According to reporting by Mediaite republished by AOL and PYMNTS, two legal commentators appearing on the conservative network Newsmax cast doubt on the Trump administration's antitrust investigation into ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News and NBC.

Trial attorney Wendy Patrick told host Bianca de la Garza on 'Bianca Across the Nation' that the circumstances presented 'an unusual application of federal antitrust law', and when asked directly whether the broadcasters' conduct amounted to an antitrust violation, she answered, 'Probably not.'

The segment aired Monday, according to AOL. The networks had jointly suspended White House press pool coverage after President Trump barred CNN, MS NOW and Politico from certain reporting access, and the Justice Department opened its Sherman Act investigation in response.

The criticism is notable, as PYMNTS notes, because it came during a discussion on Newsmax, a conservative broadcaster generally associated with pro-Trump political commentary.

Retired judge Andrew Napolitano went further than Patrick, arguing on the same program that the five networks' actions were political rather than commercial, so constitutional protections for freedom of expression could limit the Justice Department's ability to pursue the case.

AOL quotes Napolitano agreeing fully with the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, which called the investigation 'another and even more brazen attempt to try to intimidate journalists.'

A friendly-media panel undercutting the administration's own enforcement action is the reversal that makes this hour's development stand out for television readers.

The Justice Department's position, laid out in statements to NPR and other outlets by spokesperson Emily Covington, is that 'group boycotts among commercial competitors can violate the Sherman Act', and that the Antitrust Division 'is simply investigating to determine whether these news organizations have violated the antitrust laws.'

The Newsmax panel questioned whether a collective decision by news organizations to protest government restrictions could reasonably be treated as unlawful coordination among competitors.

Napolitano argued, per AOL, that the Sherman Act 'doesn't really pertain to the First Amendment' and that the five-network combination 'was not for a commercial purpose. It was for a political purpose.'

PYMNTS stresses these assessments underscore legal uncertainty and do not amount to a court ruling.

Per NPR's David Folkenflik, the dispute began in mid-September when the administration banned CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House over coverage Trump called 'purposefully negative.'

The five pool networks agreed not to backfill CNN on its assigned pool duty days, saying they would not 'do his job for him.' ADWEEK reports the networks learned of the investigation on October 9, and NPR adds that DOJ issued its statement to the outlet over the weekend.

NPR also reports the networks have since softened their stance and have sometimes been present, though the administration still takes issue with the days they were not. All five networks declined comment, NPR says, while Adweek reports ABC said it had not yet received formal notification.

NPR frames the probe inside what it describes as a multipronged effort against the press: lawsuits against major networks, a broadcast regulator investigating broadcasters other than Fox, DOJ pursuing reporters' sources and devices, and cuts to public media funding.

NPR's Folkenflik also notes the Ellison family, described as political allies of the president, have acquired CBS and CNN's parent companies.

ADWEEK reports that despite reinstated credentials under Judge Timothy Kelly's temporary order, CNN and Politico reportedly remain barred from the Oval Office and from traveling aboard Air Force One.

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, cited across the pack, calls the investigation an attempt to intimidate journalists.

NPR reports that a federal judge said he would decide the question of CNN, MS NOW and Politico's White House access by end of day Tuesday, and that the weekend Sherman Act effort is likely to figure in the case before that ruling.

Adweek reports attorneys for the three outlets filed for an emergency hearing, accusing the White House of violating Judge Kelly's temporary order requiring restored press access as the case proceeds, with the administration arguing access is a privilege rather than a constitutional right.