Posted on 09/17/2024 7:11:36 AM PDT by SunkenCiv
Brendan Benedict, an antitrust litigator at Benedict Law Group who has faced off against Google in court, highlighted the potential demoralizing effect on the Department of Justice attorneys working tirelessly on the adtech case, only to see the administration collaborating with the opposition's lawyer for advice. He also suggested that Dunn could be a potential candidate to replace current antitrust chief Jonathan Kanter if Harris were to take office.
The controversy surrounding Dunn's involvement in the Harris campaign is just one facet of the ethical quagmire surrounding the Google adtech case. Paul Weiss, the law firm where Dunn is a top litigator, has been accused of switching sides by agreeing to defend Google after previously working with the company's critics. The firm has also faced allegations of violating attorney-client privilege and ignoring court-imposed restrictions related to the case.
Top Republicans have begun to criticize Harris over her reliance on Dunn, with the GOP-led House Judiciary Committee demanding a briefing from the Department of Justice on how it is working to combat potential conflicts of interest and political bias. A top Trump campaign advisor described Dunn's activities as "outrageous" and argued that it demonstrates Harris's unwillingness to stand up to Big Tech.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Google. Ethics. Lawyers.
"Shoebox. Moonpie. Bandaid." -- Alan Harper, 'Two and a Half Men'
So we are supposed to have her let DoJ brief her for the debate? Isn’t that in violation of the Hatch act? Do we want them explicitly involved in setting the policies that apply to them? If we don’t it demoralises them? This is begging to have the bureaucrats and embedded partisans define policy, budget, and oversight of themselves. I smell RINO. Be careful what you wish for.
Speaking of RINOs, did you know Speaker Mike Johnson received a copy of the whistleblower’s affidavit outlining extensive ABC-Harris collusion the day before the debate? And he said and did nothing. He’s a worm in human form.
quotes:
It was Dunn who suggested that Clinton bring up Trump’s insult about a beauty pageant contestant’s weight and remind the audience of the woman’s humanity.
“He called this woman ‘Miss Piggy,’” Clinton said. “Then he called her ‘Miss Housekeeping,’ because she was Latina. Donald, she has a name.”
Trump, rattled, tried to interrupt. “Where did you find this?” he said.
Lawyers try to get:
1. murders and rapists off the hook,
2. big cities with huge infrastructure problems to pay millions of dollars to avoid riots.
Dunn is not in violation of any ABA, state or federal rule or law as far as I know.
It is the responsibility of the Trump team to do research and prepare to fend off every scheme Dunn could concoct based on Trump’s and Vance’s history, his platform, the Republican Party platform, Kamala’s statements, the Democratic Party platform and allegations regarding Project 2025.
It is the responsibility of the Trump team to do research and prepare to attack Kamala’s statements and the Democratic Party platform.
Trump needs to ask voters to vote for Republican congressional candidates and state why they should do so.
Stop posting replies to me. Use this link instead.
There’s an easy way to avoid giving Google the lion’s share of ad revenue.
To read this article please type in an ad subject category (that matches one we have under contract):
Portugal
Loading...
Big Paper History Cookie:
kitchen remodel, bath remodel, roach killer, Lisbon, tomatoes, Portugal
Mere allegations of facts without legal references will not get one anyplace legally.
DJT has the constitutional right to pay a blonde woman to shut up so he can make his campaign points clear, IMO.
Hare-brained Harris has the constitutional right to hire a lawyer to make her case to be president too, IMO.
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.