Ex-DOJ Officials Raise Trump, AT&T Merger Interference Concerns

from the do-the-ends-justify-the-means? dept

Last fall, the Department of Justice announced it would be suing to block AT&T's $86 billion acquisition of Time Warner. According to the DOJ, it sued to block the lawsuit to protect consumers, arguing that the deal would likely make it harder for streaming competitors to license the content they need to compete with AT&T (especially HBO programming). Consumer advocates have long argued that AT&T (with its decade of well-documented and often comedic anti-consumer behavior in tow) would simply use its greater leverage and power to hamstring competition and jack up rates for consumers (especially with net neutrality dying).

While some have argued that the DOJ is simply following antitrust protocol, others (including AT&T lawyers) think the lawsuit is driven by other motivations.

That's not a hard case to make given the Trump administration's anti-consumer, anti-innovation, and anti-competition tendencies on other fronts (like net neutrality). Trump's pick to head the DOJ's antitrust division, Makan Delrahim, was also on record, before joining the DOJ, stating he saw no real problems with the deal. Meanwhile Trump's disdain for Time Warner-owned CNN is also well established, and reports have indicated that Trump pal Rupert Murdoch spent much of last year trying to scuttle the deal for competitive reasons (Muroch has also approached AT&T twice about buying CNN).

Adding fuel to this fire was a bipartisan group of ex-DOJ officials (from US Attorney Preet Bharara and Nixon White House counsel John Dean) that, last week, filed an amicus brief with the court urging an inquiry into whether any potential laws were broken. The brief doesn't even mention Murdoch, and instead focuses on the obvious, inherent problems in scuttling a merger just because the President doesn't like one of the media outlets involved:

"While any improper use of government authority to punish critics or reward supporters would pose a grave threat to our constitutional system, that threat is particularly acute in a situation in which the government uses or appears to use its regulatory authority to punish media entities or others who are critical of the government. Such behavior could chill criticism, endangering the kind of free and open speech and debate that our Founders adopted the First Amendment to protect precisely because it is necessary for self-government."

While that's true, Bharara's specific objections here are somewhat rich for him personally, given that during his tenure he seized domain names and refused to return them -- only giving them back once it was abudantly clear he wasn't going to win in court. Bahara's office also issued a gag order over a subpoena to Reason just because a few folks said some mean things about a Judge.

Regardless, hoping to use these concerns to defeat the DOJ lawsuit, AT&T lawyers have been busy trying to get a hold of evidence proving that the Trump administration pressured the DOJ to try and derail the lawsuit. But late last month Judge Richard J. Leon rejected AT&T's request for detailed email and phone logs between the White House and the Justice Department related to the deal, forcing AT&T to scuttle that angle of their legal defense. Needless to say, whichever way this ruling goes could have a profound impact on the media, broadband, and advertising markets for years:

"If the judge sides with AT&T and Time Warner, he would usher in the creation of a new kind of corporate behemoth — one with nationwide reach via wireless and satellite television service that would also have control over a movie studio and channels like HBO, CNN and TNT, which has valuable basketball sports rights. The company would have a leading position to negotiate licensing deals with rival telecom and media firms. It would also be in a stronger position against fast-growing streaming video services like Netflix and Amazon Prime Video."

Questions over the DOJ's actual motivation here have created an interesting conversation over whether the ends justify the means, even if the motivation is cronyism and not consumer welfare. Whether the deal should be blocked has become increasingly relevant in the wake of the Trump FCC's attack on net neutrality, a move that could open the door to all manner of "creative" efforts by a bigger, more powerful AT&T to hamstring competition in the media space, should the deal be allowed to proceed.

All told, we've ironically got the Trump DOJ breathlessly claiming it's trying to protect consumers from a bigger, badder AT&T, while the Trump FCC empowers AT&T to engage in more anti-competitive shenanigans than ever before -- with no sign that anybody in government realizing they're operating at cross purposes if "consumers" really are the driving motivator. The Justice Department’s antitrust lawsuit against AT&T and Time Warner, filed back in November, is scheduled to go to trial on March 19.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2018 @ 6:49am

    Adding fuel to this fire was a bipartisan group of ex-DOJ officials (from US Attorney Preet Bharara and Nixon White House counsel John Dean) that, last week, filed an amicus brief with the court urging an inquiry into whether any potential laws were broken.

