Transcript Proves the 60 Minutes Scandal Was Always Fake
Donald Trump's complaints were always meritless, but CBS' capitulation sets a dangerous precedent for the future of the news media.

An issue that came to define the closing days of the 2024 presidential election, oddly, was a single televised interview with Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic candidate. Republican candidate Donald Trump claimed the interview was misleadingly edited to Harris' benefit and demanded investigations—which he, as the newly elected president, could potentially order.
This week, CBS released the transcript and raw footage of the interview, demonstrating how pointless the controversy always was but also potentially setting a dangerous precedent for the future of news media.
In October, CBS News correspondent Bill Whitaker interviewed Harris for 60 Minutes. The interview that aired in the primetime broadcast lasted about 20 minutes and showed Whitaker and Harris speaking in the vice presidential residence, interspersed with footage from a "walk and talk" conversation and a joint interview with Harris and former Rep. Liz Cheney (R–Wyo.), who had endorsed and was campaigning with her.
The day before the interview aired, CBS played a clip on its Sunday morning Face the Nation, but Harris' answer was different than what later aired in the primetime broadcast.
In the Face the Nation clip, Whitaker asks Harris about Israel's ongoing war in Gaza and the Biden administration's dealings with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. When Whitaker notes that it seems Netanyahu "is not listening," Harris responds, "Well, Bill, the work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by, or a result of, many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region."
But on the 60 Minutes broadcast, in response to the same question, Harris replies, "We are not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end."
In a post on X with a video comparing the clips, Trump said the edit was "totally illegal" and constituted "Election Interference."
A giant Fake News Scam by CBS & 60 Minutes. Her REAL ANSWER WAS CRAZY, OR DUMB, so they actually REPLACED it with another answer in order to save her or, at least, make her look better. A FAKE NEWS SCAM, which is totally illegal. TAKE AWAY THE CBS LICENSE. Election Interference.… pic.twitter.com/JRxSda3NeC
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 10, 2024
"She gave an answer that was from a loony bin," Trump claimed two weeks later at a campaign rally. "They said, 'We can't have that.' They took the answer out in its entirety, threw it away, and they put another answer in. And I think it's the biggest scandal in broadcasting history."
CBS denied any wrongdoing, saying in a statement that the excerpt "used a longer section of her answer than that on 60 Minutes. Same question. Same answer. But a different portion of the response." In a second statement, the network clarified that "the interview was not doctored" and that "60 Minutes did not hide any part of Vice President Kamala Harris's answer to the question at issue."
"The American people deserve the full, unedited transcript from Kamala's sit-down interview," Karoline Leavitt, a Trump campaign spokesperson at the time, told the New York Post in a statement. Trump later sued CBS, alleging consumer fraud and requesting $10 billion in damages.
The Center for American Rights, a conservative nonprofit, filed a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) alleging "news distortion." In January, the FCC requested the "full, unedited transcript and camera feeds" from the interview.
This week, CBS released the transcript and raw footage online. Together, they make clear how pointless this controversy truly was.
Here is Harris' full answer to Whitaker's question, as quoted in the transcript and backed up by the footage:
Well, Bill, the work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by, or a result of many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region. And we're not going to stop doing that. We are not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end.
So…Harris' full, unedited answer is a combination of what aired in primetime and what aired on Sunday morning, separated only by the interstitial phrase "and we're not going to stop doing that."
Even if the cuts had been heavier, it is perfectly within a journalist's discretion to edit an interviewee's answers for purposes of clarity or brevity, so long as the edit does not distort the answer's intent: NPR's Ethics Handbook says it assures that "the people we speak with know that the discussions will be edited—but that we will be true to the meaning of their words."
Granted, neither of Harris' answers is particularly compelling; the first part, which aired on Face the Nation, is superficial, and her delivery is halting and stilted. And the portion that played in primetime, while more forceful and succinct, doesn't quite answer Whitaker's prompt.
But to say this constitutes a scandal—much less, as Trump claimed, that CBS switched out one answer for another—is simply false.
The release of the transcript and raw footage lays bare just how fake the controversy always was, but it also establishes a dangerous precedent.
Former CBS executive Jay Newman told CNN's Brian Stelter that the network had always "aggressively protected outtakes and raw video" because "the strong feeling was these were considered 'work product' – akin to a reporter's notes."
