Leaked Docs Show Obama FTC Gave Google Its Monopoly After Google Execs Helped Obama Get Re-Elected

Leaked documents from the FTC's 2012 investigation of Google show exactly what is wrong with the state of American antitrust enforcement.

Eight years ago, the Federal Trade Commission had the chance to face down Google — the giant of Silicon Valley whose power now alters the free flow of information at a global scale, distorts market access for businesses large and small, and changes the nature of independent thought in ways the world has never experienced.

Instead, the FTC blinked — and blinked hard, choosing to close the investigation in early 2013. A remarkable leak to Politico of agency documents about the 2012 Google investigation reveals that, despite ample evidence of market distortions and threats to competition presented by the agency’s lawyers, the five commissioners of the FTC deferred instead to speculative claims by their economists.

Records and reporting about the 2012 investigation suggest the FTC did so while bending to political pressure from the Obama White House — which was, in turn, bending to political pressure from Google. William Kovacic, a former FTC chair under President George W. Bush, reviewed the more than 3,00 pages of documents leaked to Politico and concluded the agency overlooked “what many experts and regulators would consider clear antitrust violations,” calling the specificity of issues outlined “breathtaking.”

In short, where we find ourselves today — with Google as the primary filter of the world’s information, engaging in a network of exclusionary contracts and anti-competitive conduct, and subject to an antitrust lawsuit led by the Department of Justice and joined by 48 state attorneys general — could have, and should have, been avoided.

That it wasn’t, however, provides key takeaways about where we are now with Big Tech, and, in particular, the method of enforcement of our antitrust laws, whose application has become too tightly wrapped around the axle of price, and captured by the speculative science of economic forecasting. It also reveals just how politicized antitrust enforcement has become — influenced by the siren song of internet exceptionalism and the powerful tug of Google, one of the world’s richest companies.

The Economists Were Wrong Perhaps the most stunning takeaway in the 2012 documents is the extent to which the recommendations of the FTC’s lawyers sharply differed from those of the agency’s economists, on whose judgment the FTC commissioners ultimately relied in their decision to drop the investigation into Google.

The FTC’s antitrust attorneys concluded that Google was breaking the law by “banishing potential competitors” with a series of exclusionary contracts on mobile phones — much of which forms the basis for the lawsuit brought nearly a decade later by the Trump Department of Justice. The FTC’s economists, however, demurred, insisting that claims of Google’s market dominance were unfounded and would soon give way to competition. This required a markedly un-curious treatment of key facts.

The economists claimed, for example, that Google only represented 10 to 20 percent of the referral traffic to retail sites — disregarding statements from Google itself that those numbers were unreliable, as well as evidence from staff attorneys that Google’s referral traffic to retail provided closer to 70-90 percent. A pair of FTC economists made what Politico deemed “questionable assertions” about Google’s dominance of the advertising markets, citing as their evidence a study by Google and two academic papers funded by grants from Google.

Among other claims, two economists also alleged that Google’s grip on the market for mobile devices would fall in the face of competition from Amazon and Mozilla — and that the mobile distribution channel for search was too small a market to be relevant.

History has borne out how spectacularly wrong the economists were. This brings forward a key element of the over-reliance on an ever-narrowing set of criteria around which our antitrust laws are now enforced. It over-emphasizes speculative economic forecasting over hard market realities.

Coherent economic principles are central to antitrust enforcement for good reason — otherwise, justification for enforcement would swing wildly on ideological ballasts. But, like the consumer welfare standard’s current application, which is narrowly fixated on price (as opposed to a broad application that considers other factors, like consumer choice and innovation), economic forecasting has taken a premier and unquestionable seat among antitrust enforcers.

In particular, an over-reliance on a cost-benefit tool called the error-cost framework has made enforcers gun-shy about acting at all. Enforcers now largely defer to benefit claims made by the merging parties – and the economists these companies can afford to hire, who conveniently produce speculative analysis to buttress their points – while appearing to ignore hard evidence by senior executives clearly stating an anticompetitive intent behind a merger or business strategy.

