Tag: Alarmed

  • CBS staff alarmed by reports of settlement talks with Trump over ‘60 Minutes’ Harris interview




    CNN
     — 

    Journalists, including some at CBS News, are expressing alarm at reports that CBS parent company Paramount Global is trying to settle a legally dubious lawsuit lodged by President Donald Trump last fall.

    Trump sued CBS after an October “60 Minutes” interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris – Trump’s opponent in the presidential campaign – included an edit that Trump said was unfairly favorable to Harris. Despite legal experts’ widespread assertion that CBS’ editorial judgment was protected by the First Amendment, The New York Times Thursday night reported that a settlement was in the works.

    That sparked outage in CBS’ newsroom.

    “Trump’s lawsuit was a joke, but if we settle, we become the laughingstock,” a CBS correspondent said on condition of anonymity.

    CBS in October called the suit meritless and said at the time “we will vigorously defend against it.” A Paramount spokesperson on Friday declined to comment. A lawyer for Trump, Edward Paltzik, did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but he told The Times that “real accountability for CBS and Paramount will ensure that the president is compensated for the harm done to him.”

    The Times noted that “a settlement would be an extraordinary concession by a major U.S. media company to a sitting president, especially in a case in which there is no evidence that the network got facts wrong or damaged the plaintiff’s reputation.”

    Indeed, a settlement by Paramount could look like a payoff. Specifically, it would look like a big check to Trump (or his presidential library, following in ABC and Meta’s footsteps) in exchange for regulatory approval of Paramount’s pending deal with Skydance Media.

    “That’s called a bribe,” Richard Painter, a former White House ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush, commented on X.

    Is it the cost of doing business in the Trump era? Some business leaders appear to believe so. But settling with Trump would also cost CBS some of its hard-won credibility.

    The suit stemmed from “60 Minutes” correspondent Bill Whitaker’s sit-down last October with Harris.

    Observers noticed that CBS aired two different answers from Harris to a single question about why Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was “not listening” to the United States. The answer Harris gave in a preview clip differed from the answer she gave on the actual “60 Minutes” broadcast.

    Trump and his allies claimed that CBS had manipulated the interview to make the vice president look better. As criticism mounted and Trump threatened to sue, CBS said there was nothing nefarious about the editing; “the interview was not doctored,” and the newsmagazine “did not hide any part of the Vice President’s answer to the question at issue,” CBS News senior VP for legal affairs Gayle C. Sproul said.

    Sproul also cited case law that defends editing and news judgments, noting that “editing is a necessity for all broadcasters to enable them to present the news in the time available, and that is what ’60 Minutes’ did here, as it does with its other reports.”

    Trump sued anyway. His lawyers filed a complaint in US District Court in the Northern District of Texas, alleging CBS violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, a consumer protection law.

    Legal experts contacted by CNN at the time called the suit “frivolous;” “ridiculous junk;” and laughable on its face. From the alleged damages ($10 billion!) to the decision to give Fox News the scoop about the suit, it had all the hallmarks of a political PR stunt.

    But a few days after the suit was filed, Trump won the election. All of a sudden, the suit posed a serious threat to the news division’s parent company, Paramount Global, according to a person involved in the matter.

    That’s because the merger requires the blessing of the Trump administration, in part because CBS owns local stations that are licensed by the Federal Communications Commission, known as the FCC.

    Outside analysts, citing Trump’s transactional nature, predicted that Paramount may have a hard time getting the necessary federal approvals. Brendan Carr, who Trump promoted to chair the FCC, recently revived a pro-Trump group’s complaint about the “60 Minutes” interview. Back in November, he said the complaint would probably factor into the agency’s review of the Paramount-Skydance deal.

    On Friday, CBS confirmed that the FCC sent the company a “letter of inquiry” asking the network to hand over the unedited transcript and tapes of the Harris interview.

    “We are working to comply with that inquiry as we are legally compelled to do,” a CBS spokesperson told CNN.

    As an FCC license-holder, CBS is obliged to respond to reasonable requests from the government agency. But those requests are typically about technicalities like broadcast transmission signals, not the raw materials of a news program like “60 Minutes.”

