Here’s the agreement reached in his lawsuit against CBS for deceptively editing a Kamala Harris interview to make her look better:

Paramount Global and CBS agreed on Tuesday to pay President Donald Trump a sum that could reach north of $30 million to settle the president’s election interference lawsuit against the network.

Trump will receive $16 million upfront. This will cover legal fees, costs of the case, and contributions to his future presidential library or charitable causes, to be determined at Trump’s discretion.

There is an anticipation that there will be another allocation in the mid-eight figures set aside for advertisements, public service announcements, or other similar transmissions, in support of conservative causes by the network in the future, Fox News Digital has learned.

I suspect that’s nothing much to CBS. But still, it’s a victory for Trump. And apparently they are also agreeing that in the future they will post entire transcripts for interviews with presidential candidates.

More:

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and eight Democratic colleagues sent a letter to Redstone in May asking her not to settle the lawsuit against CBS News, which they called an “attack on the First Amendment.” They called the potential settlement a “grave mistake” and “a blatant attempt to intimidate the media and those who speak out against him, President Trump.”

The letter also stated “presidents do not get to punish or censor the media for criticizing them” in the United States.

Nobody censored anyone – except for CBS, which censored (that is, made editorial decisions that were somewhat deceptive) the words of Kamala Harris. Trump wanted full disclosure of her words; how is that censorship? And he used a courtroom to duke it out with CBS. Of course, Trump has a lot of power as president. But CBS has a lot of power as a major network, and it has used that power over and over to put its finger on the political scales in favor of the left.

The post CBS pays Trump in settlement of biased-editing lawsuit appeared first on The New Neo.

Now Hostin looks back and reflects:

Speaking on the “Behind the Table” podcast posted Wednesday, the incendiary host said she feels “terrible.”

“It’s Sunny’s fault she [Kamala] didn’t win,” Joy Behar quipped, trying to be funny but figuratively stabbing her co-host in the back. Sunny put her hands to her face in shame, then responded [when asked if she knew it would be a viral moment]:

“I knew it instantly when she answered it. … Which is why I asked the follow-up question, ‘is there one thing?’ Because I knew, I could see the soundbite and I knew what was going to happen, but I thought it was a really fair question and I thought it was a question that she would expect. …

“I feel terrible.”

She feels terrible that she asked a question that elicited an answer that hurt Kamala’s chances. Obviously, she still wishes Harris had been elected.

But here’s my question for Hostin: does she wonder why Harris gave such an abominable answer? I assume that Hostin – like so many people confronted with the flaws of their favored candidates – would make some sort of excuse. Was Kamala having a bad day, for example? But that doesn’t wash, because this was a question so basic, so obvious, that Harris should have had an acceptable answer memorized even if she couldn’t come up with one on the spot. Her answer wasn’t a fluke; it was emblematic of what was wrong.

To me, Harris had many many major flaws. The first set could be grouped under the heading “she’s a leftist.” But the second set was different, and even those who liked her leftism – such as Sunny Hostin – should have been alarmed by this second group, which could be grouped under the heading of “she’s utterly incompetent, mentally disorganized, and incapable of the most basic communication of ideas.”

What I find worthy of mention is the fact that Hostin and so many others never saw that or will not admit it even if they did see it. They cannot afford to do so, either to others or even to themselves. A mind is indeed a difficult thing to change.

The post Sunny Hostin regrets asking Kamala Harris a real question appeared first on The New Neo.

2024 VP Democratic candidate Tim Walz is still giving interviews and talks. Here’s a report on his participation in a Harvard Kennedy School forum on Monday night:

Walz said Harris chose him, in part, because, “I could code talk to White guys watching football, fixing their truck” and “put them at ease.” The Minnesota governor described himself as the “permission structure” for White men from rural America to vote for Democrats.

That’s a good reminder of how the Harris/Walz ticket was one of the best demonstrations of the fact that racial and “gender” identity politics have swallowed the Democratic Party. After all, Harris was chosen because she’s a black woman – and it’s not just me saying that, it was Biden who explicitly said it. Turns out that wasn’t enough to win. And Walz is saying he was chosen because he’s some sort of rural macho white guy and therefore could talk the language of rural macho white guys, all while not talking their language at all. People who say “code talk” and “permission structure” aren’t likely to appeal much to that particular demographic.

Harris was and is a train wreck. Walz was and is a train wreck. It is shocking that they got as many votes as they did.

