VARIETY: Paramount-Skydance merger collapsed in the final moments, and will lead to layoffs and austerity measures

[Timofnine]

I thought that was YOUR job!

Yes, but having one specialist in any one area is dangerous, what if you come up with something out of character? I would need to recognise that and correct you, and vice versa if I wrote her out of character. Same for Kes.

 

[Danja]

I was responding to the general statement "It's tough to prosecute a corporation," not addressing any single specific case. Corporations and/or their executives have been successfully prosecuted in the past. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_convicted_of_felony_offenses_in_the_United_States

I'm not saying it can't be done.

The standard of evidence needed to do so is high (by design).

 

[Christopher]

I'm not saying it can't be done.

The standard of evidence needed to do so is high (by design).

That sounds like the kind of law designed to benefit corporations more than consumers.

 

[Hedbergian]

A corporation is legally considered a separate entity from its directors. In order to "pierce the corporate veil," you would need to prove that Paramount functions as an extension of its directors. You would need to prove that the business's assets and those of its directors are commingled.

And even when a commingling of assets IS proven, billionaires typically walk away unpunished ... in fact, usually rewarded. Look up the McCourts, namely Frank McCourt: billionaire former owners of the MLB Los Angeles Dodgers. They used the team as their personal piggy bank to buy outrageously lavish properties, vacations, parties, cars. They DECIMATED the team. And everyone KNOWS they did this. And everyone lays down and accepts that billionaires are simply more important than everyone else and that nothing can be done to stop them. LOOK AT THE FUCKING WH

Treating billionaires as god-kings and the poors as so much flotsam is status quo for 'Murica.

As "The Greatest Country On Earth" , we could be so much better than this. But because "capitalism", we actively choose to be behind the curve because maybe JUST MAYBE ... we ourselves will get a taste of "The American Dream"

 

[Hedbergian]

And if that isn't sufficient example enough (because lord knows we have to be ready for cross-examination in here), read up on the Big Beautiful Bill to see how many poors will soon be behind bars for the crime of not being able to afford medication, a doctor's visit, an ER visit. $1 TRILLION cut from Medicaid (social welfare) to fund tax breaks for the rich (executive welfare).

IN REALTIME, we're getting a hands-on lesson of why the concentration of wealth within billionaires should not be allowed to exist, and the INEVITABLE nightmare such deference to wealth leads to.

 

[Turtletrekker]

Well let me rephrase and say that I would be able to write a Star Trek movie soooo bad that it would actually be good!

I would be lead writer, my writing team would consist of, but not be limited to:

• @Christopher my scientific advisor, in charge of the ‘difficult bits’, technobabble, exposition and intimate scenes between characters.
• @Danja as my Seven of Nine specialist
• @Oddish and @Lynx as my Kes specialists (Kes may potentially return as a character similar to Phoenix from X Men)
• @Jayson1 as my head creative consultant, any ideas that him and I come up with, Christopher would have to explain with real world science.

I would also need an American citizen to marry me so that I can easily get a Visa to come and work in the USA.

No. Just... No.

 

[JoseNoodles]

It will be an uphill battle proving bribery.

There's always the option of settling without admitting guilt. (To be fair to Paramount, Trump put them in a difficult position. There was no way this merger was going to close in a timely manner WITHOUT paying him.)

Maybe, but saying, "I had the pay off the President because he was extorting me," doesn't absolve you of your role in the crime.

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

Maybe, but saying, "I had the pay off the President because he was extorting me," doesn't absolve you of your role in the crime.

And what crime would that be exactly?

Maybe I missed something, but my understanding was the extortion related to political interference with the merger this thread is discussing, not any actual crime by the network (the closest thing other thing to such being alleged partiality towards Harris in the presidential election which even if true wouldn't be a crime.

 

[JoseNoodles]

And what crime would that be exactly?

Maybe I missed something, but my understanding was the extortion related to political interference with the merger this thread is discussing, not any actual crime by the network (the closest thing other thing to such being alleged partiality towards Harris in the presidential election which even if true wouldn't be a crime.

Trump is extorting media companies with bullshit lawsuits when they say things he doesn't like, such as this one over 60 minutes and the other one with ABC's George Stephanopoulos. He claims they are editing interviews for some malicious political purpose, and is likely using his administration to give these companies a hard time. They pay these settlements which go to fund things like his presidential library to make theses cases go away, thereby aiding and abetting his likely criminal actions. Obviously they are not the main "baddy" here, and maybe they're not under any violation of the law themselves, but a crime has likely been committed.

 

[kkt]

That sounds like the kind of law designed to benefit corporations more than consumers.

I'm shocked, shocked!

 

[Ovation]

Trump is extorting media companies with bullshit lawsuits when they say things he doesn't like, such as this one over 60 minutes and the other one with ABC's George Stephanopoulos. He claims they are editing interviews for some malicious political purpose, and is likely using his administration to give these companies a hard time. They pay these settlements which go to fund things like his presidential library to make theses cases go away, thereby aiding and abetting his likely criminal actions. Obviously they are not the main "baddy" here, and maybe they're not under any violation of the law themselves, but a crime has likely been committed.

Typically, the victim of an extortion racket is not considered a criminal. Bribery is the wilful act of offering something in exchange for a favour—it is not always illegal (though it is usually viewed as unethical). They are not equivalent. In this particular case, at least what is known to the public, the situation far more resembles extortion than bribery.

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

Typically, the victim of an extortion racket is not considered a criminal.

Agreed.

