Jessica Biel shared a rare glimpse into her home life with her husband Justin Timberlake and their children in rural Montana. Biel recently invited InStyle magazine to her home in the Rocky Mountains, where she posed for photos including the outlet's Summer Issue cover and sat down for an interview.The 43-year-old actress and the 45-year-old singer left Hollywood years ago and moved to Big Sky, Montana, where they are raising their two sons, Silas, 10, and Phineas, 4.During her interview, Biel spoke candidly about the challenges of balancing her busy career and motherhood."Spending time with the family unit is a huge priority right now, because Ive been gone, Justins been gone," she said.Biel explained that when she isn't working or doing press, her typical Saturday involves skiing with Timberlake in the morning and later picking up their children at ski school before hitting the slopes as a family in the afternoon.JESSICA BIEL ALMOST HIT HER BROTHER WITH PARENTS' CAR ON THE SET OF '7TH HEAVEN'"These moments at this time feel kind of priceless," the "7th Heaven" alum said.Biel explained that she and Timberlake split parenting and childcare duties when they are both at home with their sons."We're doing the same thing every other parent is doing:Okay, tennis. You got the tennis? I'll get the thing," she said.Biel told InStyle that she feels fortunate to have a strong support system of family and friends to lean on while juggling her demanding work schedule and her parental duties."It really takes a village to raise any kid, let alone in a wild business like this where parents are traveling for long times for work," she said.The "Sinner" star noted that she and Timberlake strive to ensure that one parent is able to stay home with Silas and Phineas if the other is away working."Sometimes we do a good job; we try to have one of us working full-time, only one," she said. "It doesn't always happen, because the opportunities arise and the timing is what it is. You just have to take advantage of it."Biel is starring in the upcoming movie "Matchbox," which is based on the Mattel toy brand of the same name. The film, which Mattel developed after the massive success of 2024's "Barbie," was filmed in Morocco, Slovakia and Hungary.The actress told InStyle that the timing of the movie's shoot "literally couldn't have been worse" as Timberlake was in the middle of his Forget Tomorrow World Tour. She recalled that Silas and Phineas traveled to Europe to stay with her while she was filming the action-adventure comedy."We had our incredible [travel] teachers and our incredible nanny and our family helped out," Biel said. "The kids are good, we're good, it's all positive; it's just when you're in the middle of it, youre like, What am I doing?"JESSICA BIEL SHARES HER MARRIAGE UPS AND DOWNS WITH JUSTIN TIMBERLAKEHowever, Biel admitted that finding a balance as a working mom can be tough."It's so hard," she said. "I don't do it very well all the time."The Emmy Award nominee went on to share the words of wisdom that she had received from her longtime producing partner, Michelle Purple."She said one thing to me a long time ago. She goes, Listen, all you can do is: When you're working, you're 100-percent working, and when you're home, you're 100-percent home. Do not take a work call when you're at home with the kids. If you do it half-a--, you're not good at anything,'" Biel recalled. "That was a good piece of advice."In a video for InStyle, Biel reflected on what had most surprised her about being a parent."The thing that surprised me about being a parent, and surprised me about myself is that I actually might be the rule enforcer," she said. "Sometimes. But its not really my style.""I just sort of thought 'Justins going to be the rule enforcer and thats the way it's gonna be,'" the actress continued. "Im a Pisces, Im more emotional, gentle, easygoing and whatever, but Im kind of good at it. I drop a boundary and Im like Nope, you cant cross it. It took a while to learn that, but its an important skill to have."And sometimes he can be really soft about things. Which I didnt expect!" Biel added. "We take turns, and I think that was surprising to me."The couple, who tied the knot in 2012, purchased their home in Blue Sky's exclusive, gated community, Yellowstone Club, in 2015, shortly before they welcomed Silas. Biel gave birth to Phineas during the summer of 2020.In 2021, Biel and Timberlake listed their Los Angeles mansion for $35 million, but the pair later took the home off the market. The pair sold their New York City penthouse for $29 million in 2022.LIKE WHAT YOURE READING? CLICK HERE FOR MORE ENTERTAINMENT NEWSDuring a 2024 appearance on SiriusXM's "Let's Talk Off Camera With Kelly Ripa," Biel explained that they decided to make Montana their primary residence so they could raise their children away from the paparazzi."You get hammered on the East Coast. You kind of get hammered on the West Coast. That's why we don't really live there anymore," she said. "We're just trying to create some normalcy for these kids.""We want to share our family with our loved ones and friends and also, we understand that our job has this major public-facing element, so we understand that part of it, but also these kids didnt