"The precedent set by releasing these to a government agency is abhorrent," Newman added. Not to mention the precedent set by caving to Trump, who is famously both litigious and hostile to media he sees as unfavorable.
The New York Times reported last week that even though Trump's lawsuit against CBS was widely seen as frivolous, executives at Paramount, CBS' parent company, were considering settling so as to "increase the odds that the Trump administration does not block or delay their planned multibillion-dollar merger." At the same time, journalists at CBS opposed any settlement over "[what] they consider tantamount to a politician's standard-issue gripes about a news organization's editorial judgment."
While the 60 Minutes transcript and footage show CBS didn't do anything wrong, their release still sets a precedent that Trump can bully a news outlet into submission for nothing more than reporting news he doesn't like.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
And we have moar wagon circling here. Tell me, Lancaster, how much have you received from USAID?
Apparently taxpayer money doesn’t buy very much in the way of talent.
One need only look at our government to see that.
In fairness, wasting the money on talent lessens the quality of the grift.
But it can buy obedience. Blind, stupid, Marxist obedience.
Many would argue it does exactly as claimed. That they edited video to make her look better. Which they did.
Well, they did edit it. I can't say they made her look better.
The best part is the last 20s. He asks her about she was gonna pay it, she says nothing. End interview, cameras still rolling. He asks her to be honest in how they will pay for it and she says taxes.
Thanks for that.
I was too lazy to look.
I'd say this is but cover-up #2 on reason heads.
I can’t imagine how thick headed you have to pretend to be to totally misss the point that it IT IS NOT HER ANSWER THAT IS THE ISSUE, ITS THE CBS EXECS COLLUDING BEHIND THE ACENES TO MAKE HER LOOK BETTER once the answer is was known to be a disaster- an In-kind campaign contribution
We are supposed to believe Fox News should pay up $780mil for failing to fact check Giuliani in real time, but this is OK
And i believe it was JS who supported going after Fox and that settlement.
Hi, I'm Donald Trump. I file multi-billion dollar lawsuits because I am a dumbass. Me and my right-wing echo chamber exaggerate everything to apocalyptic proportion because they too are dumbasses.
I don't think that my 10billion lawsuit is frivolous despite CBS News' election crime of the century when I still won the election anyway and I can always find an attorney to file my dumbass suit because everybody wants to kiss my ass.
Reason commenters kiss my ass the best.
Signed,
Donnie T
Is this your not a lawyer legal critique?
Remind me about your stance on fox news defamation, Alex Jones defamation, mackey, hush money case, etc.
This reads like it was written by not a lawyer. Perhaps you should change your handle to fatbluehairedlesbianbarista.
"Hi, I'm a lefty pile of lying, abysmally stupid, pile of shit claiming to be a lawyer!"
Get reamed with a barb-wire-wrapped broomstick and then fuck off and die, asshole.
“Hi. I’m Windycityattorney. I’m not really an attorney, but I may have stayed under an overpass near a Holiday Inn Express last night. I’m not particularly smart, nor intelligent, but I like to obfuscate and befuddle while dazzling with utter bullshit while discussing topics I know absolutely nothing about.”
My mind was blown by the unmitigated stupidity of "CBS released the transcript and raw footage of the interview".
The whole fucking thing is an issue because we had the raw footage and the edited footage months ago.
The unmitigated gall of CBS and Lancaster nobly allowing us the footage of our politicians, months later, as *their* proof our concerns were unjustified... it just makes me want to fire up the woodchipper and start throwing things in willy-nilly.
If she wasn’t a bumbling idiot, they wouldn’t have to replace the answer.
"executives at Paramount, CBS' parent company, were considering settling so as to "increase the odds that the Trump administration does not block or delay their planned multibillion-dollar merger."
Bullshit. You don't want discovery.
THIS IS THE DISCOVERY
Exactly.
No it wasn't. This was CBS not signing a no public release to an FCC request.
I thought you were a lawyer.
A lawyer would know discovery would include interviews, emails, etc around the editorial decisions.
You're not a lawyer though.
You.
Are.
Full.
Of.
Shit.
Fuck off and die, lying pile of lefty shit.
Be honest, you’re not actually a lawyer, are you?
This is getting wild.
It isn't happening, and it's not as bad as you think.
Thanks Slightly Less Sleepy Joe.
