10 ms·
Many DOJ attorneys resigned from this case in protest of it being brought to bear too quickly. Bill Barr, US Attorney General, overruled senior DOJ attorneys wh
by mediaman 6y ago
Many DOJ attorneys resigned from this case in protest of it being brought to bear too quickly. Bill Barr, US Attorney General, overruled senior DOJ attorneys who felt that it was impossible to bring a strong case against Google by rushing it before the election.
As a result, this complaint being brought is considered legally weak, and it gives Google's legal team a huge advantage in fighting it. If the decision to accelerate the case, at the cost of its strength, causes the complaint to fail, it'll probably be the last antitrust case against Google we'll see for some time.
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/03/us/politics/google-antitrust-justice-department.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/03/us/politics/google-antitr...
- karmasimida 6y agoYep. I doubt not Google has a very competent legal team.
- davidw 6y agoI think there are legitimate things worth investigating Google for. And other big tech companies too. But right now? Just before an election? Hand it off to career DoJ people and let them bring it some time next year.
- makerofspoons 6y agoThat would make sense if the goal was to actually win the case. The actual goal is optics and to feed the victim complex of one side of the "culture war" ahead of the election.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- chrisco255 6y agoThe AG could be replaced by a new administration and the case could get tabled.
- wbl 6y agoAdminstrations changing priorities is legitimate. Just ask Bill Bar when he's trying to do favors for the president.
- chrisco255 6y agoSure, especially when the corporations being scrutinized donate to their election campaign.
- davidw 6y agoYou'd kind of hope that it's apolitical and solid enough that that wouldn't happen? Launching it right now makes it more political.
- Njikl 6y agoThe issue I see there is the Democratic establishment is pro-corporate before anything else. So yeah, if Biden is elected, this will never have seen the light of day.
- dlp211 6y agoThe Democratic establishment is more pro-corporate than the Republican establishment? In what reality is this. Like I don't get where this idea comes from that you have to be pro-business or anti-business. I can be both pro-worker and pro-business, it's not black and white, it's shades of gray.
- nostromo 6y ago> The Democratic establishment is more pro-corporate than the Republican establishment? It depends on the company in question. And, yes, Republicans right now are much more likely to be skeptical of Silicon Valley giants than are Democrats, who have been very cozy with Democrats since 2008.
- 6y ago
- logicalmonster 6y agoThe comment about “just before an election” is kind of interesting to me. If the law doesn’t dictate that the powers of the government aren’t valid at this time, then shouldn’t they still be doing their job?
- ciarannolan 6y agoYes, they should do their jobs by not rushing the case to court to get a cheap political win.
- davidw 6y agoWould waiting a few months cause large problems in their ability to do that job? Would it significantly decrease the risk of this being seen as some kind of politicized decision?
- Florin_Andrei 6y ago> Just before an election? It's very obvious that's the whole point.
- dehrmann 6y agoIt's a rare moment of bipartisanship.
- eiji 6y agoThe questions is if a stronger case would see the light of day in the next four years with a change in administration. Maybe Barr thinks the answer is no.
- srtjstjsj 6y agoIf the administration changes, and they don't want to pursue the case, they can just drop it or flop it. Barr will not get a result before Inauguration so he's reliant on the next (or re-elected) adminstration regardless.
- kelnos 6y agoThe problem there is that then we'll hear complaints that the incoming administration is either incompetent or corrupt for the Google probe failing or being dropped.
- karmasimida 6y agoOr the current administration is acting out not on fully legal basis.
- trentnix 6y agoPuts them on the record, though.
- nostromo 6y agoExactly, it's a smart move. If a Biden administration wants to go easy on Google (and let's be honest: they do), now it'll be out in the open for everyone to see. Democrats for a generation have been tough talkers about corporate power when speaking to the public, but doves when in private (or at fundraisers). Pinning them down is smart politics.
- dlp211 6y agoThis makes no sense. Bringing a weak case now guarantees that DOJ won't pursue another case in the future after it gets its ass handed to it in court. There is plenty of support for going after big tech on both sides of the aisle --albeit for different reasons. Here's a novel idea, how about we judge Bill Barr on his overriding multiple DOJ personnel in the weeks before an election instead of what intent you want to ascribe to a Biden admin. If the intent was to actually put pressure on the Biden admin, he had another 3 months to continue to build the case and then announce between the election and inauguration.
- justaguyhere 6y agoMany DOJ attorneys resigned from this case in protest Wouldn't this give Barr the opportunity to bring in people who always agree with him and make the situation worse? Not just this case against Google, but in general.
