asks

May 22 (UPI) — The Federal Communications Commission on Friday opened public comment on a petition from the Disney-owned network ABC to declare its show The View as a “bona fide news interview program.”

Disney submitted the petition in early May on behalf of its television station KTRK-TV in Houston and its parent company ABC for the declaration in order to receive an exemption from laws requiring that non-news programming include equal time for representation of political candidates for office.

The equal time rule is part of the Communications Act of 1934, which created the FCC and regulations for the use of wire and radio, and later television, communications.

The rule is meant to ensure equal access to broadcast station facilities for all candidates for office — essentially, the same amount of air time — to prevent broadcasters from using the public airwaves to push one political candidate or party over another.

Disney and ABC’s request for an exemption to the rule, which are generally granted for news broadcasts, stems from years-long squabbling between President Donald Trump and various people who have hosted The View, which is a news and pop culture analysis program hosted by a panel of women.

“Is The View a ‘bona fide news interview program?” FCC Chairman Brendan Carr said in a post on X announcing the public comment period.

“Under FCC case law, tv shows do not qualify as ‘bona fide news’ if their decisions are based on partisan purposes, such as an intention to advance or harm an individual’s candidacy,” Carr said.

Disney compared the show to NBC’s Meet The Press and CBS’ Face The Nation, which feature interviews and roundtable analysis of political and news topics.

Carr, however, contends that The View does not meet the criteria of those shows as news programs, and so should be required to offer time to multiple candidates in a political race if they feature one of them.

In its May 7 petition to the FCC, Disney and ABC noted that the FCC’s actions could upend “settled law and practice,” as well as “chill critical protected speech both with respect to ‘The View’ and more broadly.”

The filing also notes that the show has “been broadcasting under a bona fide news exemption granted to it more than 20 years ago,” and that the exemption “remains valid.”

REALITY star Maura Higgins has asked former Strictly Come Dancing pro Karen Hauer to help her train for the US version of the show.

The Love Islander will start filming for Dancing with the Stars in America in July.

But she has already begun training in London with Karen, 44, who was axed from the BBC1 show this year.

An insider said: “Maura is a complete novice when it comes to dancing so Karen has kindly offered to show her the ropes and teach her the basics.

“Maura is determined not to be the first voted off so is giving it her all.

“She has her sights set on becoming a huge star in America.”

READ MORE ON MAURA HIGGINS

SHOW ME MAUR

Maura Higgins, Demi Moore & Heidi Klum dazzle on red carpet at Cannes

MAUR STYLE

Maura Higgins seen for the first time since quitting Love Island USA job

Earlier this year Maura, 35, lost out in the final of the US version of The Traitors.

We revealed this week how Maura  is walking away from Love Island USA.

She revealed that she’s ready for a fresh start after three years.

Speaking to Vulture about whether fans would see her back on screens this summer, she said: “You won’t. I’ve done it for three years, and they’ll always be family to me, but I think it’s time to try something different.

“I’ve got amazing opportunities coming in the door.

“I think it’s time to say good-bye. But you know what? I won’t say forever.”

May 13 (UPI) — The Justice Department filed a lawsuit Wednesday evening against D.C. disciplinary officials who recommended Jeffrey Clark be disbarred over his efforts to overturn 2020 election results, the latest move by the Trump administration to defend allies accused of helping President Donald Trump remain in power after that election loss.

The lawsuit in a federal court in D.C. alleges the disciplinary officials used their powers to punish lawyers over what federal prosecutors describe as “internal Executive Branch deliberations” in order to regulate federal government actions.

“Weaponizing state bar discipline against Executive Branch attorneys in this way chills them from giving candid legal advice to others in the Executive Branch, including the president and attorney general,” the lawsuit states.

“To permit these proceedings is to allow state bar authorities to control the Executive Branch. That is not the law.”

Clark was an assistant attorney general at the Justice Department following Trump’s 2020 election loss to Joe Biden, and urged Justice Department officials to issue a letter he wrote casting doubt on election results, according to congressional investigators and D.C. disciplinary officials.

The letter specifically targeted the results in Georgia, a swing state Trump lost to Biden by 11,779 votes, alleging a Justice Department investigation had uncovered election “irregularities” despite Attorney General William Barr having already announced there was no evidence of outcome-determinative fraud in the election prior to his resignation.