In the case of Google, for example, one top executive bragged in an email that Google could “own the U.S. market” with its exclusive contracts with major phone makers and carriers. The FTC’s attorneys concluded Google was breaking competition laws. The agency’s economists, however, said there was no issue because they “expected” the mobile search to remain a small market.

In the FTC’s ultimate judgment, speculative analysis and complex econometric modeling reigned supreme over pragmatic facts regarding anti-competitive market behavior. This flips the intended calculus on its head.

Judge Robert Bork, one of the progenitors of the consumer welfare standard, explicitly warned against pushing economics beyond its competence. In his seminal book, “The Antitrust Paradox,” Bork wrote that “antitrust must avoid any standards that require direct measurement and quantification of either restriction of output or efficiency. Such tasks are impossible.”

He goes on, “The real objection to performance tests and efficiency defenses in antitrust law is that they are spurious. They cannot measure the factors relevant to consumer welfare, so that after the economic extravaganza was completed we should know no more than before it began.” Finally, Judge Bork notes that “the judge, the legislator, or lawyer cannot simply take the word of an economist in dealing with antitrust, for the economists will certainly disagree.”

Economic analysis, in other words, is a component, not the whole, of the analysis. Antitrust economics can help assess, but cannot ultimately determine, the scope of antitrust policy in its most rational form: determining who is being harmed, and how.

In 2012, the FTC made the critical error of letting economic speculation subsume the hard market evidence that former FTC chair William Kovacic called “specific, direct, and clear about the path ahead.” In its final judgment, the agency prioritized the “economic extravaganza” that Judge Bork explicitly warned against. They were wrong, and the market consequences have been severe.

Google’s Thumb on the Scale The FTC was not acting in a vacuum, however. Although an independent agency, four of the FTC’s five commissioners voting on the Google probe were appointed by the Obama administration, which was notably close to Silicon Valley and very much bought into the notion of America’s internet exceptionalism.

According to The New York Times in 2016, President Obama was “America’s first truly digital president,” the leader who “routinely pushed policy that pleases the tech-savvy” and boasted “deep and meaningful connections” with Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, and Steve Jobs.

In 2012, Google employees were the second-largest source of campaign donations by any single U.S. company besides Microsoft. Google employees were senior aides at the White House and Google executives served on White House advisory panels. On Nov. 6, 2012, the day Obama was re-elected to a second term, Eric Schmidt, Google’s then-executive chairman, “personally oversaw a voter-turnout software system for Mr. Obama,” according to the Wall Street Journal.

The frequent contact between Google and the White House continued during the FTC’s investigation. A report published in 2015 by the Wall Street Journal detailed the “unusual” depth of Google’s engagement with the Obama administration, finding the company had clocked 230 meetings with senior White House officials, roughly one per week. Their top lobbyist Johanna Shelton darkened White House doors for more than 60 meetings. By April of 2016, according to another report, Shelton had notched 128 White House meetings.

Google has reportedly also attempted to dictate how the FTC discusses both the company and the dropped antitrust case. When the Wall Street Journal published a partial leak of the FTC’s Google investigation documents in 2015 (later fully leaked to Politico) demonstrating the depth of disagreement between the agency’s staff and the final commission vote, Shelton emailed the agency’s chief of staff to state Google was “troubled” and “puzzled” by the FTC’s non-response. She asked the agency to issue a statement that “set the record straight.” A statement was issued two days later.

Congressional Oversight Is Desperately Needed Thanks in part to the FTC’s whiff on Google in 2012, the power of Big Tech has continued to grow, unchecked and largely unrivaled. Antitrust enforcement is once again emerging as a key remedy to the anti-competitive and market-distorting elements of what is undeniably oligarchic power.

