After the abrupt firing of Scott Pelley, longtime "60 Minutes" alumnus Steve Kroft joins critics who blast new regime that seems intent on gutting a news legacy

"60 Minutes" alum Steve Kroft in interview with Geoff Bennett on PBS News Hour (Yahoo!)

For Americans who believe journalism plays a central role in our democracy, the systematic destruction of CBS News by moneyed allies of Donald Trump is a deeply concerning tale. It suggests that Trump, like the authoritarians he so admires around the globe, seeks to control storied media companies and turn them into propaganda arms for his increasingly fascist government. 

The firing of longtime and decorated reporter Scott Pelley has dominated coverage of the turbulence at Black Rock. But Pelley is not the only veteran newsman to speak out about the upheaval that has unsettled the network home to some of the most famous names in broadcast journalism -- Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite, Dan Rather, Mike Wallace, and many more. In an interview with Geoff Bennett of PBS, 30-year 60 Minutes correspondent Steve Kroft bashed the new management that seems determined to leave a journalistic institution in tatters. In the process, Kroft cuts to the bone of what has made CBS News a target for right-wing, elitist interests. He traces the beginning of unrest at CBS to an interview with Kamala Harris during the 2024 presidential campaign, which prompted Trump to file a lawsuit of dubious merit -- which seems to be the only kind of lawsuit he can file.

Let's take a look at Kroft's insights, as reported at PBS:

Geoff Bennett:

CBS News has fired longtime 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley after a contentious all-staff meeting in which Pelley reportedly clashed with newly installed executive producer Nick Bilton and accused CBS News editor-in-chief Bari Weiss of murdering the storied news magazine.

Bilton, in a letter firing Pelley yesterday evening, accused him of acting with remarkable incivility and contempt.

In his own statement, Pelley said -- quote -- "The leadership of 60 Minutes is no longer recognizable. The principles I hold dear are gone, and so I must leave as well."

The firing marks the latest and most dramatic chapter in the upheaval surrounding "60 Minutes" and CBS News, as Weiss moves to reshape both the nation's most watched television news magazine and the news division more broadly.

For more, we're joined now by Steve Kroft. He spent 30 seasons as a correspondent for 60 Minutes before retiring in 2019. . . . 

Geoff Bennett:

We should say, you joined 60 Minutes back in 1989, spent decades helping make it the most respected, most watched news magazine in TV history. As you have watched recent events unfold -- Scott Pelley's firing; the dismissal of Tanya Simon, the former executive producer; the firings of correspondents Sharyn Alfonsi and Cecilia Vega, what has been going through your mind?

Steve Kroft:

You know, I think it's been disastrous for the show, for the audience, which is not insubstantial.

It's been going on for a long time. It began really with an interview that Bill Whitaker had done with Kamala Harris, in which CBS was sued for $17 million by the Trump administration for what they called an illegal edit. The lawsuit had absolutely no merit.

Yet CBS and the corporate management, Paramount, decided to settle the case for $17 million. And since then, it's just been sort of one thing after another.

Geoff Bennett:

And the broader context, which you're speaking of, is important, because CBS News is now operating under new ownership as Paramount Skydance seeks approval from Trump regulators to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery, which, by the way, also owns CNN.

And President Trump, we should say, has made no secret of his hostility toward much of the mainstream press. He has called out 60 Minutes and CBS News repeatedly. So how much do the larger political and corporate pressures at play help explain what's happening right now at 60 Minutes in CBS News?

Steve Kroft:

I think it perfectly explains it.

For Paramount, the parent company, getting these deals done, first the permission to merge the two companies from the FCC, and then now awaiting a decision on whether this is going to go through with the FCC and be approved, I think Paramount has just decided it was going to be . . . that was the only thing that was important.

And they were going to try and block anything that might get in the way. Scott Pelley said this morning, he asked Bari Weiss, the president of the corporation, why they fired Tanya Simon, the executive producer of the show, why they had fired various correspondents in the last week -- well, just in one day.