Clark had prepared the letter to be signed by Barr’s replacement, then-acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, and Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue, the second highest-ranking Justice Department lawyer, both of whom refused because they knew its contents were untrue.

Clark continued to push for the Justice Department to issue the letter, which he intended to be used as a template to be sent to other states. Amid the political turmoil, Trump considered appointing Clark as attorney general — a move Clark encouraged so he could launch nationwide investigations to uncover unfounded claims of election issues.

Trump abandoned the idea of appointing Clark only after being informed doing so would cause mass resignations among Justice Department leadership.

The D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel opened its investigation into Clark’s actions after Sen. Dick Durbin, as then-chairman of the committee, asked it to probe his “serious violations of professional conduct.”

The D.C. Court of Appeals Board on Professional Responsibility in July recommended that Clark be disbarred in D.C., stating that “when a lawyer attempts to make intentional false statements on an issue that the lawyer understands to be a ‘pressing matter of overriding national importance,’ or knowing that the false statement would have serious and far-ranging consequences, they deserve the ultimate sanction.”

A final judgment has not yet been issued in the case.

The Justice Department on Wednesday asked the court to quash the D.C. disciplinary proceedings against Clark, and alleged they violate the Supremacy Clause and Article II of the Constitution by arguing that Clark was acting as a federal government employee who cannot be punished for performing Executive Branch duties.

Federal prosecutors also frame the issue as involving internal discussions. They said Clark attempted to persuade his superiors to issue a draft letter “that he felt reflected the actual law and facts about the 2020 election.”

“D.C. disciplinary authorities may not punish a United States official for disagreeing with a superior or coworker or for sharing an opinion just because those disciplinary authorities disagree with it,” the filing states.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche also accused the D.C. Bar of being “a blatantly partisan arm of leftist causes,” accusing it of being weaponized.

“The D.C. Bar will no longer be permitted to probe sensitive Executive Branch deliberations and target Executive Branch officials with whom they happen to politically disagree, and federal attorneys will once again be free to share their candid legal advice with their bosses and colleagues,” he said in a statement.

Clark was never charged in federal court in connection with his role in the alleged scheme, but he, Trump and 17 others were indicted in Georgia on racketeering charges. The case was dismissed after the prosecutor appointed following Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ removal declined to pursue the charges.

Other Trump allies accused of aiding his efforts to overturn the 2020 election have also been sanctioned in D.C., including Rudy Giuliani, who was disbarred in D.C. and New York, and John Eastman, whose D.C. law license was suspended on an interim basis after he was disbarred in California.

Wednesday’s lawsuit is the latest action by the federal government aiding those who supported Trump’s false election claims.

On Trump’s first day in office, he issued clemency to the roughly 1,500 people charged or convicted in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection.

He also issued pardons to Giuliani, Eastman, Clark, Sidney Powell and many others accused of aiding his efforts.

WASHINGTON — A federal magistrate judge on Monday pressed a jail official to explain why a man charged with trying to storm the White House Correspondents’ Assn. dinner and attempting to kill President Trump was placed on restrictive suicide watch after his arrest.

Officials at the city jail in Washington removed Cole Tomas Allen from its designated “suicide status” over the weekend after his attorneys complained that he had been unnecessarily confined in a padded room with constant lighting, repeatedly strip-searched and placed in restraints outside his cell.

But the relaxed conditions didn’t satisfy U.S. Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui’s concerns that Allen may have received disparate, punitive treatment in violation of his due process rights. Faruqui noted that the D.C. jail routinely houses convicted killers and others charged with violent crimes without placing them on 24-hour lockdown.

“It could drive a person crazy to be in that situation,” he said.

Faruqui apologized to Allen over his confinement conditions. In response to a news report on that apology, U.S. Atty. Jeanine Pirro criticized him in a social media post that said Faruqui “believes a defendant armed to the teeth and attempting to assassinate the president is entitled to preferential treatment in his confinement compared to every other defendant.”

Allen’s lawyers said he wasn’t showing any suicidal risk factors after his arrest. But a jail psychiatrist evaluated him and initially concluded that he posed a suicide risk, according to Tony Towns, acting general counsel for the city’s corrections department.

“Every case is different, your honor,” Towns said.

Allen was moved into protective custody after the jail lifted the suicide prevention measures. His attorneys didn’t object to his new confinement status. They had asked the magistrate to cancel Monday’s hearing, but Faruqui forged ahead with it due to his “grave concerns” about Allen’s treatment in jail.