But to avoid the mistakes of 2012, congressional oversight is desperately needed: over how our antitrust laws are being enforced, if that enforcement aligns with the congressional intent of the statutes, if the enforcement agencies are adequately resourced for the task, and whether statutory interpretation needs clarification for the digital economy.

Big Tech is pouring big money into the policy and academic arguments that claim such efforts would “politicize” antitrust enforcement, away from the pristine science of economic analysis. But if FTC’s actions in 2012 are any indication, antitrust enforcement is already well-politicized, and economic analysis, while a useful guidepost, is not a compass. In fact, an over-reliance on the error-cost framework can render our antitrust laws completely moot in the face of real market threats.

In many areas, Congress has largely abandoned its role as the lawmaking body, preferring instead to outsource policy development to bureaucrats and the courts. It is encouraging, therefore, to see both the House and Senate engaging in scrutiny of antitrust enforcement for Big Tech.

The FTC of 2012 has given them a helpful guide by highlighting the areas of weakness in our current enforcement analysis, and the capture by billion-dollar interests that can defer it. In other words, the leaked FTC memos are a flashing red light that all is not well in the world of American antitrust enforcement. The antitrust agencies have effectively privatized antitrust law. Congress must democratize it again.

Hillary Clinton Sponsored Secretive Arab Spring Program with Google
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/09/23/hillary-clinton-sponsored-secretive-arab-spring-program-that-destabilized-middle-east/

Hillary Clinton Sponsored Secretive Arab Spring Program with Google, In-Q-Tel and New America Foundation to Destabilize Middle East 51
by Patrick Howley

A Big Government Brietbart Investigation Google’s Commotion and Serval software along with Google backdoors were given out to Middle East refugees but they were used, not to help, but to hinder. Eric Schmidt Co-manages and funds In-Q-Tel and New America Foundation. All these efforts were directed by Hillary Clinton in the State Department. This created ISIS.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The U.S. State Department under the leadership of Secretary Hillary Clinton continued a program to embolden foreign, revolutionary, social media activists to agitate for regime change in various parts of the world. The program arguably had major, detrimental consequences for the trajectory of the Middle East. Recent leaks show a memo that top Clinton aide Huma Abedin sent to her boss stating, “I’m giving you credit for inspiring the ‘peaceful’ protests,” with regard to Egypt, with quotation marks around the word “peaceful.”

The United States government is believed to have utilized a program called the Alliance of Youth Movements Summit, co-founded by a close Hillary Clinton adviser, to provide networking opportunities for an activist plotting to overthrow Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak several years before the “Arab Spring” protests that led to widespread regime change in the Middle East. Through the Alliance of Youth Movements Summit, the U.S. learned that the Muslim Brotherhood was supportive of a plan to overthrow Mubarak. The U.S.-supported Muslim Brotherhood later briefly ruled Egypt after Mubarak’s ouster.

PRE-CLINTON
On November 18, 2008, two weeks after Barack Obama was elected U.S. president, the U.S. State Department announced the first Alliance of Youth Movements Summit at Columbia Law School in New York City. A permanent group called the Alliance of Youth Movements (AYM) was developed by Summit leaders after the first Summit convened.

Bush State Department official Jared Cohen, listed as the “international press contact” for the Summit, described some goals of the conference before it convened in December. Dr. Oz Hassan of the University of Warwick in the United Kingdom describes the Summit as the “brainchild” of Mr. Cohen. He was reportedly a co-founder of the Alliance of Youth Movements, the organization that grew out of the Summit.

Cohen, who advised former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and then served as a close adviser to Hillary Clinton, is perhaps indicative of the overlap between the Bush and Clinton foreign policy establishment. He serves as an adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, one of the key institutions that sustains globalism and neoconservatism in both the Democrat and Republican parties.

Cohen said of the 2008 Summit: We are seeing movements across the world use a diverse set of technologies. The simplest is Television, where we are seeing groups that have the means put their videos and images on screen in the form of commercials. But we are seeing a lot of activities using mobile phones and the Internet.