    With this administration just assume some have, and that the end game here is to just figure out which ones.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2018 @ 7:40am

    TOO LONG; TOO DULL; TOO COMPLEX; DIDN'T READ.

    TL;TD;TC;DR.

    What you need is some NEWS meaning topics outside your propaganda bubble and your required promotion of the Google-monster. Your problem is that your fixations and biases prevent just writing on any topic that piques interest: it has to fit into Techdirt's shrinking template.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    JoeCool (profile), 16 Mar 2018 @ 8:11am

    Clearly, the answer is NONE

    Adding fuel to this fire was a bipartisan group of ex-DOJ officials (from US Attorney Preet Bharara and Nixon White House counsel John Dean) that, last week, filed an amicus brief with the court urging an inquiry into whether any potential laws were broken.

    It's impossible to break a "potential" law as there is no such a beast. It's either a law, or it's not. I'd assume what was meant was "whether any laws were potentially broken," which is a whole other matter entirely. ;)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Thad, 17 Mar 2018 @ 11:05pm

      Re: Clearly, the answer is NONE

      It's impossible to break a "potential" law

      Nonsense. We're breaking an infinite number of potential laws at all times.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2018 @ 8:33am

    One bunch of assholes that don't care about us fighting with another bunch of assholes that don't care about us. All of them above the law.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2018 @ 10:28am

    Member' when M$ was going to get broken up for a embedded browser. Oh the days of them pretending to give a fuck.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    renosablast (profile), 16 Mar 2018 @ 11:11am

    Preet

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    renosablast (profile), 16 Mar 2018 @ 11:12am

    Preet Bahrara

    Pardon my skepticism over anything involving Preet Bahrara. Couldn't possibly be something retaliatory against the guy who fired him, no?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2018 @ 12:04pm

      Re: Preet Bahrara

      Not everyone is a vindictive petty clown.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2018 @ 3:21pm

        Re: Re: Preet Bahrara

        Most are with time and opportunity. The problem is that most people do not have the time or opportunity so they just let it fester instead.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 17 Mar 2018 @ 10:07pm

      Just because you're a jerk, doesn't mean you're wrong

      Even if it is being done for petty, retaliatory reasons it wouldn't change whether or not the underlying concerns are valid or not.

      Whether someone raises a concern because they want to screw over someone or because they truly want to see the issue addressed is less important than whether or not the concern itself is sound.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Thad, 17 Mar 2018 @ 11:11pm

        Re: tl;dr

        And, to take that even to one more level of abstraction:

        I believe the merger should be blocked.

        I believe the DoJ has done the right thing in suing to block it.

        That does not mean that President Trump didn't order the suit for unrelated and potentially illegal reasons.

        It's a real mess; there's no good guy here. But it's entirely possible to support the DoJ trying to stop the merger while simultaneously suspecting impure motives behind the (legitimate) objections to it.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Thad, 17 Mar 2018 @ 11:07pm

      Re: Preet Bahrara

      Pardon my skepticism over anything involving Preet Bahrara. Couldn't possibly be something retaliatory against the guy who fired him, no?

      That's sort of a weird place to draw the line. We shouldn't be concerned about Trump's potentially petty and personal reasons for blocking the merger, because Preet Bahrara has potentially petty and personal reasons for calling attention to them?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ECA (profile), 16 Mar 2018 @ 1:04pm

    ????

    need to understand..
    TV,
    Phone,
    Cellphone,
    Internet,
    CABLE,
    Satellite..

    And with a little tech we can add even more things to this..
    Are all interrelated..

    and with abit of tech, we can add power and heat to this..
    if They are willing to add tot he Whole system NOW, Would make this an easy transition..

    But nope. There are FEW forward thinkers in this group.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer
Anonymous number for texting and calling from Hushed. $25 lifetime membership, use code TECHDIRT25
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.