that it is fundamentally different,” the lawsuit claims, alleging the news program did “whatever it took to portray Kamala as intelligent, well-informed, and confident, when in fact she is none of the above.”
After it aired, Trump immediately seized on the discrepancy between the longer version shared on social media and the shorter version that was aired on national television as proof of a media conspiracy to hobble his electoral chances. He has called for CBS to lose its broadcast license.
CBS senior vice president for legal affairs Gayle Sproul argued the interview was fairly presented to inform the viewing audience and not done with the deliberate intention to mislead.
“Your contention that 60 Minutes acted nefariously is entirely unfounded,” she wrote in a letter responding to Trump’s legal claim, warning they should maintain all records for discovery in the event of a potential counter-lawsuit.
Harris criticized for "Word Salad City"
Long TV interviews are regularly edited for brevity to make them easier to consume while packing more information into limited airtime. Anyone in the public eye who has sat down for them as often as Trump has would know this.
“When we edit any interview, whether a politician, an athlete, or movie star, we strive to be clear, accurate, and on point,” a statement released last month by 60 Minutes said. “The portion of her answer on 60 Minutes was more succinct, which allows time for other subjects in a wide-ranging 21-minute-long segment.”
Yet this particular case is unique because it gets to the heart of a more obvious flaw of the Democratic candidate: Harris’s reputation for entangling herself in flowery verbiage that lacks meaning when parsed for substance.
Even a former senior advisor to Barack Obama criticized this as a weakness in her candidacy. “When she doesn’t want to answer a question, her habit is to kind of go to Word Salad City,” political strategist David Axelrod said last week.
This penchant for rambling when speaking unscripted hurts her more than Trump, whose often long-winded and meandering answers have become part and parcel of his brand—something he proudly calls the “weave.”
Seeking help from Texas judge Trump appointed to the bench
Critics argued that 60 Minutes edited the interview to make Harris’s answer sound more articulate than it actually was, feeding a misperception that the supposed monolithic media landscape is collectively in support of Harris. Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos cited this as the supposed justification for why he pulled the paper’s endorsement of the sitting vice president.
A Harvard CAPS/Harris poll conducted last month found that 85% of voters wanted CBS to release the full transcript of the 60 Minutes interview.
Trump has long nursed a beef with the program following a combative interview four years ago when he abruptly walked off, pledging not to return until the network offered him an apology.
Trump, who has repeatedly accused his political opponents of waging “lawfare” through a willful abuse of the judicial system, filed the lawsuit in the Northern District of Texas. This is a favorite federal court of conservatives, with Trump having personally appointed presiding judge Matthew Kacsmaryk.
The network could not be reached by Fortune for further comment, but a spokesperson told CNN it viewed the allegations as “completely without merit” and pledged to “vigorously defend” itself.
