The House Judiciary Committee is demanding a briefing from the Justice Department regarding potential conflicts of interest and political bias in its antitrust lawsuit against Google. This request comes after reports emerged that the lead attorney defending Google in the case is also advising Vice President Kamala Harris in her debate preparation against former President Donald Trump.
The House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Representative Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), has sent a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland requesting a briefing on the Justice Department's efforts to combat potential conflicts of interest and political bias in its antitrust lawsuit against Google. This inquiry follows reports that Google's lead attorney in the case, Karen Dunn, is simultaneously advising Vice President Kamala Harris in her debate preparation against former President Donald Trump.
Google Accused of Using Unlawful Tactics to Dominate Digital Advertising Market
Dunn, who represents Google through the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, is listed as a "lead attorney" in the lawsuit. She is also part of Harris's campaign team, assisting her in preparing for her debate against Trump. Dunn previously advised Harris during her 2020 vice presidential debate against then-Vice President Mike Pence.
Jordan, in his letter to Garland, cited a Fox News Digital report revealing Dunn's dual roles. He expressed concerns that "this apparent conflict of interest raises serious concerns about whether Dunn’s relationship with key figures in the Biden-Harris Administration creates a conflict of interest that could inappropriately bias the Department’s approach in United States v. Google LLC."
Google Accused of Using Unlawful Tactics to Dominate Digital Advertising Market
Jordan emphasized that Garland had pledged to "guarantee the independence of the Department from partisan influence" upon his nomination to the position of attorney general. He asserted that "this assertion is hard to square with reporting that Ms. Dunn is leading debate preparations for Vice President Harris while she also leads Google’s defense against a Biden-Harris administration lawsuit."
The House Judiciary Committee's request for a briefing stems from the potential conflict of interest created by Dunn's dual roles. Jordan requested a briefing by September 24th on how the DOJ is addressing this and other potential conflicts of interest and political bias in the Google case.
Google Accused of Using Unlawful Tactics to Dominate Digital Advertising Market
The revelations regarding Dunn's involvement come amid increased scrutiny of Google following an assassination attempt against Trump. Google's autocomplete search results initially failed to register the July 13th incident, raising questions about the company's handling of such sensitive information.
Google later acknowledged that it had blocked and eliminated search prompts for the assassination attempt against Trump, claiming that it was part of the company's policy to prevent search results for "hypothetical political violence against current figures." The company stated that it does not allow predictions that could be interpreted as accusations of serious malevolent acts against individuals or groups without well-established or expert supporting evidence.
Google Accused of Using Unlawful Tactics to Dominate Digital Advertising Market
The House Weaponization Committee has also alleged collusion between the Biden-Harris Administration and Big Tech companies, including Google, to facilitate the censorship of American citizens. These allegations further raise concerns about potential political bias in the Justice Department's handling of antitrust cases against tech giants.
Neither the Harris campaign nor Dunn have responded to requests for comment regarding Dunn's work ahead of the debate. The Justice Department has confirmed receipt of the letter from the House Judiciary Committee but declined to provide further comment.
Google Accused of Using Unlawful Tactics to Dominate Digital Advertising Market
The ongoing investigation into the potential conflicts of interest and political bias in the Google antitrust case is expected to shed light on the extent to which personal relationships and political affiliations may influence the outcome of such high-profile legal proceedings.