choose this," Biel continued.CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR THE ENTERTAINMENT NEWSLETTER"I dont want to expose them in a way until they have an ability to make that decision for themself, you know?" she added. "This very social media world is where they exist and where they live and that will be a very big part of their life and their reality.""I just dont want it to be on my account so we try to engage in a way that feels authentic, but also just not, you know, blasting them all over the place and no disrespect to anybody who feels comfortable doing that. Thats just our family choice."Though Silas and Phineas have made appearances on their parents' social media platforms, Biel and Timberlake do not show their sons' faces. While speaking with InStyle, Biel explained that she and Timberlake often face a dilemma when it comes to how much their children should be in the public eye."It's a tricky one, a tricky balance. We do really try hard not to expose them in a way that they're not comfortable with," she said.Silas made a rare public appearance last August when he accompanied Biel to the US Open tennis tournament in Queens, New York. Biel told InStyle that she had a conversation with Silas ahead of the event to gauge whether he was prepared for the inevitable media attention."My son was 9 at the time, and he's a huge tennis fan that's his sport, that's what he plays," she said. "We had this opportunity, and we talked about it. We talked about photographers. You know, Are you comfortable with that? He can't make these decisions on his own, but at this point, we can at least discuss what's his opinion around it."Biel explained why she ultimately decided to go through with the outing, telling InStyle, "You really want to give your kids every experience.""I don't know if it was the right decision, to be honest with you, but he and I had a good time," she added. 'It's scary every time. But it's also their life. And so it's this really tricky, tricky thing to figure out, what's appropriate."Biel noted that she and Timberlake are also ambivalent over whether they should encourage Silas' natural talent and interest in acting. "If he was a kid actor, he'd probably work all the time," she said.However, Biel told InStyle she would prefer that Silas wait until he is older to decide whether he wanted to follow in his parents' footsteps."And when you're 18 years old, you want to be professional? Have at it. That's your choice. That's what I would like to hold on to, if possible, for him, you know?" she said.

The recent announcement of a trade deal between the U.S. and China is making headline news. Its a political and economic win for President Trump and his administration and its a clear achievement in the presidents America First policy agenda. But while the news of a trade deal with China marks a new dynamic in the U.S.-China relationship, it is still important that we recognize the fact that China continues to pose a major national security threat that no trade deal will immediately fix especially with the use of Chinese technology by government officials, at the state and federal level, as a national security risk that must be taken seriously.Chinese-made devices collect critical information and data which, as mandated by the Chinese government, must be shared with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). That means that our most threatening adversaries, like China in this case, could have direct access to sensitive information on U.S. citizens, government communications, military planning, and even defense and critical infrastructure systems. This self-inflicted wound presents a serious threat, yet it does not heal it persists year after year due to the absence of clear federal direction from the U.S. government.As someone who served on the frontlines of our homeland security, I find it baffling that we continue allowing this. We permit the U.S. government to gather and store data and conduct critical communications and defense coordination on technologies with a direct line of access to a foreign adversary through their data collection laws. This should be unacceptable.HEGSETH REVEALS PLANS TO COUNTER CHINA, STAY AHEAD IN ARMS RACE AS PENTAGON PIVOTS TO INDO-PACIFICEvery time Chinese-made devices enter our government or connect to our networks they jeopardize our national security and the safety of Americans across this great country and in battlegrounds around the world.Whats needed now is bold action to stop this practice something that only President Trump and todays Congress can deliver on.As a first step, the Trump administration should immediately consider imposing a government-wide ban across all federal agencies, like the ones I previously served in, on the procurement of computers and other interoperable devices and technologies manufactured by Chinese-domiciled companies.In turn, Congress should also consider passing federal legislation enshrining this principal, ensuring that national security takes precedent.Such action would protect critical government infrastructure and citizens data and prevent Chinese companies from inserting so-called "made in America" backdoor manufacturing policies into devices that compromise our