Our Exclusive Sit-Down with CA AG Rob Bonta on the Lawsuit Threatening the Paramount-Warner Merger

I received that as a desperate last ditch effort to try to blackmail the regulators and try to convince us, persuade us, bully us into allowing an illegal merger to go through. It's not going to work like that. Welcome to Power Lines presented by Status, I'm John Pasantino. And I'm Oliver Darcy. This week, the moment has finally arrived. California and nearly a dozen other states are suing to stop Paramount's merger with Warner Brothers Discovery. That would put two storied Hollywood studios under one management roof and combined CNN and CBS news among a host of other things. The states, which include New York, Arizona and Nevada, argue that a combined Paramount and Warner would harm movie theaters and cable distributors by dismantling competition. Leading the charge is California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who announced the suit this week under the Hollywood sign in Los Angeles, setting up an epic legal showdown between the states and David Ellison's Paramount. We've got an exclusive interview with Bonta today where we discuss the decision to move to kill the deal after it was greenlit by Trump's Justice Department, what it might take to resolve the suit and the elephant in the room, Barry Weiss and CNN. Then stick around, Oliver and I will discuss the interview and what we make of it. But before we get started, make sure if you're not already subscribed to the channel to hit that subscribe button below so you don't miss interviews like this. Also, if you could hit that like button, the hype button, the alarm bell button so you get notifications when new episodes drop, hit all the buttons. We really appreciate it and make sure to stick around to the end of the episode. We have a very exciting announcement you won't want to miss about the future of status. All right, without further ado, here's Rob Bonta. Welcome to the show Attorney General Rob Bonta. Thank you so much for being here. This week you held a press conference under the Hollywood sign where you announced a lawsuit aimed at blocking the Paramount Warner Brothers Discovery mega merger that would unite two of Hollywood's biggest studios under one roof and their sprawling media operations. The Trump Justice Department has already approved the deal so I'm curious, why did you feel compelled to get involved here to stop this acquisition before it could be completed this summer? Yeah, in short, because it breaks the law and it violates long standing over a century old anti-trust law, the Clayton Act and federal law, the Trump administration. They're approval of the merger I give no credit to because they have not been engaged in fair and appropriate anti-trust enforcement. They've been supporting deals for their friends, picking winners and losers, not enforcing the laws that's meant to be enforced to ensure that we have free and fair markets instead of rig markets. So the federal government's approval of this merger is a red herring. They also approved the next star, Tecna merger and we went into court immediately as states and got a preliminary injunction blocking that merger because it's unlawful and the same is true here. We follow the law and the facts are that this is a $110 billion proposed merger between Paramount and Warner Brothers, long time competitors. It would be the largest merger in the history of Hollywood. It would lead to the merged company controlling about 30%, just under 30% or a third of theatrical releases and just under a third of basic cable programming. We give them enormous negotiating power and what it means for you and me and everyday Americans is that your cable and satellite bills will go higher. The price to attend a movie will go higher. That's what happens with corporate consolidations. Prices go up, quality goes down, content, lessons, there will be less perspectives, less movies, less TV series, less diversity of viewpoints represented on screens and that is all bad for the economy. We narrowed in on three different markets. These are diversified companies, highly diversified companies that operate in different markets and for theatrical release, two theatrical release markets and for the licensing of cable channel markets to cable companies. We found that the data shows that the market concentration is presumptively unlawful. We brought those the suit in short because the proposed merger breaks the law. Your lawsuit it focused a lot obviously and solely on the entertainment ramifications that this deal will have and how it will affect the public in that regard. But I've noticed you've also spoken quite a bit, I'd say, about the implications about uniting these two companies will have on the news business and the news landscape. Of course Paramount owns CBS news, Warner Brothers Discovery owns CNN. I'm wondering if you can and can outline how this merger in your eyes would impact the news space. It'll impact the news space in the same way it'll impact the entertainment or art space. There will be cuts to workers. This is a heavily debt financed proposed merger. In order to make the numbers work, they're going to have to cut some of their highest costs which are labor. So they're going to cut journalists, for example, there will be fewer journalists seeking truth and telling truth, doing investigative journalist work, talking about news stories that need to be told, surfacing and revealing conduct