Trump Accused of $20 Billion “Bribe” Scheme

A retired judge is alleging a brazen attempt at bribery disguised as a legal settlement involving former President Donald Trump and CBS. Thomas G. Moukawsher, a former Connecticut Superior Court judge and legal scholar, details his concerns in a recent Newsweek opinion piece, arguing that Trump is leveraging a frivolous lawsuit to extract a payoff from CBS’s parent company, Paramount Global.

Moukawsher contends that Trump is employing a familiar tactic: filing dubious personal lawsuits against individuals he perceives he can intimidate with his former presidential power, then demanding financial settlements. He cites previous cases resulting in payments of $15 million from ABC News and $25 million from Meta.

The current dispute centers around Trump’s claim that a “60 Minutes” segment selectively edited an interview with Kamala Harris to portray her more favorably. Trump is seeking a staggering $20 billion, personally, alleging this editing caused a significant negative impact, a claim Moukawsher dismisses as “stupid.” He further alleges the segment harmed revenue from his Truth Social platform.

The core of Moukawsher’s argument is that this lawsuit isn’t about legitimate legal recourse, but a calculated attempt to influence a pending decision at the Federal Communications Commission. Paramount Global requires FCC approval for its potential acquisition by Skydance Media. Brendan Carr, the FCC chairman appointed by Trump, has indicated he will consider Trump’s complaint against CBS during the approval process.

Moukawsher frames this situation as a clear case of bribery, defining it as the exchange of “anything of value” to influence an official act. He points out that the legal statute of limitations for prosecuting such offenses involving the president is five years, leaving a shrinking window for action.

The situation is deeply troubling. While legal maneuvering and settlements are commonplace, the implication of a quid pro quo – a financial payoff influencing a regulatory decision – is a serious breach of ethical and potentially legal boundaries. Moukawsher’s analysis highlights the potential for abuse of power and the corrosive effect of using legal processes for personal gain. The fact that CBS is even entertaining negotiations, according to Moukawsher, suggests a troubling acceptance of this dynamic. The urgency of his call for all parties to “run from this farce” before a potential change in administration is palpable and justified. This isn’t simply a legal dispute; it’s a potential undermining of the integrity of regulatory processes and a stark example of how power can be leveraged for personal financial benefit.