security.CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINIONLawmakers need to understand the stakes, and the solution for our national security is quite simple.President Trump is already proving his commitment to confronting Chinas growing influence in U.S. foreign affairs through bold tariffs, trade deals, and a peace through strength defense strategy. From his trade policies to his efforts to decouple certain sectors of the American economy from China, he is showing the drive and willingness to take strong action.We cannot afford to let foreign adversaries weaken our technological foundations. Our national defense depends on secure and trustworthy systems. Allowing Chinese technology into our governments operations undermines that security. The U.S. is far too strong a nation to be undermined by foreign-made technology designed to infiltrate and compromise our systems.Our American future is at stake. Our way of life is at stake. And these stakes are simply far too high to do anything less. President Trumps leadership to embolden Congress will put America first. Im confident Congress will do what is right. American lives are on the line.

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 Trumps 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 PresidentKamala Harrisin 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 Trumps 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 ChapmanII, a federal defense attorney whos 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 ACTThe 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," Chapmansaid before listing a series of "problems" he found in the letter.Chapmansaid 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 dont infringe private rights based on hypotheticals. Warren and Sanders must know that this type of activism and hyperbolic outrage is irresponsible," Chapmansaid."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 dont understand this, but their letter implies that CBS and Paramount are potentially engaged in bribery, which is an outrageous and unfounded allegation."Chapmansaid 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 WITHThe 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 doesnt 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 ONeil, 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," ONeil 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 LAWSUITONeil also feels that when companies are focused on future business deals, being involved in any type of litigation "isnt conducive to the future gain.""It is common for companies to wrap up outstanding liabilities before entering into new deals or mergers," ONeil 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," ONeil said. "Whats 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 theyll 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 plaintiffs 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.

There seems to be a clash of views within the ABC daytime talk show "The View" over the hyper-political coverage it has become known for.The Daily Beast reported about an apparent rift between the ladies of "The View" and the top brass at the company, going all the way up to Disney CEO Bob Iger, about a desire for the hosts to cool off the politics.Notably, all six of the co-hosts (Whoopi Goldberg, Joy Behar, Sunny Hostin, Sara Haines, Alyssa Farah Griffin and Ana Navarro) voted for Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election and are outspoken critics of President Donald Trump.DISNEY BOSS BOB IGER, ABC EXEC ASKED THE VIEW HOSTS TO COOL IT ON POLITICS: REPORT"[ABC News president Almin] Karamehmedovic convened a meeting with The View's executive producer Brian Teta and its hosts, and suggested the panel needed to broaden its conversations beyond its predominant focus on politics, two sources familiar with the meeting said," the Daily Beast reported Wednesday. "Karamehmedovic highlighted episodes with celebrity guests that he said were highly rated, one source said, and encouraged them to lean into such coverage moving forward."According to the report, "The View" co-host Ana Navarro forcefully pushed back, insisting their audience want their perspectives on politics. Navarro reportedly took her message directly to Iger, who she thanked for allowing them to keep doing their jobs, though Iger "reaffirmed that the show needed to tone down its political rhetoric" while expressing his support for "The View.""Ultimately, the women found the requests silly and that they were just going to keep doing their thing," the Daily Beast wrote.BIDEN TELLS 'THE VIEW' HE WASN'T SURPRISED HARRIS LOST, BLAMES SEXISM AND RACISMA source with "The View" confirmed to Fox News Digital these discussions were had, but suggested not all the hosts are in lockstep with Navarro."Most hosts agree with the ABC top brass," the source told Fox News Digital. "'The View' is a daytime network talk show and needs to do more than just politics and Trump bashing. This was a welcome direction for many of us."When asked whether "The View" will ultimately pivot towards less political coverage as the second Trump presidency continues, the source responded, "It's hard to say," but added, "Ignoring Bob Iger seems like a terrible decision."Another source familiar with the