that needs to be shared, holding the powerful accountable. That will all occur because of this proposed merger. The same is true in the entertainment and art space, less TV series being made, less movies being made, fewer in volume and a decreased diversity of perspectives represented. That is bad for the economy. It's bad for democracy. Anti-trust enforcement is democracy is check on oligarchy. We deserve and we should have and the law requires that we have free markets and fair markets, not rig markets. We should have no kings in government or in the economy when there's too much power in the hands of too few, which this merger represents. It is bad for democracy often and sometimes it breaks the law as is the case here. The UK's anti-trust watchdog also came out a few weeks ago and said that she was minded to intervene in this merger as well. And she cited something very similar to you, which is this sufficient, insufficient plurality of views in the news media that you touched on there. Do you think that Paramount boss David Ellison has been a good steward of CBS news? He's appointed Barry Weiss as editor in chief over there. And we've seen some significant changes to that news organization, which broadcasts in California and around the country. But this merger would also then bring CNN under that same roof, which isn't even larger news organization with implications over on the world. Do you worry about how Paramount might handle CNN as it has with CBS news and its journalistic integrity? I think that's on the minds of many Americans and they're worried about a lack of a free and independent press overbearing editorial decision making that undermines and undercuts a free and independent journalism that just doesn't matter. That's a real journalism that shuts down stories that should be told but then aren't told. That favors the powerful when the powerful ask that a critical story not be told about them. That's not good for democracy. The truth should be told whatever the truth is. And the truth should be told, especially about the powerful when they have trust with the American people and they violate that trust. So personally, a very strong supporter, outspoken supporter of a free independent press telling stories, telling all stories, seeking truth, being a critical guardrail for democracy. When we look at this case, we look at the straight antitrust analysis. We review the markets and the impact on the markets and the concentration of the markets and whether they meet certain thresholds that make them presumptively unlawful and in fact unlawful. And so that's what our complaint is about and that's what our case is about. But you know and I know and I think the American people know there's a lot at stake with this merger, including the quality of the news and dependence of the news, the variety of perspectives in the news that we receive. It seems like this deal, you know, obviously you mentioned that you don't really look at the Trump administration's DOJ, the approval that they granted this deal. You don't take it very seriously. It's almost like it was just rubber stamped because Donald Trump wants us deal to go through and I think we've been talking on our podcast for a while Donald Trump doesn't really care about the movies that are being released on Paramount Plus or the new shows that HBO is putting out what he really cares about when he says so out loud is CNN. And he even told Jake Tapper in the past few days like we're trying to fix CNN right so it's pretty clear. That's what's going on there. I'm curious though when you look at like CBS news and like I guess like the signaling that has happened maybe to the Trump administration that like we are your allies and we are going to create a better news environment for you that is a little softer right we're going to refamp CBS news we're going to radically overhaul 60 minutes which really gets under your skin. your skin. How the alarm do you like, I mean, it seems like that has has has maybe how they won antitrust approval from the federal regulators. And I'm also curious, I don't know, but have you spoken to any of the career prosecutors at the DOJ who reportedly had concerns about this deal, but had them overridden by senior leaders at the DOJ? As an American and proud American who cares, the about our democracy in the future of it, its durability, its sustainability, I'm very concerned about the reports about what's happening at CBS. And I'm also concerned about the possibility that what's happening at CBS could be part of an attempt to curry favor with the president, who might want something similar to happen at CNN, and that that led to an approval by the DOJ. Even though the career attorneys thought there were problems with this deal and oppose this deal, we've heard that. The White House has overridden their decision, a White House that has no regard in this space for what antitrust law actually requires. They're uninterested in a lot of their disinterested in the law. They want the deals that they want, regardless of what the law requires and what the law prohibits. So yes, that is all very disturbing and concerning to see those types of trends and a lot of potential behavior. I've spoken myself to a couple legal experts on this whole issue about what how powerful a state's lawsuit could be in the wake of the Justice Department already approving it. And you know, a few folks have basically expressed the idea that a delay is a significant