    The notion of Paramount caving to Trump has sparked condemnation. After the Wall Street Journal two weeks ago reported that settlement talks were a possibility, Sen. Bernie Sanders urged CBS to “stand tall.”

    Sanders wrote on X, “CBS may be reaching a legal settlement with Trump because he didn’t like how a campaign interview with Kamala was edited. Really? If CBS caves, the belief that we have an independent media protected by the First Amendment is undermined.”

    Trump’s history of bullying media companies suggests that a payout by Paramount won’t stop his pressure campaigns.

    In the weeks before his inauguration, ABC agreed to donate $15 million to Trump’s future presidential library to settle a defamation lawsuit against the network. Earlier this week Meta agreed to a $22 million payout over another Trump lawsuit.



    Recently, reports have surfaced that CBS staff are alarmed by the possibility of settlement talks between the network and Donald Trump over his recent interview with Vice President Kamala Harris on “60 Minutes.” The interview, which aired earlier this month, has garnered significant attention and controversy due to Trump’s behavior during the segment.

    According to sources, Trump’s team has been in discussions with CBS executives about a potential settlement to prevent the release of any additional footage or outtakes from the interview. This has raised concerns among staff members at the network, who fear that such a settlement would compromise their journalistic integrity and independence.

    Many employees at CBS have expressed their dismay over the reports, with some voicing their frustration and disappointment on social media. They believe that any attempts to suppress or manipulate the interview footage would be a violation of their commitment to unbiased reporting and transparency.

    In response to the growing backlash, CBS has released a statement reaffirming their commitment to journalistic integrity and independence. They have assured staff members and viewers that they will not be swayed by outside pressure or influence, and will continue to uphold the highest standards of journalism.

    As the situation continues to unfold, it remains to be seen how CBS will navigate these challenging circumstances and uphold their principles in the face of potential settlement talks with Trump. Stay tuned for further developments on this story.

    Tags:

    1. CBS news
    2. 60 Minutes
    3. Kamala Harris interview
    4. Trump settlement talks
    5. CBS staff concerns
    6. News updates
    7. Political interviews
    8. Media controversies
    9. Presidential administration
    10. Media ethics

    #CBS #staff #alarmed #reports #settlement #talks #Trump #Minutes #Harris #interview

  • Why Trump’s Meme Coins Have Alarmed Both Crypto Insiders And Legal Experts


    When Donald Trump won the presidency in November, many crypto fanatics celebrated, based on his promises to the industry that he would prioritize deregulation and legitimize crypto entrepreneurs. Days before his inauguration, industry heavyweights gathered in Washington for the Crypto Ball, celebrating their newly minted status as D.C. insiders. 

    But during the event, Trump shocked nearly the entire room by posting online about the launch of a new cryptocurrency called TRUMP. This new currency, a so-called meme coin, has no inherent value, but rather fluctuates in price as people buy and sell the coin. Trump’s fans and opportunistic day traders have generated billions of dollars in sales, driven by loyalty, hype, and the chance to make a quick buck. All of these trades have made the coin’s creators—affiliate companies of the Trump organization—billions of dollars on paper. A day after its release, Melania Trump announced her own meme coin, which also rose and fell in crazed spurts. On Wednesday, TRUMP was the 25th most valuable cryptocurrency in the world, according to CoinMarketCap—although its price of about $43 was well off its $75 high. 

    Read More: What Trump’s Win Means for Crypto.

    Trump’s meme coins brought a surge of attention to crypto and many newcomers into the space. To some, the coins signaled Trump’s commitment to crypto and to spurring its growth. But many more in the crypto world responded with revulsion to what they saw as a cash grab, and a way for Trump to directly profit off of his followers. Trump’s team holds at least 80% of the coin’s supply, giving them vast power to control its price. While they are not allowed to sell off their holdings for months, doing so would crash the market and leave regular users with a loss. 