Bribery is the wilful act of offering something in exchange for a favour—it is not always illegal (though it is usually viewed as unethical).

Pretty sure being a victim of bribery isn't in and of itself illegal either (though obviously what you're being bribed about can be). In this case, the "original act" doesn't seem to be illegal either, particularly as they aren't being prosecuted through the normal channels for it*, but rather are having their legitimate business activities disrupted.

* Which suggests IMO that even the Trump government knows that they don't have a conventional case, but YMMV.

 

[Christopher]

Pretty sure being a victim of bribery isn't in and of itself illegal either (though obviously what you're being bribed about can be).

"Victim" is an odd choice of words. Bribing someone and soliciting a bribe are both illegal.

bribery

www.law.cornell.edu

Bribery refers to the offering, giving, soliciting, or receiving of any item of value as a means of influencing the actions of an individual holding a public or legal duty . This type of action results in matters that should be handled objectively to being influenced by a manner best suited to the private interests of the decision maker. As such, bribery constitutes a crime and both the offeror and the recipient can be criminally charged .

I think maybe you mean to say being a victim of extortion isn't illegal. But I'm not sure it's really extortion in this case, just mutual corporate and government corruption operating out in the open. "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours."

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

"Victim" is an odd choice of words. Bribing someone and soliciting a bribe are both illegal.

Yes, but my understanding is the narrative is being forced on Paramount/CBS, literally all they requested was the standard merger arbitration via the usual process, which was then held up because Trump has a mad-on against them because he believes that they supported Harris in the way that media (including Fox) did for him, which might in theory have been illegal if true, but the fact he didn't go after them in the usual official way suggests that even he knows that it wasn't.

So, while it could certainly be argued that Paramount/CBS giving in to his government-backed extortion/blackmail scheme was corrupt and perhaps unethical it doesn't make it illegal (bribery).

 

[Christopher]

Yes, but my understanding is the narrative is being forced on Paramount/CBS, literally all they requested was the standard merger arbitration via the usual process, which was then held up because Trump has a mad-on against them because he believes that they supported Harris in the way that media (including Fox) did for him, which might in theory have been illegal if true, but the fact he didn't go after them in the usual official way suggests that even he knows that it wasn't.

So, while it could certainly be argued that Paramount/CBS giving in to his government-backed extortion/blackmail scheme was corrupt and perhaps unethical it doesn't make it illegal (bribery).

I don't know. If someone pressures you to do something illegal, does that make it not illegal? Like, say, if someone blackmails you into embezzling money from your company, you've still committed the crime of embezzlement. Perhaps the prosecutors might choose not to press charges because you were under duress, but that wouldn't mean it didn't still qualify as a crime.

Also, of course, Paramount's merger was voluntary. They could've just dropped the whole thing if they hadn't been willing to get involved in a dirty deal to make it happen. But they went ahead with it anyway. I'm not inclined to look on the heads of any major corporation as innocent lambs or helpless victims. Honestly, the very act of pursuing mergers is harmful, costing people jobs and reducing consumer choice so that the executives can make more profit for themselves. We used to have robust antitrust laws that would have precluded most of the mega-mergers we see today.

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

Also, of course, Paramount's merger was voluntary. They could've just dropped the whole thing if they hadn't been willing to get involved in a dirty deal to make it happen. But they went ahead with it anyway. I'm not inclined to look on the heads of any major corporation as innocent lambs or helpless victims.

Ethnically and morally? I would agree, though no more than the average corporation and less than some.

Legally? I've seen several people assert that Paramount has done something illegal, and I've asked for details several times without any clarification on what if anything they could be legitimately prosecuted rather than illegally persecuted for.

Honestly, the very act of pursuing mergers is harmful, costing people jobs and reducing consumer choice so that the executives can make more profit for themselves.

Often true, Warner Brothers Discovery was a clear example of this, and the Marvel-Disney-Lucasfilm-Fox mega-merger somewhat so (though this was at least initially financially successful one, less so now).

I'm less convinced that Paramount/CBS (which IIRC is heading towards bankruptcy) merging with a non-broadcaster is likely to have the same sort of negative effect, though their future creative output could be compromised by that and indeed other factors in the future.

 

[Christopher]

Legally? I've seen several people assert that Paramount has done something illegal, and I've asked for details several times without any clarification on what if anything they could be legitimately prosecuted rather than illegally persecuted for.

I don't know enough to comment on that. I just find it strange to argue that bribery is not a crime, which disagrees with what the law says. There may be valid defenses of Paramount here, but I don't think that's one of them.

 

[UssGlenn]

I don't know enough to comment on that. I just find it strange to argue that bribery is not a crime, which disagrees with what the law says. There may be valid defenses of Paramount here, but I don't think that's one of them.

We're having difficulty with definitions. Bribery is illegal but being extorted isn't (for the victim). Both involve paying the more powerful party to get stuff done.

 

[Christopher]

re having difficulty with definitions. Bribery is illegal but being extorted isn't (for the victim). Both involve paying the more powerful party to get stuff done.

And I just wanted to make that clarification, that the two words are not interchangeable.

I was uncertain whether "extortion" was the right word, since there wasn't a threat of doing harm, just of refusing to do something desired. But I looked it up, and apparently the term can be used in that context.

 

[UssGlenn]

since there wasn't a threat of doing harm, just of refusing to do something desired.

Paramount can't survive without the merger. it'll be bankrupted and sold off for parts. The downing man paying to get a rope thrown to him is being extorted. So I figure even the standard use of extortion works.