situation said such conversations with talent are normal based on viewer feedback, and that this conversation in particular is about finding a "balance" in topics and reevaluating politics in general, not just stories pertaining to Trump.Despite the internal discussions, "The View" has maintained its critical coverage of Trump and his administration in recent weeks.A spokesperson for ABC News declined to comment.THE VIEW MELTS DOWN OVER LATEST BIDEN BOOK, SLAMS CNN FOR HAWKING' ITIger's request for a shift in "The View" did not occur in a vacuum. Trump, known for his feuds with the media, is currently in mediation with Paramount Global to resolve his $20 billion lawsuit against CBS News over the handling of its "60 Minutes" election interview with Harris.ABC News itself settled a lawsuit filed by Trump in December, shelling out $15 million for his presidential library and an apology over liberal anchor George Stephanopoulos' false assertions that Trump was found "liable for rape," alluding to the civil case victory by accuser E. Jean Carroll, when a jury actually determined Trump was liable for "sexual abuse." That settlement was personally approved by Iger according to reports.Trump also landed multimillion-dollar settlements from social media giants Meta and X over their past suppression of his accounts on their platforms and is currently suing board members of the Pulitzer Prize for awarding The New York Times and The Washington Post for their Russiagate coverage.

The revelations about former President Joe Biden's declining health while he was in office have brought a new spotlight on what officials in his administration said at the time about the former president's health.One of the most outspoken officials defending Biden's mental and physical stamina was White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre.She has been on record denying that the former president was experiencing cognitive decline or other health issues from as early as 2022.When then-CNN anchor Don Lemon asked Jean-Pierre if Biden would have the "stamina" necessary to complete a second term in June 2022, she appeared shocked at the question."That is not a question that we should be even asking," she said before adding that reports of Bidens declining cognitive faculties were "hearsay."NEW BOOK REVEALS BIDEN'S INNER CIRCLE WORRIED ABOUT HIS AGE YEARS BEFORE BOTCHED DEBATE PERFORMANCE"Don, you're asking me this question. Oh my gosh. He's the President of the United States just look at the work he does. And look how he's delivering for the American public," she said.Jean-Pierre called reports of Biden capping events as early as 10 a.m. because he was fatigued "ridiculous assumptions," in an August 2023 press conference. The following month, when questioned whether Bidens staff "treats him like a baby" the press secretary pushed back."No one treats the President of the United States, the commander in chief, like a baby. That's ridiculous. It's a ridiculous claim," she responded.After Special Counsel Robert Hur declined to prosecute Biden for the alleged mishandling of classified documents last year, claiming that a jury would consider him to be a sympathetic "elderly man with a poor memory," Jean-Pierre said his assessment "does not live in reality.""The reality is, that report, that part of the report does not live in reality. It just doesn't. It is gratuitous. It is unacceptable, and it does not live in reality," Pierre said at the time.FLASHBACK: WHITE HOUSE PRESS SEC KARINE JEAN-PIERRE LAUGHS OFF QUESTION ON BIDEN'S HEALTH IN 2022CNN anchor Jake Tapper and Axios reporter Alex Thompsons new book, "Original Sin," details disturbing accounts of the Biden White Houses inner workings, which show that the president's senior staffers were attempting to hide his alleged cognitive decline from the public and even his own Cabinet.The book reports that Cabinet secretaries were denied access to the then-president, his aides openly mused about whether he would need to be put in a wheelchair if he made it to a second term, Biden frequently forgot his staffers' names, and he did not even recognize famous supporter George Clooney when the two were face-to-face at a 2024 fundraiser.She also dismissed videos of Biden appearing disoriented or frail as "cheap fakes" and insisted that they were based on "misinformation" in a June 2024 interview with MSNBCs Nicole Wallace."It's also very insulting to the folks, the viewers who are watching it. And so we believe we have to call that out. We've been calling it cheap fakes. That is something that came directly from the media outlets in calling it that, the fact-checkers and calling it that," Jean-Pierre said. She made similar remarks in the briefing room.After Biden's debate performance in June alarmed Democrats and started a pressure campaign to force him out of the 2024 race, Jean-Pierre remained steadfast at the podium. At one point, she said Biden was sharper than ever.After he dropped out of the race last July, Jean-Pierre was pressed by Fox News' Peter Doocy on whether there was a White House "cover-up" of his health."First of all, there's been no cover-up," Jean-Pierre told Doocy, adding, "I want to be very clear about that."Jean-Pierre didn't respond to a request for comment.