And she refused to answer any of the questions, which leaves you with what's been said by the president and by his staff and by the chairman of the FCC that they don't like the way CBS has been operated. They don't like the fact that it's on the air. They would like to see it taken off the air. They've said that a number of times. They would like to see people fired. And that is what's happened.

Geoff Bennett:

And yet one could argue every new owner, every new management team arrives believing they can improve what they bought, that they can make an institution better, even a standout success like "60 Minutes."

In this case, though, where is the line between a legitimate business decision and a journalistic interference?

Steve Kroft:

Well, I think that this is journalistic interference. It makes no business sense whatsoever. The show is still doing very well. It's the highest rated news program on television. And it has been that way for more than 50 years.

The audience was up about 9 percent last year. And why would you mess with that? It's got an audience of about 10 million people, between nine and 10 million people, which is still one of the largest audiences on network television.

Geoff Bennett:

I want to ask you about something else here, because, in a statement, Scott Pelley said that the new management instructed him to inject falsehoods and bias into a politically sensitive story, which he says he did not do.

Cecilia Vega in a separate statement also spoke of pressure to insert political bias and said that some staffers became reluctant to pitch certain stories out of fear of internal repercussions. How significant a break is what they describe from the editorial culture and standards that defined 60 Minutes during your tenure?

Steve Kroft:

It's never happened. That's the only way to describe it.

I have never had anybody ask to make any kind of insertion or addition to a story to change the tone of it or to change the facts of it. I don't think it's ever happened at 60 Minutes.

Geoff Bennett:

We should say we have reached out to CBS News for a statement. They have yet to respond.

Zooming out, what does the country lose if an institution like 60 Minutes becomes weaker, less independent or less ambitious?

Steve Kroft:

You have already seen the effects of it.

Cecilia Vega in her final statement to the staff outlined a number of problems that have occurred on the show and that people have been unwilling or afraid to do stories -- intimidated from doing stories that needed covering and that it instilled this feeling of fear into the broadcast.

And I think that's absolutely, 100 percent true. So it's already having effects. And I think that Scott was doing this not just for himself, making the point about himself personally. I think he was doing it to stand up for Sharyn Alfonsi, who was fired, and for Cecilia Vega, who was fired, and for Tanya Simon, who was fired, and Draggan Mihailovich, who was fired.

All of these people are incredibly good journalists and the kind of people you would need if you wanted to continue to put a program like CBS' 60 Minutes on the air. And now they are gone. I think it was a slap in the face to everybody who has worked there over a long period of time.

Geoff Bennett:

Former 60 Minutes correspondent Steve Kroft.

Steve, thanks again for your time. We appreciate it.

Steve Kroft:

My pleasure. 

Todd Blanche says Trump "absolutely" would have gone to prison without a 2024 election win, indicating we must dig for answers about election fraud that might have produced an imposter in the White House

(Facebook)

Donald Trump almost certainly was headed to prison if he had not won the 2024 presidential election, Acting Attorney General and former Trump personal lawyer Todd Blanche said in a recent television appearance, according to a jointly published report at The Independent and Yahoo! News. Under the header "Acting AG Todd Blanche says Trump 'absolutely' would have gone to prison if he lost the 2024 election," Josh Marcus writes:

“Is it an accurate statement to say he either wins in '24, wins the White House — it’s either the White House or the big house?” Fox News anchor Sean Hannity asked Blanche on an episode of the Hang Out with Sean Hannity show that was released on Tuesday.

“Oh yeah, absolutely,” Blanche responded.

As we will show shortly, Blanche did not just say that he expected a Joe Biden or Kamala Harris Department of Justice (DOJ) to "go after" Trump or even bring an indictment against him. But he said that Trump "absolutely was headed to prison if he did not win in November 2024. As Trump's personal lawyer at the time, Blanche probably knew his client was vulnerable to criminal charges, and that a competent DOJ likely could present a compelling case before a federal jury, one that likely would result in a conviction.