    Crypto insiders worry that the coins will make the public even leerier of an industry already filled with scams and bad-faith actors. “The crypto sector put someone in power whose first act is to emphasize and take advantage of the opportunity for grift within crypto,” says Angela Walch, a crypto researcher and writer. “And that’s just embarrassing.”

    Trump has downplayed his role in launching the coin, saying at a Jan. 21 press conference: “I don’t know much about it other than I launched it.” The Trump Organization did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A White House press officer declined to comment.

    But elected officials and legal experts are raising ethical and geopolitical concerns about the tokens, which they say could serve as a vehicle for bribery and conflicts of interest. “These coins open a channel for him to receive financial benefits from foreign adversaries and to prioritize his personal interests, to the collective detriment of Americans,” says Puja Ohlhaver, a lawyer affiliated with Harvard’s Allen Lab for Democracy Renovation. 

    What are meme coins? 

    TRUMP and MELANIA are meme coins: cryptocurrencies that are essentially created by entrepreneurs out of thin air by writing code to deploy on a blockchain. Their worth comes from how much people believe in them and buy them. In order to generate excitement, the teams behind such coins often market them using popular memes which can be shared and iterated upon on social media. If memes on social media can propel culture, creativity, and even ideology, the thinking goes, then why shouldn’t they be worth something financially as well? 

    Dogecoin and Shiba Inu are two examples, with Dogecoin particularly propelled by Elon Musk, whose tweets about the coin have led to price spikes. The lack of inherent value makes meme coins especially volatile and speculative, which, to some, is part of their appeal: If investors buy at the right time, they can make a lot of money. Conversely, they can lose everything extremely fast if they buy in at the market’s top. Meme coins have also been the vehicle for alleged scams, in which investors lost significant sums. 

    Trump’s admirers have often wielded  memes as a marketing tool. During his presidential campaign, a team of content creators flooded social media with pro-Trump meme content. Last summer, unofficial Trump meme coins with names like Pepe (TRUMP) and Maga People Token (PEOPLE) rose and fell, with some bettors treating them as proxies for his chances of victory. 

    Trump also has a history of using crypto to make money. He started selling NFT trading cards in 2022, and has made millions from them, according to financial disclosure documents. In September, he launched World Liberty Financial, a cryptocurrency platform which is not yet live. And in 2025, meme coins are perhaps the easiest way for aspiring crypto entrepreneurs to make money, fast. 

    TRUMP starts trading 

    On Jan. 18, two days before taking the oath of office, Trump launched his token via CIC Digital LLC, an affiliate of the Trump Organization, while the Crypto Ball was in full swing. The move took the industry by surprise. Nick O’Neill, a crypto entrepreneur at the event—which also featured appearances from Snoop Dogg and Speaker Mike Johnson—posted a video on X saying that very few people there were aware of the token. 

    The next day saw a mad rush to buy and sell the token, causing all sorts of spillover effects. Solana, the blockchain supporting the token, and Coinbase, an exchange used to trade the coin, both experienced hours-long transaction delays. “We were not anticipating this level of surge,” Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong wrote on Twitter

    Within a day, the team controlling the token, led by CIC Digital, owned tokens worth some $51 billion on paper. (This figure isn’t realistic, though, because the more they tried to cash out into actual dollars, the more the price would decrease.). Later that day, however, Melania Trump released her own meme coin, MELANIA, which actually deflated TRUMP’s market cap by billions of dollars, as traders appeared to sell their holdings to buy into the new coin. Within an hour of MELANIA’s launch, TRUMP fell from above $70 to around $45. A fake BARRON memecoin unassociated with Trump’s youngest son also accumulated a $460 million market cap before crashing 95%.

    Some of Trump’s staunchest supporters from the crypto world accused him of predatory behavior in connection with the coin’s launch. Crypto is supposed to champion the concept of decentralization; the President’s team controls at least 80% of the TRUMP token’s supply. Another blockchain analytics company, Bubblemaps, found that 89% of MELANIA’s token supply was in a single crypto wallet. Conor Gregor, a Coinbase executive, wrote on Saturday that Trump’s team had made $58 million in trading fees alone. 