problem for paramount here, but also there is the possibility that there could be concessions that are offered. We've already heard that in the EU, for example, that there is a potential concession underway their own children's programming. So I'm curious on this issue of CNN, if Ellison were to come to you and say, we will divest something like CNN. How far would that go with you in your office? Would that and be a meaningful concession to you? That would definitely have value, but there's been reporting. I have no idea what the source was. It wasn't me because it's not something I've ever said or thought. That if CNN were divested, then we'd approve the deal. And that is 1000% today, tomorrow, all day, all year long, not true. And we have focused on three markets where and, and you know, that's type of divestiture doesn't affect the three markets that we're looking at. So we need solutions in the markets that we're looking at, structural remedies, not behavioral remedies, you know, keeping companies separate, not not making promises to make 30 films a year that are unenforceable. And unlikely to happen. So we would, as always, we're, we're open to a discussion to get an appropriate resolution to the concerns we've raised. But we have felt that based on our research, our investigation, applying the lot of the facts that we needed to bring a lawsuit to completely block the merger. And I do just want to touch on the regulators in the UK and the EU. It is appropriate for them to look at this case, look at this merger. It's impact on their geographical jurisdiction and look at the principles that they have elevated as the ones to, you know, as the lenses to look through. But that is different than what we look at. We're looking at a completely different geographic jurisdiction, the impact on the United States of America. They didn't look at that at all. And the US DOJ has a history here of being soft on, on mergers and anti-competitive conduct. Ticket master live nation is an example. They, we went to trial with them. And without telling us they entered into a sweetheart deal, slap on the wrist settlement with the Ticket master live nation and the states bipartisan, by the way, continued to fight on. And one, an incredible liability jury verdict where the jury found for us on every single question posted them. Trump won a next start, Tegna to go through the broadcast news conglomerates to merge. He barked at Brendan Carr to make it happen. And we felt differently because we applied the law to the facts. And we got a preliminary injunction in that case when we sued. So the states are suing here. And I think the trend has shown that the United States DOJ, because of Trump's impact and influence are supporting and approving deals that break the law and that it requires the states to come in to enforce the law and block the unlawful mergers or the unlawful conduct. CNN's technically again, we're not seen as not part of the anti-trust lawsuit, but it does feel like it's playing an outside role in this whole thing, even though it's a fraction of the business, right? It's because Donald Trump is obsessed with it. It's playing such a huge role. You say it would have value if they were to offer divesting CNN or spinning it off, maybe Barry Diller or someone who's been allowed about wanting to buy it. We'll come and purchase it separately. How much value does that add? Because it doesn't actually get at the things you're talking about from an anti-trust perspective and the things that you've actually sued over. Would it, would it, you said I think meaningful value. So if they came to you and said, look, we're getting rid of CNN, Mr. Attorney General, what else would you be asking for in addition to that? Is there anything they could offer in addition to that that would get it across the finish line? Or is this just really simply, we want this entire deal blocked? We want the entire deal blocked. That's what we're asking for. And a spin off of CNN has more value than nothing and not nearly enough value to address the concerns that we've raised. So I don't want to poo poo it, but it's adjacent to them, not directly related to the claims that we've made in the case. We would need to see some sort of structural remedy proposals for theatrical release, the theatrical release market, the wide release theatrical film distribution for a top-grossing theatrical film distribution for licensing of cable channels to cable companies. And a spin off of CNN doesn't address any of those things. So I would probably put the quote, you know, if they wanted to have a discussion and we're always open to a good faith sincere discussion and they have not been particularly interested in making meaningful proposals, but I would put it on them to say, why don't you propose structural remedies to the concerns we've raised and set forth chapter in verse and our complaint? And we'll consider them. If you want to see an end spin off as part of it, be my guest. And we will review it. We will assess it and we will respond to it. I was going to say, Ellison has met with her office, right? He's met with you. Is that correct? I met with David Ellison. I've never met with Larry Ellison. I met with David Ellison once. Yes. What is that conversation? What was it like? Did any of this come up? I'm assuming you brought up what you wouldn't want to be seen in a deal to get this across the finish line. What was his response? It came up. Our conversation was as a