Would the U.S. Supreme Court presidential immunity ruling in Trump vs. United States, issued on July 1,  2024, have saved Trump from prison? It's hard to say without knowing the basis for a possible Trump conviction. But it's hard to imagine that any activities leading to a conviction could fall under the "official acts" language at the heart of the Trump ruling? On the other hand, many legal experts thought the high court would never even hear the immunity case, much less pull such protection for Trump out of thin air.

Blanche did not touch on election fraud in the Hannity appearance, but it hangs over a number of obvious questions his words raise: Did Trump and his allies, particularly Elon Musk, have incentive to pull out all the stops to ensure a Trump victory? Did they resort to blatant fraud, and what tools did they have at their disposal to pull off such a scheme? We already have addressed such questions here at Legal Schnauzer, as have other journalists, online investigators, computer scientists, and election-integrity experts.  For example, we wrote a piece on Nov. 21, 20205, under the headline "Voting integrity expert Spoonamore says a recount likely will show Kamala Harris won the election, which had signs of Elon Musk's ties to dubious acts." That post begins . . . 

A hand recount would "most likely show" Vice President Kamala Harris won the 2024 presidential election, according to a "duty to warn" letter to Harris from voting-integrity expert Stephen Spoonamore. Further, Spoonamore states: "In my view, a capable and skilled series of exploits, electronic tools, and hacks were used to change the Presidential vote in all seven swing states.  These activities have reversed the outcomes in at least Arizona, Michigan, North Carolina, and Wisconsin."

News of Spoonamore's missive comes on the heels of our post yesterday about a similar letter from Duncan Buell, Ph.D., chair emeritus and NCR chair of computer science and engineering at the University of South Carolina. 

We will pick up on the Spoonamore letter and related issues in upcoming posts. But first, let's return to Todd Blanche's appearance with Sean Hannity. Josh Marcus writes:

[Blanche] pointed to the cloud of legal scrutiny hanging over Trump during the 2024 election, which included special counsel Jack Smith’s multiple cases against the Republican in Washington and Florida, as well as the then-candidate’s guilty convictions in New York in his hush money trial.

“Don’t forget he had a D.C. case breathing down his neck,” Blanche said. “He had the Florida case which had been dismissed, but they were appealing it, and then he had a judge in New York who, there’s no scenario in which he wasn’t going to send Trump to prison.”

The Independent/Yahoo! report then turns to a number of fortuitous events that saved Trump -- most notably, his election win. But it also shows the peril Trump was facing. Marcus writes:

Following Trump’s election victory, the special counsel dropped the federal cases against the president-elect, citing the precedent against bringing an indictment or proceedings against a sitting president.

In congressional testimony last year, Smith said he was confident he would’ve secured a conviction against Trump on his allegations that the Republican conspired to interfere with the 2024 election.

“The timing and speed of our work reflects the strength of the evidence and our confidence that we would have secured convictions at trial,” Smith told the House Judiciary Committee. “If asked whether to prosecute a former President based on the same facts today, I would do so regardless of whether that president was a Republican or a Democrat.”

The president continues to challenge the New York conviction, both in state court and in an effort to move it to federal court.

Since returning to the White House, the president has vowed to seek payback for the alleged “weaponization” of the justice system he claims to have suffered.

Trump's DOJ is investigating an alleged decade-long “grand conspiracy” between officials who investigated or prosecuted the president.

As part of the settlement in his recent suit against the IRS, Trump also sought to create a nearly $1.8 billion “slush fund” to compensate allies and victims” of government “weaponization.” 

Todd Blanche surely did not intend for this to happen, but his conversation with Sean Hannity opens up a truckload of questions, and No. 1 on the list is this: Have we been living under an imposter president since January 2025? Has Trump been attempting hostile takeovers of key journalistic institutions -- including The Washington Post, CBS News, and CNN -- to keep them from asking hard questions about how he returned to office? It's time for news organizations of all shapes and sizes to look at how Trump returned to power and launched an assault on American democracy. We intend to do our part, and we hope you will join us.