With mobile phones, there is a tactic called “smart mobbing,” where mobile phones are used to assemble young people around a cause. On the Internet, we are seeing online social networks like Facebook, MySpace, Bebo, and Orkut serve as important forums for young people to assemble together, build a cause, a mission, and organize events.

According to confidential dispatches from the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, the U.S. government enabled an anti-Mubarak, Egyptian activist to attend the Summit, introduced him to U.S. government officials, and kept in contact with him after he returned to Egypt. The activist stressed to the U.S. that the Muslim Brotherhood was interested in removing Mubarak from power. The December 2008 dispatch stated:
Go to link

Hillary “OMG, did I do that?”
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/16792

SITUATION REPORT NO. 1 09/14/I

From: Huma Abedin To: Hillary Clinton Date: 2012-09-12 22:21 Subject:

I’m giving you credit for inspiring the “peaceful” protests.

Riot police used tear gas in an atteto disperse demonstrators Egyptian authorities erected large concrete barriers to block the route to the embassy and deployed approximately 4000 security personnel to the area.

Embassy Cairo reported the Muslim Brotherhood cancelled earlier calls for nationwide demonstrations at major mosques, but supported symbolic demonstrations at Tahrir Square.

LIBYA Air traffic in Benghazi was suspended September 13 due to security reasons.

YEMEN Embassy Sana’a reported increased security presence but no apparent protests at the Sheraton hotel.

Yemeni security forces blocked streets surrounding the U.S. Embassy, where approximately 30 protesters gathered.

KUWAIT Around 400 protesters, including parliament members and prominent Sunni Islamists, congregated peacefully for nearly two hours in front of the Embassy September 13. P arrested several youth who tried to jump the compounds outermost perimeter.

Embassy Kuwait City reported another demonstration is planned for 1200 EDT/1900 Kuwait City. The embassy and the government added extra security around the compound and receiv security reinforcements from the government.

Consulate General Lahore reported calls for nationwide protests, including large demonstrations at the consulate’s press club. Authorities deployed riot police to the consulate and limited access to the road. Consulate General Lahore dismissed all employees at 0300 EDT/1200 Lahore.

Embassy Islamabad reported police are preparing to prevent demonstrators from approaching diplomatic enclaves and police reserves are on stand-by. Embassy Islamabad dismissed non-emergency personnel.

Consulate General Peshawar reported two protests were scheduled to take place approximately four kilometers from the consulate. Additional police was assigned to reinforce security.

Consulate General Karachi reported riot police were deployed to the compound, with more on standby.

INDONESIA Embassy Jakarta reported a peaceful demonstration of approximately 300 people.

Over 250 riot police were put on alert ahead of the demonstrations. Indonesian leaders urged calm.

MALAYSIA Police said they are prepared for demonstrations near the U.S. Embassy and mosques in various cities.

Around 30 people gathered peacefully outside the Embassy and submitted a memorandum demanding an apology and action from the U.S. government against the filmmakers.

SUDAN Islamic scholars called for the expulsion of the U.S. and German Ambassadors and for peaceful mass protests at their embassies in Khartoum.

INDIA A small group of protesters gathered peacefully September 13 in Kashmir. The most senior Islamic cleric in Kashmir told U.S. citizens to “immediately leave” the region.

IRAN The Swiss Embassy in Tehran will be closed in anticipation of planned demonstrations.

INTERNATIONAL REACTION Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov said the Benghazi attack confirms “the need for the joint efforts of our countries, as well as the global community in combating the evil of terrorism.”

The Arab League condemned the Benghazi attack and called on the U.S. government to take a serious position against the film producers.

The Bahamas, Colombia, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Jamaica, Panama, Peru, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, and Venezuela have also issued condemnations and condolences, bringing to 26 the number of countries in the western hemisphere condemning the attacks in Benghazi.