different time. As you know, that this proposed merger has sort of had a journey. And there was a time when Netflix was a was a suitor. And and then they weren't. I had the conversation with David Ellison. It wasn't just me and him was a larger group of people when Netflix was still in the running. So it was not to talk about a Paramount Warner Brothers specific settlement and structural remedies. But David Ellison, I found him to be pleasant. I found him to be smart. I hear a lot of people in Hollywood know him like him. I have absolutely no problem with him or those opinions of him. And I had a pleasant experience with him. But this isn't personal. This isn't about who you like. This is about what the law requires and what the proposed merger does. And if it breaks the law, it's my duty and my obligation to sue the block it so that it doesn't. So an unlawful merger does not occur. I'm curious. I'm sure you read this recent piece that came out. It was in Semifor saying that Ellison is considering moving Paramount's operations out of California. Do you think that's a real possibility? How did you view that? I received that as a desperate last ditch effort to try to blackmail the regulators who are assessing the proposed merger and try to convince us, persuade us, bully us into allowing an illegal merger to go through. And we cannot do that. We won't do that. We did not do that. We brought a lawsuit after they made that threat. And we filed it in federal court and we led out our case, chapter in verse. That type of conduct to try to threaten that you're going to, if you don't allow them to engage in an unlawful merger in an unlawful conduct, they're going to take the ball and leave the state. That's what a monopolist might do. Try to bully the fourth largest economy in the world into not enforcing the laws that have been on the books for over 100 years. And so it's not going to work like that. And it didn't work like that. But that's how I think that. I think that report also said that the state and the 12 states that are suing the group of them would also perhaps be on the hook for this ticking fee that Paramount included in the deal, which is about $6 million, $7 million a day starting September 30. Do you feel that that is the case? And are you worried about that? I mean, it would be much more productive for Paramount and Warner Brothers to focus on complying with the law then to keep engaging in this overview. drive PR campaign, they seem to be engaged in where they're planting stories about what A.G. Bonta thinks about a CNN spin-off resolving his concerns, not true, or that they're going to leave California, you know, blackmail threat, or that taxpayers, you know, trying to scare taxpayers into thinking that, you know, they're trying to try this case in the court of public opinions. They're the court of law where it's appropriately tried, that they're going to be on the hook. For the agreement that paramount made with Warner Brothers contractually to after a certain date pay this fee, I don't know how their decision to pay Warner Brothers a fee daily impacts taxpayers at all. It's their decision, their agreement. They always knew that antitrust regulators would be looking at this proposed merger from all over the world, including the A.G.s. They cannot be surprised by this lawsuit, and this idea that taxpayers are going to be on the hook is silly and baseless. I know you only have a little bit more time, but I'm curious, it seems like paramount is trying to almost portray you as a partisan activist who wants to run for governor and is bringing this lawsuit, hoping to get a little attention and catapult to a higher office. That, I'm sure you've seen that sort of undercurrent in the press, or at least some of the press. How do you respond to that? The idea that you, I mean, there aren't any Republican states yet that have joined this lawsuit. How do you respond to the idea that this is a bunch of liberals who are upset with David Ellison and have filed a lawsuit to, you know, as part of, I guess, a political stunt? Is David Ellison a Republican? I don't even know that. Nor do I. I'm not sure. He certainly seems to be a fan of Donald Trump. Maybe, you know, I guess I'll say I don't respond to it. It's just simply false. I'm the Attorney General of California. I want to continue to be the Attorney General of California. I've endorsed Javier Bissera to be the governor of California. He will be the governor of California. I'm not running for governor of California. So I just don't know how any of that is even close to true. I think our body of work and our history, including our recent history, shows that we are very interested in enforcing antitrust law. We'll do it in a bipartisan way. It's a nonpartisan work. It's not there's nothing partisan or political about it. It's just applying the law to the facts. When we sued ticket master of live nation, we did it alongside Republican AG small over the country. And we won't win the jury verdict. We won it with Republican AGs by our side. We have Republican AGs suing next start techno with us. We know Republican AGs have concerns about this proposed merger between Paramount and Warner Brothers. We also know that Republican AGs get a lot of pressure from the head of their party. And maybe that influences their decision. Some dropped out of the ticket master of live nation case when the USDA entered into that sweetheart deal soft settlement, slap on the wrist settlement. They