Fossil-fuel execs bet big on Trump, with $75 to $100 million in contributions to his campaign, but now they can only watch him drive our economy toward a cliff

(The Kobeissi Letter, Facebook)

Since the start of his second term as president, Donald Trump has done just about everything possible to cater to Big Oil. But with U.S. oil reserves reaching dangerously low levels, oil-company executives  cannot ignore signs that Trump has mismanaged America's energy resources.

We find the grim news via a jointly published article at Fortune and Yahoo!Finance. Under the headline "Oil bosses warn prices will soar in a matter of weeks as inventories near unprecedented lows -- 'I mean really, really low levels'." Focusing on the take of a top Exxon executive, Jason Ma writes:

The two biggest U.S. oil companies joined the growing chorus of voices sounding the alarm on the imminent doom global markets could soon face.

With the Strait of Hormuz still effectively closed, top oil-consuming countries have been rapidly draining their reserves, helping keep crude prices in check.

But Exxon Senior Vice President Neil Chapman warned at an industry conference on Thursday that such drawdowns can’t go on indefinitely.

“We’re approaching unheard of inventory levels,” he said, according to CNBC. “I mean really, really low levels. You can debate whether that’s going to hit those really low levels in two weeks or three weeks. Once you get to that point, then you’ll see price shoot up.” 

That sounds like Americans who already are feeling pain at the pump will get another jolt of discomfort in two or three weeks. CNBC recently reported that households are paying almost $450 more on fuel and energy-related costs since the Iran war. Trump was not smart enough to avoid his war of choice, so you might think his benefactors in the oil industry would have been able to talk some sense into him. But that apparently did not happen.

With Iran now suspending negotiations, citing U.S. and Israeli violations of a ceasefire agreement, it has stated the Strait of Hormuz will be closed until the U.S. lifts its blockade.

The fossil-fuel industry supported Trump's candidacy with $75 to $100 million in contributions to his campaign and affiliated super PACS. To a significant extent, Big Oil executives bought themselves a president, and now they watch as their guy drives the U.S. economy toward the edge of a cliff. Do the oil execs have a sense of buyer's remorse? If not, they should. Here's more from the Fortune/Yahoo! Finance report:

For now, the U.S.-Iran ceasefire talks are deadlocked while the Strait of Hormuz remains a contested waterway. That was on display Saturday, when U.S. forces fired a missile at a blockade runner to disable it after ignoring repeated warnings.

Iran has also kept up attacks on commercial ships attempting to cross the strait without its authorization, though the U.S. is guiding more ships to safety.

The U.S. has released about 50 million barrels from its Strategic Petroleum Reserve since the war with Iran started, sending the stockpile down by 12% to 365 million barrels, the lowest since April 2024.

Analysts are saying oil inventories could hit critically low levels sometime this month, Jason Ma reports:

In key regional oil hubs like Cushing, Okla.—where West Texas Intermediate crude is priced—the situation is more dire. Data from Kpler indicates that inventories there have fallen from 33 million barrels nearly two months ago to about 24.5 million, near operational lows of about 20 million barrels.

JPMorgan has predicted that commercial oil inventories in the developed world could “approach operational stress levels” by early June. Capital Economics has said stockpiles in top economies could hit “critically low levels” by the end of June. 

“I don’t know, whether it’s two to three weeks or three to four weeks,” Exxon’s Chapman said on Thursday. “What I’m really saying is, once you get to the minimum inventory levels and all-time low inventory levels, there’s only one way to go.” 

Another top oil executive also sees storm clouds on the horizon and offers little in the form of encouraging words for consumers:

Similarly, Chevron CEO Mike Wirth said at the same conference Thursday that oil prices will likely soon jump as the market’s “shock absorbers” are depleted, weakening its ability to continue absorbing the disruption.

“Over the next few weeks, we’re likely to see those pressures flow through more directly to physical prices and there’s more upwards pressure that I would expect as we get into June and certainly into July,” he added, according to Financial Times.