The recent announcement of a trade deal between the U.S. and China is making headline news. Its a political and economic win for President Trump and his administration and its a clear achievement in the presidents America First policy agenda. But while the news of a trade deal with China marks a new dynamic in the U.S.-China relationship, it is still important that we recognize the fact that China continues to pose a major national security threat that no trade deal will immediately fix especially with the use of Chinese technology by government officials, at the state and federal level, as a national security risk that must be taken seriously.Chinese-made devices collect critical information and data which, as mandated by the Chinese government, must be shared with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). That means that our most threatening adversaries, like China in this case, could have direct access to sensitive information on U.S. citizens, government communications, military planning, and even defense and critical infrastructure systems. This self-inflicted wound presents a serious threat, yet it does not heal it persists year after year due to the absence of clear federal direction from the U.S. government.As someone who served on the frontlines of our homeland security, I find it baffling that we continue allowing this. We permit the U.S. government to gather and store data and conduct critical communications and defense coordination on technologies with a direct line of access to a foreign adversary through their data collection laws. This should be unacceptable.HEGSETH REVEALS PLANS TO COUNTER CHINA, STAY AHEAD IN ARMS RACE AS PENTAGON PIVOTS TO INDO-PACIFICEvery time Chinese-made devices enter our government or connect to our networks they jeopardize our national security and the safety of Americans across this great country and in battlegrounds around the world.Whats needed now is bold action to stop this practice something that only President Trump and todays Congress can deliver on.As a first step, the Trump administration should immediately consider imposing a government-wide ban across all federal agencies, like the ones I previously served in, on the procurement of computers and other interoperable devices and technologies manufactured by Chinese-domiciled companies.In turn, Congress should also consider passing federal legislation enshrining this principal, ensuring that national security takes precedent.Such action would protect critical government infrastructure and citizens data and prevent Chinese companies from inserting so-called "made in America" backdoor manufacturing policies into devices that compromise our security.CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINIONLawmakers need to understand the stakes, and the solution for our national security is quite simple.President Trump is already proving his commitment to confronting Chinas growing influence in U.S. foreign affairs through bold tariffs, trade deals, and a peace through strength defense strategy. From his trade policies to his efforts to decouple certain sectors of the American economy from China, he is showing the drive and willingness to take strong action.We cannot afford to let foreign adversaries weaken our technological foundations. Our national defense depends on secure and trustworthy systems. Allowing Chinese technology into our governments operations undermines that security. The U.S. is far too strong a nation to be undermined by foreign-made technology designed to infiltrate and compromise our systems.Our American future is at stake. Our way of life is at stake. And these stakes are simply far too high to do anything less. President Trumps leadership to embolden Congress will put America first. Im confident Congress will do what is right. American lives are on the line.