felt pressure. And maybe they're feeling pressure here to not join this case as well, even if they have concerns. I don't know. Maybe some will join the R case. But you cannot go to court. Have you spoken to any AGs on the Republican side who have maybe told you and private like we hear you. We like this, but we can't really do that because the head of the party really likes David Ellison for a bunch of reasons and part of that might be CNN. I haven't had those conversations with Republican AGs. I have heard that Republican AGs have expressed concerns. So I haven't been able to personally verify that with my own personal one-on-one conversation with the Republican AG. I can't imagine they don't have concerns for anyone who's interested in antitrust law. I think people all across this country have concerns about what's happening here. You have to ask the Republican AGs why they haven't joined our case at this point. Maybe it's the political pressure from their party leader, Donald Trump. Maybe it's some other reason. But we think that other AGs will join the 12 that brought this lawsuit. And I just want to say courts are places where political or ideological or policy arguments and motives don't fly. If all we have is political grievance or policy or ideological difference, if I go into court and say, "I don't like Donald Trump, so I'm trying to block the Paramount Warner Brothers deal." They'll throw you out of court. You get your case dismissed immediately. You got to have the receipts when you go into the sanitized environment of a court. You got to have the facts in the law on your side as we did in ticket master live nation, as we happened next our tag now, as we do in Paramount Warner Brothers. It's just the facts in the law. No matter what Paramount Warner Brothers PR machine says with its spin, whatever script that they use, the facts in the law are on our side, not theirs. We believe we'll win this case. All right. We'll leave it there. Attorney General Rob Bonta. I know you're a busy man. You've got a lot of other things going on this week. But I thank you so much for your time. Appreciate you joining us. My great pleasure. Thanks for having me. Thank you to the Attorney General. When we come back after the break, we're going to get into what we just heard there with that interview. All right, Oliver, we're back. Very interesting interview there with the Attorney General. Obviously, this is an enormous suit. It is one that's being led by him and the states after the Justice Department decided to give this deal a pass. So there is an enormous amount of pressure on him to put together a not only coherent, but legally well legally reasoned argument here for why this deal needs to come to an end. And of course, we can't ignore the fact that the Trump administration is Republicans who seem to have a great relationship with Ellison's. And this coalition of states is all Democratic Attorney General, which we talked about in the interview there. So I'm curious what you make of what he had to say here. Well, I thought it sounded a lot, you know, at certain moments, like the Attorney General is saying he's open to negotiations with David Ellison on how they can resolve this suit outside court. I mean, he actually said that he would like some proposals from David Ellison and send them over. And he would look at those proposals. And notably, when we asked him about it, he said that CNN would have a lot of value in a potential settlement negotiation. Now he said CNN alone, spinning off the network wouldn't be enough to get the deal across the finish line. Of course, he has to say that CNN's literally not even part of the antitrust case. So if he, you know, he can't say that a part unrelated to the antitrust case would settle the suit, that would make no sense. But he is telegraphing pretty clearly that if David Ellison would like to get this deal done, spinning off of, spinning off CNN would be a meaningful concession to him. And then he also wants some other structural remedies. He didn't really go into detail on what those would look like. But he clearly is saying, hey, David, you probably don't want to pay this ticking fee that's going to amount to hundreds of millions of dollars a month starting at the end of September. So why don't you propose a few things? CNN should probably be part of it. And let's see if we can strike a deal. Yeah, I think that's very interesting because as you point out, CNN and CBS News, that combined overlap is not the rationale behind this lawsuit, right? It's the combination of Hollywood studios, the blockbuster films, the cable distribution with so much under one roof that there would be so much control on the linear platforms by, you know, Paramount as an entity would be able to control, you know, this massive cable portfolio that theoretically, you know, your cable provider, Charter, Comcast, YouTube TV would be sort of over the barrel on the pricing, right? Obviously CNN is a part of that, but it is interesting that he views it as perhaps something important as part of that. He said it would definitely have value. I think he has to walk a fine line here, though, right? Because the structural remedies that he's floating can't just be something as small, let's say, if you will, as just CNN, right? There's gotta be something bigger here. But then he came back to the point, which is like, no, we want to just stop this deal entirely, right? Like it just doesn't work as it