Allen was injured but was not shot during the April 25 attack at the Washington Hilton, which disrupted one of the highest-profile annual events in the nation’s capital.

Allen was armed with guns and knives when he ran through a security checkpoint and pointed his weapon at a Secret Service agent, who fired back five times, authorities said. Pirro has said that Allen fired a shot that struck the agent’s bullet-resistant vest.

Allen later told FBI agents that he didn’t expect to survive the attack, which could help explain why he was deemed to be a possible suicide risk, said Justice Department prosecutor Jocelyn Ballantine.

Allen, 31, of Torrance, is charged with attempted assassination of the president and two additional firearms counts. He faces up to life in prison if convicted of the assassination count alone.

Defense attorney Eugene Ohm said Allen was prohibited from having anything in his cell. He asked for a Bible and a visit from a chaplain but hasn’t received either, according to Ohm.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.

May 2 (UPI) — A company that makes the abortion drug mifepristone on Saturday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to immediately pause a ruling that prevents doctors from prescribing it during telehealth visits.

Late Friday, a three judge panel on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled in favor of the state of Louisiana in a case asking the court to block doctors from prescribing the drug in telehealth visits.

Louisiana in the last four years has moved to prevent women in the state from obtaining abortion care legislators there were among the first to ban abortion after the repeal of Roe v. Wade, and later blocked doctors from prescribing the medical abortion pill in virtual telehealth visits.

The company, which is not the only drugmaker planning to file an appeal, said that patients will be stuck in limbo because of the lack of clarity it leaves for legal use of the drug, NBC News and Politico reported.

Roughly half of all abortions in the United States are performed using medications.

“Danco has been free to rely on procedures set by the FDA to distribute its product,” lawyers for the company said in a filing with the court.

“The Fifth Circuit’s decision immediately ends that,” the lawyers said. “A stay should issue to prevent the disruption and confusion that will result if the decision below were to remain operative.”

In addition to Danco, Politico reported that GenBioPro, which also manufactures the drug, has indicated that it will also file an appeal with the court.

Mifepristone was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2000 for medical termination of pregnancy and, until the COVID-19 pandemic, could only be prescribed during in-person appointments.

Early in the pandemic and the country locked down in an effort to stem the spread of the virus, doctors sued the FDA to allow them to prescribe mifepristone during telehealth visits.

The FDA temporarily changed the rule, but in 2023 adopted it permanently as some states started to restrict access to abortion and abortion services after the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade.

Pharmaceutical companies and patient advocates warned that the restriction circumvents the FDA’s regulatory authority, which is based on evidence and data, and that it may offer a path for people to challenge other medications based on personal interest or opinion.

In the case of Danco, it also immediately filed the appeal because it is the only product it makes and “without a valid legal framework for distributing that product, Danco will lose its only source of revenue and may be unable to continue operating.”

April 26 (UPI) — The Trump administration asked the National Trust for Historic Preservation on Sunday to end its legal challenge to President Donald Trump‘s ballroom following Saturday’s arrest at the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner, saying its lawsuit “puts the lives of the president, his family and staff at grave risk.”

“Enough is enough. Your client should voluntarily dismiss this frivolous lawsuit today in light of last night’s assassination attempt on President Trump,” Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate of the Justice Department’s Civil Division said in a letter to the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s lawyers.

Cole Tomas Allen, 31, of Torrance, Calif., was arrested Saturday night at the annual White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner hosted at the Washington Hilton Hotel with Trump, his family, members of his Cabinet and many others in attendance.

U.S. Secret Service agents apprehended the suspect — armed with a shotgun, a handgun and knives — who allegedly rushed a Secret Service checkpoint in the hotel’s lobby, authorities said.

Law enforcement and the suspect exchanged gunfire, resulting in an agent sustaining an injury when shot in the bullet-resistant vest. The injured agent and the suspect, who was not struck by gunfire, were transported to a local hospital for treatment.

Trump has been locked in a monthslong legal battle with the preservation organization over his plans to construct a $400 million donor-paid ballroom where the East Wing of the White House once stood.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation argues that the Trump administration needs congressional approval for the project and its financing mechanism, while the Justice Department argues the project is legally authorized and that, now that construction has begun, completing it is necessary for the security and the safety of the president.