The post Let us now take just a moment to reflect again on the fact that we dodged quite a bullet when Harris/Walz were defeated appeared first on The New Neo.

For me, one of his most cringe-worthy poses was his attempt to project a macho “regular guy” vibe. And he’s still trying:

Since faceplanting as Kamala Harris’ running mate, the Minnesota governor has been holding rallies and making the media rounds in a desperate attempt to boost his stock for a 2028 presidential run.

Here’s Tim:

Tim Walz on Trump supporters: "I think I can kick most of their ass" pic.twitter.com/CHstXUb7ng

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) March 18, 2025

How can a person be that tone deaf? Someone should tell him that what works in Minnesota doesn’t necessarily work on a national level.

Kamala Harris may be running for the governorship of California. One of her problems has been that what works in California doesn’t necessarily work on a national level. So maybe retreating to the state level is a good idea for her. I doubt she’ll run, though, unless pretty much assured she’ll win the Democratic primary, which is tantamount to winning the election in California.

The post Tim Walz – one of many dodged bullets in the 2024 election appeared first on The New Neo.

Even in the edited version [of her 60 Minutes interview], Kamala comes across as a stupid, ignorant moron.

I still do not understand how any sentient human could have cast their vote for such an incredibly dumb and ignorant individual; and over 49% of voters did exactly that.

It’s interesting to hear all the reasons, supplied by democrats, why Kamala lost the election. You will note that not one commentator states the obvious; that she is just plain stupid and ignorant.

It is really frightening that someone of her “intelligence” could garner such a significant percentage of all the popular votes.

I think I’ve got an answer.

Harris had a fairly low profile as VP. Only political junkies on the right would have seen some of her inane exchanges, and it was easy to have missed most of her off-the-cuff statements and only seen a teleprompter speech or two, if that.

Most Democrats hate Trump and knew they wouldn’t be voting for him. But a lot of them tuned into the Harris/Trump debate in order to see how it would go. Kamala lied quite a bit during it, but that was the usual propaganda that most Democrats already believed, and other than that she acquitted herself fairly well and Trump was fuming and talking about Haitians eating cats and dogs. So the debate would have only solidified their confidence in their choice of Kamala for president.

So, why waste time watching interviews? I’ve asked quite a few people I know – all of them intelligent – what they thought of Kamala’s interviews, and none of them had watched a single one. And why should they? They’re busy people, Trump was a disaster or Hitler, Kamala was fine and cleaned his clock in the debate, so why waste time watching an interview with only her?

Therefore they simply had no idea how awful she came across. To this day they have no idea, because they certainly weren’t about to watch her interviews after the election.

That may even have been part of the reason Trump sued CBS: in order to expose the entire interview and draw attention to it.

The post Voting for Kamala: the interviews appeared first on The New Neo.

It’s about what you’d except. Instead of relatively succinct – although nevertheless vague – answers, we have meandering, lengthy, vague and often meaningless responses. Plus, some of the worst ones were left out. CBS edited the interview to make her look better, but even then she didn’t look good.

Here’s an article that describes some of the cuts.

And here’s the original:

Here’s an example of her answering the “why do you want to be president?” question:

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Brian Kilmeade (@kilmeade)

The post Kamala’s CBS editors made her sound semi-coherent appeared first on The New Neo.

Those two brilliant lawyers, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, seem to think they can revive it by fiat.

Actually, I don’t believe they really think that – although who knows what Joe thinks these days? They’re just messing with our minds in order to move the Overton window. The fact that they’re both saying this means it was orchestrated by the person or persons who have been orchestrating so very much during this administration.

And so we have this from Joe Biden:

Today I'm affirming what I have long believed and what three-fourths of the states have ratified:

The 28th Amendment is the law of the land, guaranteeing all Americans equal rights and protections under the law regardless of their sex. pic.twitter.com/oZtS6Q89zG

— President Biden (@POTUS) January 17, 2025

And this from Kamala Harris:

The Equal Rights Amendment is the 28th Amendment, and it is the law of the land. pic.twitter.com/jl1Ewg2JAf

— Vice President Kamala Harris (@VP) January 17, 2025

And this from lawyers such as Jonathan Turley:

President Biden's recognition of the ERA as the 28th Amendment is the constitutional version of announcing that "I see dead people," but more unnerving. It takes an utter disregard for the constitutional process as well as reality…

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) January 17, 2025

The post King Joe and Queen Kamala have spoken appeared first on The New Neo.