is. It's too much harm to competition and it would, you know, it would affect thousands and thousands of jobs in the industry. So on one hand, it seemed like he's open to it with CNN at the center of it, perhaps, but on the other end, it's like, but then no, I, you know, that's not quite enough. And I kind of feel like I'm hearing two separate things here. Well, John, as you know, when you are suing someone, you say you're always willing to go to the very end of the finish line until you strike a deal to avert, you know, doing so, right? Like that's the way lawsuits work. So of course, he's going to say that he wants to stop the merger entirely. He's not so subtly, though, also signaling. He has opened to, I mean, he's not even signaling. He's literally saying, propose some stuff and we'll look at it and we'll get back to him. And he's saying he's open to negotiations. CNN's obviously a thing that he's saying has a lot of value. I think this actually, look, are there a lot of anti-trust concerns, of course, regardless of who is right? try to combine these two studios, there was going to be a lot of concern from an antitrust perspective, especially for people in Hollywood who are really nervous about the Hollywood ramifications of this. But I also think that this is very wise having maybe cost David Ellison some more money if they have to pay this ticking fee, at least in legal fees he's paying because the cloud of smoke around CBS is so great right now. Like we talked to Bonta, he says to us, he's telling us he is deeply disturbed by what's happening at CBS news and Lucas Shaw over at Bloomberg, he did a poll. I think it was the end of 2025 or early 2026 asking people in Hollywood what concerned them the most about this potential deal. Their concern wasn't actually about Hollywood, it was about David Ellison controlling CNN and what would happen to CNN. So like CNN is a very small part of the portfolio of Warner Brothers Discovery and this overall deal, especially from a business perspective, but it's played this outsized role this entire time. It's an elephant in the room that no one's talking about often when we're talking about this antitrust case because it technically is not involved in the antitrust arguments, right? But it's in the public psyche, it's the only thing people are talking about. It's CNN, what's going to happen to CNN and it is Barry Weiss who has taken a sledgehammer to CBS news is she going to run CNN. And so the attorney general, if you can get CNN to be spun off this deal, if you can say I saved it, CNN, I got it taken away from Barry Weiss, I think that's a pretty big political win for him. And as much as no one wants to say, a lot of this stuff is about politics at the end of the day. And there's something to be said about CNN not being under control of the Ellisons who are in the pocket. It seems like these days a Donald Trump. And also we haven't talked about this nearly enough, but the idea that CNN would be partly owned by the Saudis who literally ordered the butchering of a journalist a few years ago is also yeah, it's very alarming. And that would happen under this deal. So if Rob Bonta can get CNN spun off to another owner, maybe Barry Diller wants to buy it, someone else wants to buy and be a good steward of the network. If he can get some other structural concessions, whatever that may be, that's a pretty big win for the attorney general of California. Yeah, I think so. I just at the same time though, as we've reported in the past, there are thousands of people in Hollywood who have rallied and openly signed letters saying we must stop this deal. It cannot happen. It's going to harm the industry, even if he gets something as really significant as CNN, right? It reverberates with its editorial and reporting around the world. It has influence that extends well beyond just being a shingle on a cable platform. I don't know if that is going to be enough for the thousands of people who have signed on to say, you know, the Ellisons are claiming that they're going to put what is it? Like, movies and theaters every year? You can say that all you want, but in a few years' time, they'll be like, well, you know, the industry doesn't want these many movies and they're not performing well. And we're going to be saddled at Paramount with $80 billion in debt after this deal is done. Who knows if they're going to be able to afford that, but they're going to cut thousands of jobs. Spinning off CNN might be a nice political win, if you will. But I don't know if that's also going to be enough when it in Bonta's home state of California. The thousands of people who could potentially lose their jobs, the combination of the studios is really actually on people's minds because there are actual people, you know, actual livelihoods here at stake. And so for that reason, I actually think that if the goal here is really just to sever off CNN, I just don't think that's going to be enough here in California. I think he has to get something more than that. Maybe it's the entire cable portfolio, right? That's maybe the only way you detach CNN from the whole Warner Brothers discovery and Paramount to combo. But I just don't know if that's going to be enough in Hollywood, right? I still think that he might not come across like he almost got a bad deal where it's like he got, you know, CNN is the thing that gets spun off. But what about the thousands and thousands of workers now who might lose their jobs? And we've