Lawyers for CBS are again seeking to dismiss President Trump’s $20 million lawsuit, which they say is an “affront to the First Amendment,” even as the top brass at its parent company, Paramount Global, are reportedly in settlement talks.

Mr. Trump sued Paramount and CBS over a controversial interview Vice President Harris gave to “60 Minutes” in the closing weeks of the election. The flagship program removed what critics called “word salad” from the top of Ms. Harris’ answer to a question about Prime Minister Netanyahu, making her sound more coherent, at a critical time when Ms. Harris was facing questions about her ability to speak coherently off the cuff. 

Despite the network’s defense of the edits and left-wing journalists and legal scholars calling the lawsuit “meritless,” the lawsuit has so far survived CBS’ challenges in the conservative Texas court where it was filed. Furthermore,  the resolution of the legal battle has reportedly become a source of contention between CBS News brass and top executives at Paramount, who think they should settle the suit.  

In a filing on Thursday, outside attorneys representing CBS asked the Texas-based judge to dismiss the lawsuit, saying it is an “affront to the First Amendment.” Attorneys for the network say Mr. Trump “not only ask[s] for $20 billion in damages but also seek[s] an order directing how a news organization may exercise its editorial judgment in the future. The First Amendment stands resolutely against these demands.”

The lawyers argued that Mr. Trump’s claim that the “60 Minutes” interview hurt his social media platform, Truth Social, doesn’t hold water because its share price “allegedly ‘skyrocketed nearly 75 percent’ in the same month” as the Harris interview. 

“And the elected has mooted the need for relief for any ostensible injury to his campaign,” the filing said. Mr. Trump, for his part, said at his first Cabinet meeting last week that the “60 Minutes” segment, which he said was deceptively edited in order to aid Ms. Harris, could have cost him the election.

CBS News did not respond to the Sun’s request for comment by the time of publication.

Last month, before the prospect of a settlement became public, CBS sought to dismiss the lawsuit – which has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, where courts have a history of siding with conservatives – but the judge presiding over the case denied the request. 

The “60 Minutes” scandal has opened the network up to a variety of legal pitfalls, which could endanger a merger deal between Paramount Global and Skydance. On the one hand, the FCC – which has to approve the agreement – re-opened a “news distortion” investigation and ordered CBS News to hand over the unedited transcript of Ms. Harris’ interview. 

And as Mr. Trump’s lawsuit has unfolded, the outgoing head of Paramount, Shari Redstone, and the man tapped to replace her once the Skydance deal is approved, former NBC executive Jeff Shell, have reportedly been ramping up pressure to reach a settlement with the president. 

Ms. Redstone has reportedly argued that the best way to handle Mr. Trump’s lawsuit is a settlement, which they believe could help ensure the merger with Skydance is approved by the federal government. 

According to the Status email newsletter, Mr. Shell inserted himself into the controversy months ago, suggesting to CBS News executives that they release a transcript of the interview, even though legally he’s not supposed to involve himself in management issues until the merger closes.

Despite Ms. Redstone reportedly wanting a settlement, some CBS executives fear that aside from setting a precedent of trying to appease the president, a settlement could come with legal risks as it could be seen as a bribe to secure approval of the merger deal, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Mr. Trump confirmed the settlement talks to reporters last week during his first Cabinet meeting, adding that he believes any settlement deal would need to have a hefty price tag because he thinks the “60 Minutes” edits could have cost him the election. However, he did not offer an example of an amount that would satisfy him.

One way to avoid the appearance of the settlement being a bribe (which could expose CBS executives to possible criminal charges) would be for CBS News to admit wrongdoing in the way it edited Ms. Harris’ interview. However, the chief executive of CBS News, Wendy McMahon, and the executive producer of “60 Minutes, Bill Owens, have been firmly against the idea. Journalist Oliver Darcy, the author of the Status newsletter, reports it is now a “red line” they will not cross.

In a meeting last month that was reported by the New York Times, Mr. Owens told staff, “There have been reports in the media about a settlement and/or apology. The company knows I will not apologize for anything we have done.”

“The edit is perfectly fine; let’s put that to bed so we can get on with our lives,” he said, referring to releasing the transcript, which the FCC had just ordered CBS to do.

The release of the transcript last month did not diminish the controversy. While liberal reporters such as Mr. Darcy and his competition at Puck, Dylan Byers, stated as fact that the transcripts showed no unethical behavior on the part of CBS, conservative critics pointed out that the edit clearly removed the first part of Ms. Harris’ answer, which was a “word salad,” deceptively creating the impression that she immediately answered the question about Mr. Netanyahu coherently.

CBS also shot itself in the foot by also releasing alternate versions of the Netanyahu question-answer sequence on minor CBS News platforms such as “Face the Nation” and CBSNews.com, thereby exposing the selective editing of the “60 Minutes” segment, which was the only one that mattered in terms of audience reach. Network insiders believe this was an internal error.

In addition to the constant drip of embarrassing leaks surrounding CBS News and the merger deal, the latest reporting about Mr. Shell’s pressure to settle Mr. Trump’s lawsuit could put the merger at risk.

Companies that are seeking to merge are supposed to act as competitors until the government approves the deal. The intervention by Mr. Shell could be seen as a form of “gun jumping,” or illegal pre-merger coordination between the two companies, that could spark further scrutiny from the FCC, which has the authority to approve or reject the deal.

In addition to the chaos caused by damaging leaks from the Tiffany Network, the Paramount-Skydance appeared to be in peril for an entirely separate reason. On Monday, a judge in Delaware, Kathaleen McCormick, heard arguments from New York City’s public pension fund arguing that the process that led to the deal was not open enough. The fund is seeking to block the deal to ensure other potential bidders can make an offer for Paramount.

Last year, she rejected a $56 billion pay package for Elon Musk that Telsa’s stakeholders had approved. 

On Thursday, Ms. McCormick agreed to expedite the pension fund’s lawsuit. She declined to issue a temporary restraining order to block the merger, writing in her ruling, “Although plaintiffs have demonstrated harm sufficient to support expedition, there does not seem harm proximate enough to warrant a TRO.” However, she did say Paramount and Skydance need to provide notice of the deal closing “optimally” five days before it is completed so that the pension fund can seek a temporary restraining order. 

The ruling was another blow to Paramount’s hopes that Ms. McCormick would shut down the attempt to block the merger deal. 

The concerns of the appearance of impropriety related to a settlement of Mr. Trump’s lawsuit, the process in which the merger with Skydance was agreed to, and the decision to roll back DEI initiatives come at a critical time for Paramount, as executives believe the FCC could approve the deal as soon as March 18.