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 Trumps 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 PresidentKamala Harrisin 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 Trumps 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 ChapmanII, a federal defense attorney whos 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 ACTThe 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," Chapmansaid before listing a series of "problems" he found in the letter.Chapmansaid 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 dont infringe private rights based on hypotheticals. Warren and Sanders must know that this type of activism and hyperbolic outrage is irresponsible," Chapmansaid."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 dont understand this, but their letter implies that CBS and Paramount are potentially engaged in bribery, which is an outrageous and unfounded allegation."Chapmansaid 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 WITHThe 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 doesnt 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 ONeil, 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," ONeil 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 LAWSUITONeil also feels that when companies are focused on future business deals, being involved in any type of litigation "isnt conducive to the future gain.""It is common for companies to wrap up outstanding liabilities before entering into new deals or mergers," ONeil 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," ONeil said. "Whats 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 theyll 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 plaintiffs 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.

Just over a year ago, I argued in Fox News that national governing bodies like USA Volleyball and USA Fencing were corruptibly operating outside of accountability. Now they are saying the quiet part out loud, admitting in Congressional testimony and written policy that they wont comply with female-safety/opportunity standards unless "required by oversight bodies." Female athletes like me have suffered the devastating consequence of the lack of NGB oversight, and it is time Congress and the White House finally call them out.USA Fencing released a "Revised Transgender & Non-Binary Athlete Eligibility Policy" earlier this month with the added note "it will only be implemented if required by oversight bodies." This follows their humiliating spotlight when female fencer Stephanie Turner had to bow out of her own competition when the rule makers allowed a male opponent to jeopardize her safety. The USA Fencing-sanctioned event issued her a disqualifying black card as a "direct result of her decision to decline to fence an eligible opponent."Their "inclusive" message was exposed in the lightits nothing but discriminatory exclusion.USA FENCING TRANSGENDER CONTROVERSY ESCALATES AT DOGE HEARING WITH SOCIAL MEDIA REGRETS, CALLS FOR RESIGNATIONThe story doesn't end with Stephanie. Reduxx continues to uncover more men masquerading as women in USA Fencing competitions, some of which hold leadership positions within the organization. Their elevated platforms affirms the ideologically captured state of the board who voted against playing the national anthem at championships earlier this year and openly admits to factoring ratings from LGBTMAP.org and healthcare access (abortion laws) into fencing site selection.Congress certifies these sports' national governing bodies (NGBs) through the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee (USOPC) under the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act. Doing this largely yields oversight responsibilities to the USOPC, which generally allows for regulatory autonomy.But this yielded authority is not just about general rules of sport; it directs eligibility standards, informs university rulemaking, dictates how our country is represented in the Olympics, and more.Its hard to ignore the politically charged nature of athletics in todays climate, from covering USA jerseys in sexual pride to recognizing DEI as a core tenant of sports governance (see: USOPC "Diversity Scorecards"). It is clear; the USOPCs passivity has enabled the NGBs to operate as extended political arms with Congressional approval and very little accountability.But their politically-charged discrimination has now made its way to the national stage.Last month, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) penned a letter to USA Fencing requiring they "must comply with United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee rules and procedures, its statutory obligations to protect women, and President Trumps recent Executive Order (EO) on Keeping Men Out of Womens Sports" to keep their NGB certification.While the NGBs already hold a specific obligation to ensure fairness and safety, President Trumps executive order specifically clarifies the secretary of state must "use all appropriate and available measures to see that the International Olympic Committee amends the standards governing Olympic sports to promote fairness, safety, and the best interests of female athletes by ensuring that eligibility for participation in womens sporting events is determined according to sex and not gender identity or testosterone reduction."Sen. Cruzs letter brought the weight of the Upper Chamber in his demands for documentation, clarity on how many men were competing in their womens categories, answers for their compliance in accordance with the executive order, and more.CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINIONIn the House of Representatives, the DOGE subcommittee invited Stephanie Turner and USA Fencing Board Chair Damien Lehfeldt to testify in a hearing on May 7th. After refusing the invitation, the Committee required Mr. Lehfeldts appearance by issuing a subpoena. Chairwoman Marjorie Taylor Greene said USA Fencing "should not be recognized as the National Governing Body for fencing if it continues to defy the law."USA Fencing is facing heat from all angles. Good.During the hearing, Mr. Lehfeldt said he is "prepared to pivot" if the Ted Stevens Act is amended or the IOC directs them. But it begs a greater question; why must the federal government force them to protect female athletes? Why hasnt the USOPC stood up for female athletes?Without the accountability of the people and their elected representatives, NGBs have pursued policy goals that hurt women and undermine our countrys values. Congress and the White House must continue to strengthen enforcement through the USOPC and remind NGBs that our country is a place for opportunity, not politically charged discrimination.