seen this in the past when Warner Brothers and Discovery merged thousands of people lost their jobs with those mergers, right? And this is way bigger. So I don't know if that's enough all over. I don't know. I'm not saying it's enough. I'm clearly not saying it's enough. I'm saying it's a meaningful concession, which is what the Attorney General said. And I certainly think he's going to need some other structural remedies that are, you know, given. This signaling he is saying, David Ellison, if you don't want to go through this ugly legal battle with us, which is going to cost you a lot of money in legal fees and potentially this ticking fee, come to the table, let's negotiate. And it's notable that CNN is part of that negotiation, given that it's not at the center of the antitrust lawsuit. Totally. And that speaks to the fact about how nervous people are about David Ellison, who is just cow-towering to Trump these days, owning and controlling CNN, and how worried they are about what Barry Weiss has done to CBS News, and the fact that she might be given the keys to arguably, I mean, the world's most recognized news organization. And so, you know, we'll see what happens. Anything can happen here. But if you're at CNN these days, I think you're looking at what Robonta is saying, and you might be a little hopeful that you might not necessarily have to work for Barry Weiss, you know, in the weeks and months ahead. I mean, if this lawsuit was not filed, John, it's possible Paramount would have closed this deal by now. This week, right? They were targeting July 15th as their closed date. And so Robonta and those 11 other states, they came in and filed this lawsuit right before that internal target, which we first reported at status back in May. So, you know, people at CNN should be breathing at least a little bit of a sigh of relief because they could have otherwise been working for Barry Weiss starting next week. Right. I mean, he directly said that as an American, he is concerned about what he's seeing going on at CBS as well. He's not, he has not missed that, which I found very interesting as well that in addition to what he's concerned about what's happening in Hollywood and the combo of the studios and the cable biz that he directly mentioned that what he, what Ellison and Barry Weiss have been doing at CBS is troubling to him. And I think the fact that he was willing to speak to that, I think also says a lot about where he is on this issue and where many Americans are concerned about it, right? I mean, we've been talking about this on this show for some time. And you know, you could see an attorney general being polished and not wanting to discuss any of that at all. That's not part of the lawsuit. Oliver, we're sticking to the lawsuit. It's only Hollywood. I think it was perhaps a little revealing that he was willing to go there and discuss that. And I think that shows that not only is he concerned about it, but perhaps there's some little bit of leeway on what might happen next in terms of like this, this, the journalism and the news side of these two combined companies. The uncertainty at CNN is still, you know, creating a very poor environment for the journalists over there. And we had, we reported this week that Mark Thompson was peppered with questions by the CNN White House team, which is very worried that if they were to come under David Ellison's ownership that they would not have the backing of management in the way that they're used to. And Donald Trump has obviously targeted CNN and the White House team in particular quite a bit over the last few years. And he's individually singled out people like Kaelin Collins, Chris and Holmes at the White House team. And so, you know, there is some fear inside the White House team that look, if David Ellison were to own us, we don't know if we can trust that he's going to go to bat for us when Donald Trump is calling him and trashing us. And if they're going to have to do some fire rings and there's going to be a lot of synergies that going to want to do some layoffs, would we just be casualties in this because they don't want the scene on White House team. They'd rather us go away because Donald Trump doesn't like us. There's a lot of concern inside CNN about this. Mark Thompson unfortunately doesn't have answers for these journalists at CNN because he doesn't know whether he's going to be there himself. And I learned this week that while David Ellison is apparently taking Casey Bloyes, the HBO chief out to lunches and having all these conversations with Casey, he definitely wants Casey to stay in some sort of role. Should he win this company? Mark Thompson's been in the dark and Mark Thompson has not had conversations with David Ellison in many, many weeks. So an interesting contrast there. David definitely wants Casey to stay. But I think it's notable that Mark Thompson is not having that close contact with the potential boss if this were all that happened. So, well, we're not recording in the journal and elsewhere that allegedly the Ellisons have told Trump that they would bring in new leadership, right? That things would change over there. So it kind of, it makes some sense. It adds up, right? I don't know. And that's, and that, that report in particular in the journal is what's worrying CNN journalists because in, you know, according to the journal, the Ellison stuff signal that they are willing to overhaul the network and potentially get rid of some