Here’s her statement on insurance companies and the LA fire:

Many insurance companies have canceled insurance for a lot of the families who have been affected and will be affected, which is only going to delay or place an added burden on their ability to recover.

I think that is an important point that must be raised, and hopefully there can be some way to address that issue, because these families — so many of them — otherwise will not have the resources to recover in any meaningful way, and many of them have lost everything.

Harris implies that the companies have canceled insurance because of the fire or during the fire, even though she doesn’t explicitly say it. What she leaves out is the fact that the policies were canceled some time ago and it had nothing to do with this fire and everything to do with California’s insurance rules that make it a loss to cover people in high-risk fire areas. This is a description of what has actually happened:

Even before this week’s wildfires hit, California was in the midst of an insurance crisis, with many residents unable to obtain homeowners insurance due to several carriers limiting their exposure in the state or pulling out completely in recent years because of heavy losses and the inability to adequately raise premiums or assess risk due to California’s regulations.

Insurance companies are businesses. If the risk is high they must raise rates. If the state forbids them to raise rates enough to cover losses, the companies won’t be doing business there.

More:

The state’s largest homeowners insurance carrier, State Farm, announced in March of last year that it would not renew some 72,000 home and apartment policies in the summer. The company cited inflation, regulatory costs and increasing risk of catastrophes for its decision and had previously stopped accepting new applications in the state.

Several other leading insurers, including All State, Farmers and USAA, have also in recent years curbed new policy applications in California as part of an effort to limit their exposure to policies that carry what they see as undue risk given what the state’s regulators have allowed them to charge policyholders. Similar reasons of escalating risk, high repair costs and rising reinsurance premiums have been cited in those decisions.

While it is illegal for insurance companies to cancel policies before they expire in California, many homeowners whose policies were not renewed have struggled to obtain or afford coverage, as the number of carriers in the state continues to shrink.

California doesn’t employ adequate fire prevention or mitigation measures despite the high risk there, and then it makes it so that insurance companies can’t afford to do business there because premium rates are capped in an artificial and unrealistic manner.

And why do I call Harris’ remarks dangerous? I think the answer is obvious after the murder of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson and the fact that so many people justified his killing.

The post Kamala’s dangerous statement about insurance companies appeared first on The New Neo.

What a difference four years makes, and what a long strange trip it’s been – and hardly over yet. The left tried everything – and I mean almost literally everything – to stop him, and yet he was re-elected and has managed to stay upright and sentient, at least so far.

Much is being made in some circles of the fact that Kamala Harris presided over the session. Also, of the fact that the Democrats aren’t really contesting these results. That doesn’t mean they didn’t contest results in the past; they certainly did, and we have the video compilations to prove it. But more importantly, one reason this election wasn’t contested is that the voting rules were mostly tightened up, and the percentage of mail-in ballots – although still too high IMHO – went down significantly. What’s more, because Republican voters are not concentrated in urban areas controlled by Republicans, the mechanisms for significant fraud are less available to the GOP.

Still, many on the left would like us to remember J6 of 2020 as a day that will live forever in infamy. By electing Trump, the majority of voters rejected that idea. But there’s no question that the left got much use out of it, and managed to pervert the legal system to harshly punish even those uninvolved in any violence that day.

The post Today is the four year anniversary of J6 appeared first on The New Neo.

And you know what? She came way too close to winning the 2024 election, considering her abysmal performance.

Anyway, here’s the story that sparked these reflections of mine:

Vice President Kamala Harris stormed out of a meeting with powerful Teamsters President Sean O’Brien while campaigning, arrogantly telling him she didn’t need his support because she’d “win with you or without you” — just before her crushing loss to Donald Trump.

O’Brien recalled the episode on “The Tucker Carlson Show” on Monday as he discussed his union’s historic decision not to endorse a presidential candidate for the first time in nearly 30 years.

O’Brien said Harris finally agreed to sit with the Teasmstars for a roundtable after President Biden dropped out of the race, just to only answer a quarter of their 16 questions. Other candidates, including Trump, answered them all.

Harris apparently didn’t even think she needed to court unions, which used to be a stronghold of Democrat sentiment. No more.

Also, here’s a one-minute segment from the interview:

I don’t think Harris had ever before had to face the consequences of conveying an obnoxious attitude of entitled arrogance. Finally, she has. Of course, she’ll probably land on her feet anyway, with some sort of cushy position and lots of money. Hey, maybe she’ll even be the Democrats’ presidential nominee again, but I don’t think so.

The post What was Kamala Harris thinking? appeared first on The New Neo.