That's yet another utterly incredulous part or layer to this issue.
This was the candidate after they "suddenly discovered" halfway into an administration that the candidate she was to succeed was unable to remember every item on a 3-item list if it was written down in front of him.
proves the exact fucking opposite. how much is Reason on the hook from usaid???
2 articles from different authors and they both are trying to gaslight that the presented information isn't what it is said to be.
Hermes Conrad - level bending over backwards.
Is JL just a liar, or is he retarded?
Or is he on the take?
Yes AND.
So CBS could have nipped this in the bud if they had released the entire quote immediately after the 60 Minutes episode aired?
What a hill to die on.
Even CBS is not shameless enough to claim they didn't make changes to make her look better.
JL has found his calling.
That was my question also.
Another take [from Townhall, which to their credit has NEVER been shy about admitting their bias]:
"CBS has finally released their complete, unedited interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris. It was a word salad bonanza. She sat down with 60 Minutes in the waning days of her campaign, where it was becoming clear that the now-former vice president lacked the presidential timber to win. The garrulous journey she took us on during these interviews was astounding in exposing her vapidity toward the most fundamental issues. These trainwreck interviews confirmed the reports of her ignoring staff and their briefing memos. She can’t go off the cuff."
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2025/02/06/cbs-is-supposed-to-turn-over-the-unedited-kamala-harris-interview-with-60-minutes-n2651639
USAID was funding over 6,200 journalists across 707 media outlets and 279 "media" NGOs, including nine out of ten media outlets in Ukraine.
Time for a deep dive on the Reason writers. There has to be a reason for articles like the above.
Exactly. These articles don’t really make sense otherwise. There is no reason for a libertarian publication that historically has railed against agencies like the USAID and has wanted smaller, more accountable government over the years to be defending this grift.
The want to say in the "club" so are tasked with doing their share. Otherwise, no more "journalism" awards.
You know, some people value truth and facts for their own sake. Some people advocate for certain principles, and also want issues decided upon on their merits by intellectual argument, instead of by appeals to emotion and outrage fueled by half-truths and lies. It doesn't have to be some conspiracy or graft to object to the constant pants-shitting outrage theater that comes from Team Red nowadays.
You know, some people value truth and facts for their own sake.
Such people are not welcome in these comments, that's for sure.
And you go and white knight the lying liar.
Such people are not welcome in these comments
Not by you and Lying Jeffy anyway.
You know, some people value truth and facts for their own sake.
And some people sure as hell don’t include you, Lying Jeffy.
What is untrue about USAID not being something the federal government should be doing?
What is unlibertarian about the position that the funding should be cut, the agency dissolved, and the offices stripped for parts?
It's a treasure trove of bigger news and yet Reason wants to spur on more fear of a Trump administration and cover for the federal government and democrats.
They are so far off mission.
Wow, how bad would you feel to be the 1 out of 10 Ukrainian Media Outlets that didn't get funded.
Those were probably arrested like the orthodox priests.
9 out of 10 Ukrainian Media Outlets were funded, at least in part, by the USAID, the 10th was handful of Ukrainian guys on a Polish yacht that the USAID totally had nothing to do with.
Why would CBS think that the failure to settle would interfere with a merger? Surely they don't think that Trump is some kind of extortionist?
They don't want discovery... You don't want discovery either.
I'm inclined to think it's both. They are trying to buy off the new boss, AND they don't want their dirty laundry aired. (Though I think that was way more the case with ABCs settlement.)
Everyone now acknowledges what hacks these people are. But it's still somehow worse when edited footage of you confirming your bias gets aired.
Be funny if it gets blocked anyway.
Or if the deal falls through for other reasons.
You mean that the guy who kicked off his campaign by promising to "be your retribution" would use his presidential powers for revenge against his political enemies?
No fucking way. That's crazy talk.
Why would anyone believe you have more than one brain cell? Fuck off and die, TDS-addled pile of shit.
The real issue was never about the precise content of the interview per se. The real issue was about forcing the hated CBS to bend the knee to MAGA Nation.
They literally put out fake news.
Why do you hate the truth?
You know why. He’s Lying Jeffy.
Lying Jeffy's going to lie. It's what they pay him for.
That disinformation we were discussing yesterday? CBS engaged in it, in spades.
But yeah, this is totally about your fever dreams.