A federal judge has sided with the preservation organization, ruling that Trump needs congressional approval for the plan to proceed. After the judge earlier this month permitted only below-ground construction for security purposes, the D.C. Circuit issued an administrative stay allowing the project to continue while the government’s appeal proceeds, with oral arguments scheduled for June 5.

Calls of support from the White House and Republicans have increased following Saturday’s incident, with Trump stating in a press conference that night, “We need the ballroom.”

In his letter on Sunday, Shumate said the ballroom would mean the president would no longer need to leave the White House to attend large gatherings.

He said the National Trust for Historic Preservation has until 9 a.m. Monday to dismiss the lawsuit or the Justice Department will move to dismiss the case “in light of last night’s extraordinary events” and state that the preservation organization opposes the motion.

UPI has asked the National Trust for Historic Preservation for comment.

Jada Pinkett Smith is asking a judge to make Bilaal Salaam cover the $49,000 in legal fees she racked up fighting claims he made in a December lawsuit.

According to a motion filed April 20 and obtained by The Times, Pinkett Smith is asking that Salaam pay $49,181.23, consisting of “reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred” in connection with Pinkett Smith’s successful special motion to strike Salaam’s complaint, “plus further fees and costs associated with this motion.”

Salaam — Will Smith’s former best friend of 40 years who also goes by Brother Bilaal — filed a lawsuit against the “Bad Moms” actor in December, alleging emotional distress and seeking $3 million in damages.

Salaam claimed that in September 2021, he attended a private birthday party for Will Smith at the Regency Calabasas Commons. According to his lawsuit, he was in the lobby of the movie theater when Pinkett Smith approached him with about seven members of her entourage and threatened him. Salaam’s suit claims that Pinkett Smith told him he would “end up missing or catch a bullet” if he kept “telling her personal business.” She also allegedly pressured him to sign a non-disclosure agreement.

In November 2023, Salaam appeared on the “Unwine With Tasha K” podcast and alleged that he walked into Duane Martin’s dressing room and saw Will Smith having a sexual encounter with the “All of Us” actor. He also made claims about Pinkett Smith’s sexual habits.

Pinkett Smith swiftly responded during an appearance on “The Breakfast Club” and said that Salaam started the rumors as part of a broader “money shakedown” and that his claims were “ridiculous and nonsense.”

“It’s not true and we’re going to take care of it,” she said. “We’re about to take legal action.”

Salaam beat Pinkett Smith to the courthouse and sued her in December, but Pinkett Smith asked the judge to toss the case in February.

According to the motion filed this week, the former “Red Table Talk” host argues Salaam should pay her hefty legal bills because she “prevailed on her anti-SLAPP motion” and the court struck all allegations relating to media statements “that formed the basis for Plaintiff’s three causes of action, as well as additional allegations regarding a cease-and-desist letter.”

April 14 (UPI) — The Justice Department on Tuesday asked a federal court to dismiss the convictions of Proud Boys and Oath Keepers members who were found guilty of leading and organizing the Jan. 6, 2021, riot and attack on the U.S. Capitol.

The request includes 12 former members of the groups, all of whom prosecutors said were ringleaders of the attack. After his return to office in 2025, President Donald Trump pardoned most of those who were convicted for their parts in the riot, a move affecting more than 1,000 people. However, the sentences of some, including these 12, were commuted to time served instead, freeing them from prison though the convictions remained.

The group involved in the Justice Department request on Tuesday includes Stewart Rhodes, a leader of the Oath Keepers who was sentenced to 18 years in prison for seditious conspiracy and other charges. Prosecutors said Rhodes and other Oath Keepers “began plotting to oppose by force the lawful transfer of presidential power” after the 2020 election, CBS News reported.

Others whose sentences were commuted are Proud Boys leaders Ethan Nordean, Zachary Rehl, Dominic Pezzola and Joseph Biggs, who were also convicted of seditious conspiracy for their role.

Appeals involving this group have continued, and the Justice Department requested Tuesday that federal appeals panels vacate the earlier convictions and drop the cases in whole.

“The United States has determined in its prosecutorial discretion that dismissal of this criminal case is in the interests of justice,” wrote Assistant U.S. Attorney Daniel Lenerz in the filing, Politico reported.

Greg Rosen, former chief of the Justice Department’s Capitol Siege Section, criticized the move, CBS News reported.

“It’s a reminder of what drove the pardons in the first place-the political violence is acceptable as long as your politics align,” he told CBS News. “And it’s a continuing and sad commentary on the current state of the department.”