- jaquers 6y agoResigned from the case, but not resigned from the dept? When you argue a case in court, you have to be a "zealous advocate" meaning you have to believe what you're arguing. I don't think a lawyer even employed by Justice Dept. can be compelled to argue a specific case. Of course he can probably cook up whatever reason to fire them. edit: in case it wasn't obvious, IANAL - thanks for clarifications
- justaguyhere 6y agoI guess it is a difficult position to be in, especially in the current administration. If you leave, you know your replacement is likely going to be unqualified, yes men. If you stay, you conscience will bother you and you won't be able to do much good anyway.
- bladegash 6y agoAttorneys argue positions they do not agree with or believe in all the time. Their job is to represent their client and bring about the best case possible, in the interests of a system designed to be adversarial. The concept of “zealous advocacy” is such a minor part of the ABA’s Rules of Professional Conduct to begin with. Attorneys just like to use that one term as an excuse to be assholes, while forgetting the myriad of other ethical requirements in the Rules. While I commend them for taking a stand, they should absolutely be fired for failing to refusing to represent their client, aka the Federal government. They have effectively terminated their relationship with the client and should no longer be representing them. In fact, the first footnote in Rule 1.3 (where the text for “zeal with advocacy” occurs outside the preamble), it reads: “[1] A lawyer should pursue a matter on behalf of a client despite opposition, obstruction or personal inconvenience to the lawyer, and take whatever lawful and ethical measures are required to vindicate a client's cause or endeavor.” For private attorneys, you refuse to represent your client on ethical grounds, you do not get to continue billing them. Not sure why it should be any different here.
- Hokusai 6y ago> it'll probably be the last antitrust case against Google we'll see for some time. ...in the USA.
- hindsightbias 6y agoBarr is going to have his pick of Board seats in 2021.
- iaw 6y agoLast federal case probably. The Democratic states Attorneys Generals mostly have not signed onto the lawsuit because they don't want to be bound by unfavorable settlement terms (sorry I can't remember where I read that in the last couple days)
- nojito 6y ago11 states have joined this case
- geoelectric 6y agoAll Republican-led, at least as of the news article I read this morning.
- charliemil4 6y agoLouisiana is Democrat-led
- FemmeAndroid 6y agoAttorney General of Louisiana is Jeff Landry, a Republican.
- charliemil4 6y agoyes, please read my last comment with a /s ... I just find the politics of this all amusing.
- wokwokwok 6y agoI don't understand what that means; this isn't reddit, please don't just post blatantly false statements.
- charliemil4 6y ago
- nostromo 6y agoYou're reading a whole lot into this single sentence in the article: > Some lawyers in the department worry that Mr. Barr’s determination to bring a complaint this month could weaken their case and ultimately strengthen Google’s hand, according to interviews with 15 lawyers who worked on the case or were briefed on the department’s strategy.
- jonboy95 6y ago15 lawyers expressed concern ... just because it's contained in a single sentence doesn't mean he's reading a lot into it. It's an important sentence.
- stvswn 6y agoIt says "some" lawyers expressed concern, according to interviews with 15 of them. Nothing about that sentence alleges that all 15 they spoke with expressed concern. Some could be 2 or 3 and all 15 were aware of the concern.
- wnevets 6y ago> at the cost of its strength, causes the complaint to fail, it'll probably be the last antitrust case against Google we'll see for some time. The conspiracy theorist in me says this was on purpose. Barr isn't rushing this case before the election to make it look like they're doing something, they're rushing it to sabotage any future attempts to rein in Google.
- dmix 6y agoThe ones who resigned didn't happen to have their own political motivations as well? These cases always have plenty of time and areas for arguments refined. I can't read anything with politicized names and highly question the perfectly placed PRified counter points. The truth, aka middle ground (if such a thing even exists anymore), is the hardest thing to come by these days. Lawyers working for a gov agency are the least reputable in this area in my books.
- ummonk 6y agoWe've been waiting for them to build a strong case for several years. It will likely take several more for it to work its way through the courts. At some point the interests of the public in having a timely curb to Google's actions outweighs the value of preparing a perfect case.
- charliemil4 6y agoAlso, as I understand it (not a lawyer, just listening to law students), this filing’s purpose is to establish a prima-facia case. There aren’t really many ‘arguments’ as to why Section 2 of the USC 15 has been violated, this is just trying to convince a judge to hear the case. I’d wait until the judge agrees to hear the case and cases are cited to really make any predictions. The cited case law will set the first odds. It feels too early to cast lots.
- stjohnswarts 6y agoThanks for the input. I had assumed they'd been working on this behind the scenes for awhile. I should have realized with the current administration one should never believe that best practices were being practiced.