Just over a year ago, I argued in Fox News that national governing bodies like USA Volleyball and USA Fencing were corruptibly operating outside of accountability. Now they are saying the quiet part out loud, admitting in Congressional testimony and written policy that they wont comply with female-safety/opportunity standards unless "required by oversight bodies." Female athletes like me have suffered the devastating consequence of the lack of NGB oversight, and it is time Congress and the White House finally call them out.USA Fencing released a "Revised Transgender & Non-Binary Athlete Eligibility Policy" earlier this month with the added note "it will only be implemented if required by oversight bodies." This follows their humiliating spotlight when female fencer Stephanie Turner had to bow out of her own competition when the rule makers allowed a male opponent to jeopardize her safety. The USA Fencing-sanctioned event issued her a disqualifying black card as a "direct result of her decision to decline to fence an eligible opponent."Their "inclusive" message was exposed in the lightits nothing but discriminatory exclusion.USA FENCING TRANSGENDER CONTROVERSY ESCALATES AT DOGE HEARING WITH SOCIAL MEDIA REGRETS, CALLS FOR RESIGNATIONThe story doesn't end with Stephanie. Reduxx continues to uncover more men masquerading as women in USA Fencing competitions, some of which hold leadership positions within the organization. Their elevated platforms affirms the ideologically captured state of the board who voted against playing the national anthem at championships earlier this year and openly admits to factoring ratings from LGBTMAP.org and healthcare access (abortion laws) into fencing site selection.Congress certifies these sports' national governing bodies (NGBs) through the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee (USOPC) under the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act. Doing this largely yields oversight responsibilities to the USOPC, which generally allows for regulatory autonomy.But this yielded authority is not just about general rules of sport; it directs eligibility standards, informs university rulemaking, dictates how our country is represented in the Olympics, and more.Its hard to ignore the politically charged nature of athletics in todays climate, from covering USA jerseys in sexual pride to recognizing DEI as a core tenant of sports governance (see: USOPC "Diversity Scorecards"). It is clear; the USOPCs passivity has enabled the NGBs to operate as extended political arms with Congressional approval and very little accountability.But their politically-charged discrimination has now made its way to the national stage.Last month, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) penned a letter to USA Fencing requiring they "must comply with United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee rules and procedures, its statutory obligations to protect women, and President Trumps recent Executive Order (EO) on Keeping Men Out of Womens Sports" to keep their NGB certification.While the NGBs already hold a specific obligation to ensure fairness and safety, President Trumps executive order specifically clarifies the secretary of state must "use all appropriate and available measures to see that the International Olympic Committee amends the standards governing Olympic sports to promote fairness, safety, and the best interests of female athletes by ensuring that eligibility for participation in womens sporting events is determined according to sex and not gender identity or testosterone reduction."Sen. Cruzs letter brought the weight of the Upper Chamber in his demands for documentation, clarity on how many men were competing in their womens categories, answers for their compliance in accordance with the executive order, and more.CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINIONIn the House of Representatives, the DOGE subcommittee invited Stephanie Turner and USA Fencing Board Chair Damien Lehfeldt to testify in a hearing on May 7th. After refusing the invitation, the Committee required Mr. Lehfeldts appearance by issuing a subpoena. Chairwoman Marjorie Taylor Greene said USA Fencing "should not be recognized as the National Governing Body for fencing if it continues to defy the law."USA Fencing is facing heat from all angles. Good.During the hearing, Mr. Lehfeldt said he is "prepared to pivot" if the Ted Stevens Act is amended or the IOC directs them. But it begs a greater question; why must the federal government force them to protect female athletes? Why hasnt the USOPC stood up for female athletes?Without the accountability of the people and their elected representatives, NGBs have pursued policy goals that hurt women and undermine our countrys values. Congress and the White House must continue to strengthen enforcement through the USOPC and remind NGBs that our country is a place for opportunity, not politically charged discrimination.

