Executives at Skydance Media say they “fully complied” with federal anti-bribery laws during their company’s acquisition of Paramount Global and are denying that they had any say in the decision to cancel anti-Trump comedian Stephen Colbert’s late-night show.

However, the company notably ignored a question about whether  – when Paramount negotiated a $16 million settlement with President Trump over “60 Minutes  – it made a side deal with Mr. Trump to air conservative public service on its platforms once the acquisition was consummated. Mr. Trump has said publicly that such an arrangement was made.

The general counsel of Skydance, Stephanie Kyoko McKinnon, sent a letter, first reported by Deadline, to three powerful, left-wing Democratic senators – Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Ron Wyden – addressing questions they sent to the company about its acquisition of Paramount. The three senators, who have previously warned that settling Mr. Trump’s lawsuit could violate anti-bribery laws, asked Skydance to answer questions about its transaction. 

“Throughout its history and during the review of the proposed acquisition of Paramount, Skydance has fully complied with all applicable laws, including our nation’s anti-bribery laws,” Ms. McKinnon said. 

Ms. McKinnon said that Skydance was “neither a party to the lawsuit nor to Paramount’s settlement of its litigation with the president.”

“Paramount had full discretion to settle any outstanding litigation unrelated to the transaction for up to $50 million without Skydance’s consent,” she said. 

Paramount said on July 1 that it agreed to pay $16 million to Mr. Trump’s future presidential library to settle his lawsuit which claimed that producers at “60 Minutes” improperly edited an interview with Vice President Harris to make her sound coherent. The settlement did not include an apology and was for far less than the $20 billion the president was seeking.  

Paramount executives, according to published reports, were convinced that Mr. Trump’s outstanding lawsuit was the reason the FCC had not approved the merger, which was viewed as essential to the company’s survival.   Paramount and the FCC would both publicly state that the lawsuit and the acquisition were unrelated. 

Ms. McKinnon said Paramount did ask for approval to agree to one provision of the settlement agreement, which requires CBS News to release transcripts of interviews with presidential candidates. 

“Skydance did not believe its consent was required, but acceded to Paramount’s request and provided it,” Ms. McKinnon said. 

While Ms. McKinnon maintained that Skydance did not violate any anti-bribery laws, she did not address a major question in the senators’ letter: whether Skydance made a secret side deal with Mr. Trump.

“Is there currently any arrangement under which you or Skydance will provide compensation, advertising, or promotional activities that in any way assist President Trump, his family, his presidential library, or other Administration officials?” the senators asked.

Questions about a side deal have swirled since shortly after the settlement was announced. Mr. Trump posted on Truth Social last month that his $20 billion lawsuit against CBS has formally been resolved, writing, “Paramount/CBS/60 Minutes have today paid $16 Million Dollars in settlement.”

He added, “We also anticipate receiving $20 Million Dollars more from the new Owners, in Advertising, PSAs, or similar Programming, for a total of over $36 Million Dollars. This is another in a long line of VICTORIES over the Fake News Media, who we are holding to account for their widespread fraud and deceit.”

The post appeared to confirm speculation that Skydance had made a side deal as a sweetener for the Paramount settlement.

Skydance has stubbornly refused to comment on the reported side deal, even to deny it, and the letter this week is yet another example of the company’s eyebrow-raising silence. However, Paramount has previously denied that it made any deal to air public service announcements. 

It is possible that the FCC required Skydance to air conservative advertisements as part of its decision to approve the merger, or that it will make such a demand as the agency is still conducting a news distortion investigation into CBS News, which could lead to fines or other regulatory mandates. 

The general counsel also said that Skydance was “not involved” in the decision to cancel “The Late Show.” 

On July 18, CBS announced that it was canceling the show, saying, “This is purely a financial decision against a challenging backdrop in late night. It is not related in any way to the show’s performance, content or other matters happening at Paramount.”

While the show was reportedly losing as much as $50 million a year, and the late-night business as a whole is suffering declining viewership and ad revenues, the decision the fire one of CBS’ most recognized hosts raised eyebrows and sparked speculation that the decision was made to placate the president by firing one of his critics. A far-left media reporter, Oliver Darcy, also suggested that the decision was greenlit by the chief executive of Skydance, David Ellison, as he said it would be unusual for CBS to make such a significant decision weeks before new owners were expected to take over. 

Ms. Warren suggested in an op-ed that the decision to fire Mr. Colbert might have been part of a “wink-wink deal between the president and a giant corporation that needed something from his administration.”

However, Ms. McKinnon said that Skydance found out about the decision “only after Paramount reached its own independent decision, and shortly before Paramount publicly acknowledged the cancellation.”

Her letter comes as someone, described as a person “close” to Mr. Ellison, told the Financial Times, “It was stupid to pull the plug in the middle of everything — it gave strength to the conspiracy theories.”

The Skydance deal is expected to close around August 7, and the new owners are planning to overhaul the news division to ensure it provides unbiased journalism and a diversity of viewpoints at CBS News. 

Adblock test (Why?)