As always, the outrage is over who, not what. Every honest person in the world (that excluded Trump and his defenders right off the bat) knows that tv interviews are edited. It's standard practice.
They're only outraged because OMG it was a Democrat!
As a sidenote here, in the future when (not if) there are complaints about how Fox News edits an interview, it will be ok. We all know why.
The issue is not that the answer was edited, it was that the edit was changed and why that was. The answer seems to be what she said was meaningless word salad. The section they used in the promo made Harris sound demented, like her boss.
Would you be equally angry if Fox News edited an interview with a Republican to make them look better? I seriously doubt it. That's why I say it's all about who, not what.
Angry? Most people are angry when they are lied to...full stop! So when media twists words to make someone look coherent (Harris) or lies to make someone look evil (Trump), a forthright release and immediate review of the transcript seems to clarify what was said and in which context. Hoping you asked your stupid question as bait so you can post an example of Fox News favorably editing a Republican's interview to make them say what they didn't really mean. So post your evidence! Knowing you...who is always squawking about everyone else's principles when you are the biggest of the principals over principles disciple in this comment section...you will deflect and give nothing.
"Would you be equally angry if Fox News edited an interview with a Republican to make them look better? I seriously doubt it. That's why I say it's all about who, not what."
Provide your example. Fuck your lame hypotheticals.
This should be standard operating procedure for any high stakes interview. One version that's cut for time and flow. One unedited.
I mean, they even release the full version of some Hell's Kitchen dinner services to show that it wasn't scripted. And that's a game show.
She was the Vice President. Running for the president. It wasn't a story about girl scout cookie sales. Releasing less than half of the interview and literally changing her answers is unacceptable.
Doubly so because her boss had been kicked from the race because there was finally a debate that they couldn't edit him through.
Trump: CBS edited out Kamala's word salad to make her look better.
CBS: This is the word salad we edited out.
Lancaster: WiThOuT MeRiT!!
Further...
Trump: CBS edited out Kamala's word salad to make her look better. I don't know if it was CBS giving a donation in kind or the media taking marching orders from a sitting VP but we've all seen some of the raw footage and it's shady AF.
CBS: Here's all the raw footage. Pay no attention to why the administration that would be harmed by this isn't suing us for our totally innocuous editing that we totally did of our own volition. Trust us bro.
Lancaster: WiThOuT MeRiT!!
Donald Trump's complaints were always meritless, but CBS' capitulation sets a dangerous precedent for the future of the news media.
Donald Trump's lawsuit against the Ministry of Truth was meritless but the Ministry of Truth's capitulation sets a dangerous precedent.
"We know that they are lying, they know that they are lying, they even know that we know they are lying, we also know that they know we know they are lying too, they of course know that we certainly know they know we know they are lying too as well, but they are still lying. In our country, the lie has become not just moral category, but the pillar industry of this country."
Cannot hate them enough.
"While the 60 Minutes transcript and footage show CBS didn't do anything wrong, their release still sets a precedent that Trump can bully a news outlet into submission for nothing more than reporting news he doesn't like."
Why is it at all controversial? Are we not open to the concept of a free press that is also transparent? It isn't a court of law where the accused is presumed innocent it's a court of public opinion and given the public's opinion of the MSM it's probably a good idea to take every opportunity boost that opinion with a little good will transparency. After all, it isn't like it cost them anything to release the transcript.
Apparently Reasons 'discovery' is just another 'cover-up'.
https://reason.com/2025/02/06/transcript-proves-the-60-minutes-scandal-was-always-fake/?comments=true#comment-10904447
Of course, the edit was intended to make her look better, even though it still couldn't make her look competent!
Agreed - it didn't materially change the answer, but it certainly changes the impression!
Imagine editing out the long blank stare of Biden at the debate and replacing it with 5 seconds of his actual answer - it WAS the long pause that gave everyone so much concern! That simply spoke volumes about the man's remaining faculties!
Remember, he DID say he was going to vote for her.
"Neither major party's candidate gets me particularly excited, and I expect each would pursue policies that I will oppose. But since I find myself once again in a swing state, I feel compelled to choose one or the other. Wrongheaded and potentially unconstitutional policymaking can be prevented by Congress and the judiciary; on the other hand, the mechanism for dealing with a candidate who spreads racist lies about immigrants and minority groups is the ballot box. As such, I will vote for Kamala Harris."