Libyan Prime Minister Abu Shagour said he will work “vigorously” to improve security by boosting the national police force and army as well as implementing programs to collect and regulate weapon

Yemeni President Hadi apologized for the attack September 13, and ordered an expeditious and thorough investigation.

From Movements.org
https://movements.org/about
This was the Alliance of Youth Movement.

At the nexus of technology and human rights, Movements connects dissidents in closed societies with individuals around the world with skills to help.

This powerful combination provides those fighting for human rights in dictatorships with the expertise they need to strengthen their voice. Movements takes out the middleman in human rights and creates links to strengthen dissidents and weaken dictators.

It gives average people with unique skills the ability to help activists in need. Crowdsourcing the fight for human rights is a new solution to an old problem. Movements is where anyone with a skill - artists, writers, journalists, translators, technologists, PR experts, policy-makers and more - can connect directly with human rights activists in closed societies.

Our philosophy is that big, collective actions are only possible through small, individual ones. Everyone has a role to play.

Movements.org was created by Advancing Human Rights, a New York-based organization, and its ownership was transferred to Democracy Council in 2016. Democracy Council uses the tools of democracy and technology to empower civil and human rights activists and to support dissidents in closed societies who are struggling to attain basic human rights.

We thank Guerilla Software who has generously donated their time and creativity to shape the initial vision of Movements.org. Ronin Analytics designed the digital security perimeter that protects our users from breaches of privacy. We also recognize and thank Google Ideas for their technological innovations, encouragement, and support towards Movements.org.

WikiLeaks tying Jared Cohen, Syria and al Jazeera to the Obama administration
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/12166#efmAMoAbj
(No Date)
Deputy Secretary Burns, Jake, Alec,

Please keep close hold, but my team is planning to launch a tool on Sunday that will publicly track and map the defections in Syria and which parts of the government they are coming from. Our logic behind this is that while many people are tracking the atrocities, nobody is visually representing and mapping the defections, which we believe are important in encouraging more to defect and giving confidence to the opposition. Given how hard it is to get information into Syria right now, we are partnering with Al-Jazeera who will take primary ownership over the tool we have built, track the data, verify it, and broadcast it back into Syria. I’ve attached a few visuals that show what the tool will look like. Please keep this very close hold and let me know if there is anything eke you think we need to account for or think about before we launch. We believe this can have an important impact.

Thanks, Jared Jared Cohen I Director of r’t “

Alliance of Youth Movement Speech
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcBG7B6sgOk&app=desktop
U.S. Department of State
Published on Oct 16, 2009

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton records a video message for participants of the Alliance of Youth Movements Summit in Mexico City, Mexico October 16, 2009. Go to http://www.state.gov/video for more video and text transcript.

I want to congratulate all of you that have come to Mexico City in person and online to be part of this ground breaking summit. You are the vanguard of a rising generation of citizen activists who are using the latest technological tools to catalyze change, build a movement and transform lives and I hope this conference provides an opportunity for you to learn from each other and discover the tools and techniques that will open new doors for activism and empowerment when you return home.

All over the world young people like you are driving progress. In Columbia two young college graduates fed up with violence in their country used Facebook to organize 14 million people into the largest anti-terrorism demonstration in history. In Iran we saw young people using Twitter and Youtube to communicate with each other and the world. Despite a government crackdown designed to keep them quiet. In India a 14 year old high school student from Mumbai used social networking to link together half a million people that sought solidarity and support in the aftermath of the November 2008 terrorist attack.

You have all traveled … paths to get here today, you come from different cultures and countries and speak different languages but you all share a common commitment to engaging with the world using every tool at your disposal to bring people together to solve problems. And that makes you the kind of leader we need.

As we work to meet the challenges and seize the opportunities of the 21 century, government can’t do it alone, citizens organizations, businesses, universities everyone with a stake in our shared future must take responsibilities for shaping it. That’s what we call 21st century statecraft. So thank you for being on the front line of progress and I can’t wait to see what all of you do next.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.