talent that Donald Trump does not like. And again, David Ellison got DOJ approval for this deal. He got federal regulatory approval pretty much because it seems like he is willing to play ball with Donald Trump. And he's willing to tell the president and do what the president wants when it comes to CNN because again, Donald Trump does not have a paramount plus subscription. He does not care about paramount plus in the programming. He does not probably watch HBO. I don't think Donald Trump's a white lotus viewer. He cares about CNN and CBS news. And so these assets are the sensor of this deal, even though they are small parts of this actual business empire. I don't know. After that UFC match on the White House lawn, maybe he has a paramount plus. He probably has a free subscription all over, okay? They like give him a coupon code or something. They've got it on the Roku at the White House. All right, stay tuned for a special announcement from us at status. You're not going to want to miss this. Okay, we're back. Oliver, we've been working on some big news here behind the scenes at status for a while. This is a big one. We're really excited about it. Why don't you let everybody know what we've got? We're going to be getting into a big live events business here at status. So we are hosting our first one day conference. It's called the status summit. It's going to take place in New York City on September 9th. And we're going to convene the biggest names in media, entertainment, tech for an ongoing conversation about the forces reshaping our media information environments. And so we announced this week. We have some some really big names. We have Rebecca Cutler, the president of MS now. We have David Remnick, the editor of the New Yorker. We have Wendy McMahon, the media advisor, former CBS news and stations chief. We have Meredith Coppett Levian, the New York Times chief executive. And we have a lot more announcements coming in the days ahead about confirmed speakers at the summit. I think it's going to be a really dynamic conversation. One that people are not going to want to miss. And registrations now open at status summit.News if you're interested. This is super exciting. I'm really looking forward to this. Are you going to be doing the interviews? Are you going to be grilling these people? Like these are these are big executives all over. Are you going to go easy on them? Are you going soft? What are we looking forward to here? You know, there are a lot of conferences out there, John, where a lot of these executives get to go on stage and deliver, you know, rehearse talking points. And our goal is going to be to push them off of those talking points and to have a real candid conversation about things. We want this conversation on stage to be the conversation these executives have off stage in private when they're talking about AI or the political pressures on the business or the business pressures and how you know, the digital landscape is changing and the ad environments top. We want these conversations that are had, you know, I have a lot of off the record meetings with executives and I know how they talk off the record and I our goal is to bring those conversations on the record on stage on September 9th. And so I think that's what's really going to distinguish this conversation. John, it's not going to be, you know, these are not going to be press release conversations. These are going to be hopefully very blunt and real and authentic. And so I don't know, grilling is the right word, but we're certainly going to try to move this conversation into one, you know, into an area where it feels like you're getting the real person who's in the job. Yeah, I think there's a really good point there about what people are saying behind the scenes and what oftentimes people feel like they need to say out loud. And I hope that we can pull back the curtain on that a bit and have a more frank discussion. We know John and I know the whole speaker lineup. We have a lot of people confirmed and we're going to be announcing them one by one in our newsletter over the next couple of weeks. And so I think when you see the entire lineup, you're really going to want to be there. So don't miss out. Do register. Status summit.news. You're not going to want to miss this conference. It's going to be, I hope, the conference that people are really talking about, not only on September 9th, but afterward because we really do hope to have some interesting, consequential, insert your adjective conversations with these people. It's also going to be a lot of fun. I'm really looking forward to it. I think there's a lot of the existing reception. It's going to be a cocktail reception. People, you know, there will be a catered bunch, obviously a breakfast, coffee bar. So you're not going to want to miss out on this. Their early bird rate is valid through the month of July. So don't miss out on that because you're going to want to buy tickets and you don't want to miss that special rate. That's it for us this week. Oliver, I'm looking forward to the summit and more names to come. I'll catch you next week. I'll see you next week, John. Thank you for listening to Power Lines, a presentation of status. The show is produced by Matt Havia and Antonio Enriquez, an association with Indi Arena Studios. Please like, share, and subscribe to Power Lines on Spotify, Apple, or wherever you listen and watch full episodes and clips on our YouTube page at status.