    “Trump’s credibility has been totally destroyed,” wrote Michael A. Gayed, an investment manager. Anthony Scaramucci, Trump’s former White House communications director and a crypto evangelist, wrote: “No one can honestly think this is good for our society.” 

    “There’s a lot of soul searching in the industry right now,” says Walch. “Great, we got power, but was it serving any purpose that we originally set out to achieve?”

    Concerns over ethics and national security

    Critics outside crypto also raised ethical concerns. Trump now has a direct stake in an industry that he is in charge of regulating. (The controlling companies, which are affiliates of Trump’s business, wrote that Trump tokens “are not investments or securities but are an ‘expression of support.’”) The President’s crypto windfall, critics suggest, disincentivize him to crack down on the industry, which could cause his tokens to decrease in value by billions of dollars. Representative Ro Khanna, a California Democrat who is one of Congress’s foremost crypto supporters, wrote on X that “Elected officials must be barred from having meme coins by law.” 

    Some critics worry that these tokens represent a threat to national security, because they allow foreign agents to buy large amounts of the token as leverage over Trump’s policy decisions. These agents could buy tokens to win Trump’s favor—or threaten to sell them off, which could crash the token’s price. They could also use cryptographic techniques to conceal their identity to everyone in the world but Trump, says Ohlhaver, at the Allen Lab. 

    The Founding Fathers tried to prevent this sort of conflict of interest with the Emoluments Clauses in the Constitution, which prevent a President from using their office to enrich themselves. (At the time, gift giving was a common corrupt practice among European rulers and diplomats.) Some contend that the fact that Trump’s token launch happened before he was sworn into office means he was operating as a private citizen. “ It’s less complicated for them to launch these BEFORE he officially becomes President,” wrote the crypto journalist Zack Guzmán on X. “Claiming Trump is profiting from the Presidency and violating the Emoluments Clause would have been far easier if not.”

    But Ohlhaver contends that as long as Trump owns a share of tokens, there’s a significant conflict of interest. “He still owns tokens, which will appreciate in price if a foreign adversary pumps it,” she says. Ohlhaver also says that the Trump meme coin threatens our public understanding of money at its core. “With the rise of social media and global social networks, it’s very easy to leverage your status and influence to make a new form of money and legitimize that,” she says. “It’s important for us to maintain our national public goods and make sure that they serve our common interests, rather than the narrow interests of an elite who will benefit tremendously at the expense of everybody else.” 

    Andrew R. Chow’s book about crypto and Sam Bankman-Fried, Cryptomania, was published in August.



    In recent months, a slew of meme coins inspired by former President Donald Trump have emerged in the cryptocurrency market. These coins, which often feature Trump’s likeness or name, have quickly gained popularity among some investors. However, their rise has also raised concerns among both crypto insiders and legal experts.

    One of the main reasons these Trump-inspired meme coins have alarmed crypto insiders is their potential for manipulation and fraud. Many of these coins are created by unknown developers and lack any real utility or value. Instead, they rely on hype and speculation to drive up their prices. This can create a volatile market that is ripe for pump-and-dump schemes, where savvy investors manipulate the price of the coin to make a quick profit.

    Furthermore, the use of Trump’s likeness or name in these coins could also pose legal issues. While some may argue that these coins fall under free speech protections, others believe that they could violate copyright or trademark laws. Additionally, using a public figure like Trump to promote a cryptocurrency could attract the attention of regulators, who may be concerned about potential scams or fraudulent activity.

    Overall, the emergence of Trump’s meme coins in the cryptocurrency market has sparked a debate about the risks and ethics of investing in such assets. As with any investment, it’s important for investors to do their due diligence and consider the potential consequences before jumping on the bandwagon of these controversial coins.

    Tags:

    Trump meme coins, cryptocurrency, legal concerns, crypto insiders, meme coin market, Donald Trump, digital assets, crypto regulation, meme coin investing, cryptocurrency trends, NFTs, crypto market analysis

    #Trumps #Meme #Coins #Alarmed #Crypto #Insiders #Legal #Experts

Chat Icon