Legal experts blast ‘baseless’ Warren-Sanders letter warning Paramount against Trump lawsuit settlement

Legal experts blasted an ominous letter that a trio of liberal senators sent to Paramount Global controlling shareholder Shari Redstone this week that suggested settling President Donald Trump’s lawsuit against CBS News could be illegal under the federal bribery statute.

Trump is seeking $20 billion from CBS News and its parent company, Paramount Global, for what he alleged was election interference with how "60 Minutes" edited its interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris in the weeks leading up to the presidential election. The two sides have entered mediation in hopes of reaching a settlement, and Redstone is widely believed to be open to a deal ahead of a planned multibillion-dollar merger with Skydance Media that could be halted by Trump’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC). 

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., cautioned Redstone that a quid pro quo arrangement leading to a settlement could break the law. 

"The allegations are baseless," Ronald Chapman II, a federal defense attorney who’s argued before all levels of the federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court, told Fox News Digital. 

SANDERS, WARREN WARN PARAMOUNT THAT SETTLING TRUMP LAWSUIT COULD BE ILLEGAL BRIBERY ACT

The letter expressed "serious concern" that Paramount may be "engaging in improper conduct involving the Trump Administration in exchange for approval of its megamerger with Skydance Media" and suggested it could fall under the federal bribery statute. 

"Under the federal bribery statute, it is illegal to corruptly give anything of value to public officials to influence an official act. If Paramount officials make these concessions in a quid pro quo arrangement to influence President Trump or other Administration officials, they may be breaking the law," Warren, Sanders and Wyden wrote. 

"The Federal Anti-Bribery Statute states it is illegal to ‘corruptly’ give anything of value to public officials to influence an act," Chapman said before listing a series of "problems" he found in the letter. 

Chapman said the entire letter is "based on a hypothetical quid pro quo without any support" that the Trump administration has coerced a quid pro quo. 

"We don’t infringe private rights based on hypotheticals. Warren and Sanders must know that this type of activism and hyperbolic outrage is irresponsible," Chapman said. 

"There is no support for the contention that payment for damages under a lawsuit is ‘a thing of value to influence’ a federal official. Moreover, there is no support for the idea that such a settlement would be corrupt," he continued. "Perhaps Sanders and Warren don’t understand this, but their letter implies that CBS and Paramount are potentially engaged in bribery, which is an outrageous and unfounded allegation."

Chapman said a federal judge will likely approve the deal and "we have much bigger problems" if senators believe a federal judge is going to condone bribery. 

"A judge-approved settlement is the opposite of ‘corruption.’ This is a nothing burger," Chapman said. 

‘60 MINUTES’ CALLS OUT CORPORATE OWNER PARAMOUNT ON THE AIR, SAYS PRODUCER WHO QUIT FELT INTERFERED WITH

The senators also said Paramount appeared to be trying to "appease" the Trump administration to secure merger approval and cited veteran CBS News correspondent Scott Pelley, who recently told CBS viewers that "Paramount began to supervise our content in new ways" as the company is "trying to complete a merger." 

The letter referenced the recent resignations of CBS News CEO Wendy McMahon and "60 Minutes" executive producer Bill Owens, who both criticized corporate overlords on their way out. 

Cornell Law professor William A. Jacobson, founder of Legal Insurrection, echoed the notion that the harshly worded letter is essentially irrelevant.

"The claim that a settlement between Trump and CBS would be a violation of the bribery statute may make good politics, but it doesn't necessarily reflect good law," Jacobson told Fox News Digital. 

"Trump has a lawsuit that the company might want to settle in the normal course, while claiming it did nothing wrong. That's standard corporate conduct," he added. "It's also standard corporate conduct to clear the litigation docket before a merger."

Jacobson noted that the letter recognized that the sides would have had to agree to perform an official act in exchange for the settlement in order for a bribery allegation, but he doesn’t see any evidence of a quid pro quo. 

"The facts of how a settlement comes down, of course, would be important, and I expect that it would be structured to steer clear of any possible criminal violations by making clear that no action by Trump in his capacity as president is required," Jacobson said. 

Michelle May O’Neil, a senior shareholder at OWLawyers, believes the senators are "savvy about how litigation works" and must know that most courts require mediation and settlement efforts before spending the taxpayers’ resources on a trial.

"The trial between Trump and CBS would be a circus and cost even more taxpayer resources because of the media attention and high-profile nature of the issues. Accusing litigants of ‘bribery’ just because they settle legal differences is a terrible look for these [three] knowledgeable and allegedly respected senators," O’Neil told Fox News Digital. 

"They know better. This seems to be just another attempt to grab a headline and be relevant about a non-issue," she continued. "What they should be asking is, ‘Is in the interest of our citizens for this fight to keep going?’ Or, ‘Should we all start looking to the future and solving the real problems of the American people?’"

‘60 MINUTES' PRODUCER'S ABRUPT EXIT FUELS DRAMA AT CBS NEWS AS NETWORK BATTLES TRUMP LAWSUIT

O’Neil also feels that when companies are focused on future business deals, being involved in any type of litigation "isn’t conducive to the future gain." 

"It is common for companies to wrap up outstanding liabilities before entering into new deals or mergers," O’Neil said, noting that if CBS truly wanted to interfere in the election, the network ultimately failed because Harris lost.

"CBS may have decided that the time, effort, and money that the lawsuit required could be better spent on endeavors moving forward," O’Neil said. "What’s done is done – how can we wrap this up and move on? Only cases that have really big legal issues or problems that lack a reasonable resolution view end up in trial in court." 

Attorney Danny Karon, author of the forthcoming book "Your Lovable Lawyer's Guide to Legal Wellness: Fighting Back Against a World That's Out to Cheat You," said the letter "was a dead-bang loser from the get-go."

"Not only did the senators assume a lot in accusing Paramount of engaging in bribery, but also any information they hope would prove their case is protected by attorney-client privilege, meaning they’ll never get it in the first place – period," Karon told Fox News Digital. 

Karon also took issue with Warren, Sanders and Wyden noting that Paramount could settle a lawsuit the company initially said was "completely without merit" as if that disqualifies the company from reaching an agreement ahead of trial.  

CBS ANCHORS SALUTE OUTGOING '60 MINUTES' PRODUCER, SAY EFFORT TO SETTLE TRUMP LAWSUIT TIED TO CORPORATE MERGER

"Every defendant in every case ever sued decries a plaintiff’s allegations as ‘completely without merit,’ as they claim to ‘vigorously defend’ themselves. These statements were as inconsequential as they were expected," Karon said. 

"And that CBS might be interested in settling is hardly a concession. Settlement -- if Paramount is even seriously considering it -- happens for various reasons, from financial to political to personal," he added. "For the senators to infer from this settlement possibility that Paramount is on the take is ‘completely without merit.’"

The offices of Warren, Sanders and Wyden did not immediately respond to a request for comment.