Do not forget his laughable reasoning.
"Sure, Kamala will do illegal things...but Trump was mean to immigrants."
Lol. Good catch.
I have suspected for years that the @realDonaldTrump account was a fake account run by bad AI. Nothing since that has managed to convince me otherwise. The stuff in this account's tweets and troofs are random verbal diarrhea.
Prove me wrong. Prove to me that Trump really is the idiot brain behind these.
Not to be mean....but why would anybody care what you believe about it?
There’s so many you could’ve given examples.
He speaks the same way...
Unless you're suggesting he's an android or such you don't have a point here.
That’s Brandy for you.
1. Of course Trump is a liar.
2. If CBS wanted to, they could dedicate an entire network to dishonestly bash Trump and Republicans, and support Democrats and liberals.
3. CBS could have edited the interview anyway they wanted.
1. CBS made the edits, and thus was dishonest with the way they presented the interview.
2. This goes in harmony with CBS's mission to "support Democrats and liberals" and "dishonestly bash Trump and Republicans".
3. Thus, Trump was not a liar, but was telling the truth.
You just cannot be honest with yourself, can you?
The transcript proves THIS ARTICLE is a flat out lie.
I think I'm done. The comments are fun, but if I wanted to visit The Jacobin I would. This is ridiculous. She literally spouted incomprehensible gibberish when asked a question, and instead of airing the gibberish answer, they simply cut and pasted a less gibberish answer from a different part of the interview.
And why did they do that? Because they were trying to get her elected. The notion that they weren't completely in the tank for her isn't worthy of a response.
"Hey look, a zebra!" says Reason.
"That's clearly a horse," say normal, rational people.
"No see, it's got the spots!" says Reason.
"A) it's stripes, and B) you clearly painted them on," say normal, rational people.
"No, see, if you look at it in precisely the way I tell you to, you can tell it's natural," says Reason.
"There's literally a pool of black and white paint under where it's standing there dripping paint, and you're literally holding a paintbrush next to a couple of cans of paint," say normal, rational people.
"Yea, but it's definitely a zebra. Everyone in the government and media and academia and all these plaintiffs agree," says Reason.
"It's not a zebra," say normal, rational people.
"Is this a good time to bring up my recreational drug abuse?" says Reason.
"No," say normal, rational people.
"What if we rank-choice decide what it is?" says Reason.
"That's not how this works," say normal, rational people.
"If you don't agree it's a zebra, then you're a fascist. And a racist. Or at least you support one. One in particular that I really really hate for no articulable reason." says Reason.
"I think I'm done," says shadydave.
Totally understandable bro. Totally. Understandable.
*slow clap*
Do not comment until you see it. She was utterly unlie the edited version of her. Just consider how extensive the editing obviously is. They know she looks the stupid incapable fool we all know and don't love. WATCH IT , it is on YouTube
No, a complete comparison shows Joe Lancaster to be a lying pile of TDS-addled shit.
Fuck off and die, asshole.
BTW, here's Willie Brown's admission on getting the voters to approve funding for a boondoggle (he and a guy named Ron something - another politico - determined the budget at a lunch where wife and I were eating; just the two of them, no other advice):
"... The city’s Transbay Terminal project—billed as a future “Grand Central Station of the West”—was running $300 million over budget. Brown argued that no one should be shocked by such overruns, and that “we always knew” the estimate was artificially low. “In the world of civic projects, the first budget is really just a down payment,” he wrote. “If people knew the real cost from the start, nothing would ever be approved. The idea is to get going. Start digging a hole and make it so big, there’s no alternative to coming up with the money to fill it in.”..."
https://www.city-journal.org/article/desperate-rail-gambit
Oh, and CATO had this on their web-page for quite a while, but now it's gone. They were cut to $100/year from me a couple of years ago, looks like someone who pays more than that didn't like it.
Next year, they join Reason in the $5/year bucket, just so they know I didn't forget them.
Donate to PLF (https://pacificlegal.org/): They fought Newsom's 'emergency powers' economic central planning and did as well as could be expected at the time. Under a Trump administration, they should do far better.
Piss off sullum, sarc, turd, lancaster, tuccille, enb and other pathetic claimants to libertarianism. Fuck you all with a barb-wire-wrapped broomstick; you deserve nothing other, statist shit-bags.