The much-anticipated Sean "Diddy" Combs trial has officially begun in New York City. Combs is charged with racketeering conspiracy, sex trafficking, and transportation to engage in prostitution and faces a sentence of 15 years to a lifetime in prison if convicted.Because of his celebrity status, there has been a lot of speculation leading up to his court date about who will be called as witnesses. The first full week of testimony centered around Combs ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura, who took the stand for several days.In 2023, Ventura filed a civil lawsuit against Combs, claiming allegations of abuse and sexual assault that he and his team quickly denied. At the time, the settlement amount was undisclosed, though Venture confirmed in court that the case was settled for $20 million.DIDDY HIRES FORMER DOJ EXPERT TO SAVE ASSETS FROM GOVERNMENT SEIZURE: INSIRE EMPIRE AT STAKEHer lawsuit laid the foundation of several others to follow from alleged victims throughout the years, as well as the eventual federal indictment brought forth by the U.S. Department of Justice.The trial is expected to last well into summer, totaling at least eight to ten weeks.What The Prosecution Is SayingProsecutors allege Combs operated his businesses as a way to cover up a number of crimes, including but not limited to those he is charged with.Among the offenses named, attorneys say Combs used his status to violently force two ex-girlfriends into non-consensual sexual acts, plus victimized multiple employees through threats and sexual assault.In addition to Ventura, the prosecution has called government witnesses who spoke about the alleged violent behavior against Ventura, including a notable instance which was made public online ahead of the trial.In this 2016 incident, taking place in a Los Angeles hotel, surveillance shows Combs dragging Ventura and kicking her. Days later, the prosecution called Ventura to the stand to testify, and she detailed this incident, as well as the alleged repeated abuse carried out by Combs over the years of their relationship against her and others.Defense Claims Allegations Equal A "Money Grab"As for the defense, Combs attorneys call the accusations a "money grab" and admit to Combs' temper and physicality, though they argue the alleged crimes involving the two ex-girlfriends were consensual.However, several others have come forward with allegations against Combs that have ranged from sexual assault to physical abuse and other crimes. As the trial continues and more evidence and testimony are presented, the jury will have to decide if its enough to convict Combs of all the crimes hes charged with.Members of Danity Kane, the girl band that Combs formed nearly 20 years ago, were also called to the witness stand to discuss alleged sexual misconduct and abuse against them by Combs. Venturas mother is also expected to take the stand for the prosecution within the coming days.What To Expect NextTo prove Combs guilty of the sex trafficking charge, the prosecution must show the jury that Ventura and other alleged victims didnt consent to the sexual activities and were either coerced or forced by Combs.CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINIONIn addition, there must be proof these illegal activities were part of a bigger money-making scheme to convict Combs of the associated racketeering charges. Regarding the charges, the DOJ indictment states:"Among other things, COMBS sexual abuse of women included causing them to engage in frequent, days-long sexual activity with male commercial sex workers, some of whom were transported over state lines. These events, which COMBS referred to as "Freak Offs," were elaborate sex performances that COMBS arranged, directed, and often electronically recorded. To ensure participation in Freak Offs, COMBS used violence and intimidation, and leveraged his power over victimspower he obtained through obtaining and distributing narcotics to them, exploiting his financial support to them, and threatening to cut off the same, and controlling their careers."Allegations against Combs as they relate to this case go back to the early 1990s, which lay out a pattern of control and abuse through physical and sexual violence. Though Combs denies all allegations against him, its difficult to believe that nothing in the accusations from any of the alleged victims holds some truth.However, the jury must focus on the case at hand and let the evidence guide them to a decision. Even though Combs temper and position of power heavily play a factor, there is a lot more necessary to secure a conviction.