Why is Harvard Trying to Rebrand The Narrative from "Long Covid" to "Post Infectious"?

Nanoscientist & Harvard Professor Charles Lieber Charged Federally For Ties To China

Why Won't Attorney General Bill Barr Arrest Anyone?

Chris Farley arrest someone Attorney General Bill Barr

Giuliani says Barr won’t investigate Hunter Biden allegations because he's ‘intimidated’ 

Trump mulls firing FBI director and Attorney General Bill Barr because they won’t investigate Joe Biden and Hunter Biden. At a recent rally in Carson City, Nevada, Trump blasted Joe Biden and his son Hunter as a “criminal enterprise.”

The Washington Post reported that President Donald Trump is considering firing FBI Director Christopher Wray and Attorney General William Barr, out of frustration that the two of them haven’t been able to investigate them.

“The conversations among the president and senior aides stem in part from their disappointment that Wray in particular but Barr as well have not done what Trump had hoped — indicate that Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, his son Hunter Biden, or other Biden associates are under investigation, these people say,” reported Devlin Barrett and Josh Dawsey. “Like others, they spoke on the condition of anonymity to disclose internal discussions.”

Barr has attracted controversy from the first day of his appointment due to a series of moves suspected of being partisan efforts to help Trump, from downplaying the findings of the Mueller report to moving to drop charges against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn after he already pleaded guilty. Nevertheless, he has not been willing to publicly announce a criminal investigation of the Bidens in the middle of a presidential election, with no clear basis for doing so.

In the 2016 campaign’s closing weeks, the president and public intensified calls for jailing his challenger, Hillary Clinton. 

DOJ’s Antitrust Case vs Google is Biggest in 20 Years

After the DOJ's 1998 suit against Microsoft, this suit has the potential to be the most important antitrust case against a technology firm in over 20 years.

It is claimed that U.S. antitrust enforcers are crafting a complaint against Google (and its parent company, Alphabet). This week, the Justice Department and a broad group of state attorneys general are meeting and could file suit very soon. While it would allegedly concentrate on the dominance of Google in online advertisement and search, the lawsuit may cover many other aspects of the actions of Google, including its dominance in mobile operating systems and web browsers. After the DOJ's 1998 suit against Microsoft, this suit has the potential to be the most important antitrust case against a technology firm in over 20 years.

In other words, almost all Internet users have a stake in the results of this case, all users of Google Apps, and anyone who watches Google-brokered ads. That's why it has to be performed correctly. It should cover more than just advertisement markets and also concentrate on the consumer strength of Google's search, browser, and smartphone OS. And the antitrust authorities should seek intelligent solutions that go beyond money harm, including breakups and interoperability with competing goods, all while being vigilant in protecting the interests of free expression and privacy of consumers that will eventually be caught up in the mix. Like many, we worry that it might not go well if everything is hurried, so we advise the enforcers to take the time they need to do it right while understanding that there is continual harm.

The Significance of a “Big Case” Antitrust

U.S. government antitrust cases have an important place in the history of innovation, and there is a fair argument to be made that they provided breathing space for innovation even though they did not conclude with a court order to break up a company. The DOJ's case against IBM started in 1969, went to trial in 1975, and was withdrawn in 1982, for "monopolizing or threatening to monopolize the general-purpose market for electronic digital computer systems." While the case did not end with a court-ordered remedy, as it had squashed other rivals for decades, a decade-plus of a public investigation into IBM's business practices arguably stopped the company from squashing nascent rivals like Microsoft. That outcome probably helped start the 1980s personal computer revolution, fuelled by various companies' ideas beyond "Big Blue."

The government's suit against AT&T, which had for much of the twentieth century maintained a legally recognized monopoly on telephone service in the U.S., almost ended the same way as the IBM suit. US v. AT&T was filed in 1974 and by 1982 it had not reached a verdict. "But years of scrutiny, coupled with the emergence of potential rivals who were itching to enter telecommunications service and related markets, led the leadership of AT&T to consent to a split, allowing the" Baby Bells "and technology-focused spinoffs to innovate in data communications and Internet growth in ways that" Ma Bell "could not. With a monolithic AT&T still controlling who could link to telephone networks and what devices they could use, it is difficult to foresee the Internet entering mainstream use in the 1990s. Even though the AT&T heirs finally re-assembled themselves, we still have the creativity unleashed by the split.

Also, a boon to creativity was the 1998 lawsuit against Microsoft over its exclusion of rival Web browser applications from PCs. At the time, Microsoft's AT&T-style merger, perhaps breaking its operating system and software application divisions into different businesses, was a distinct possibility. The trial court actually ordered exactly that. D.C. On appeal, Instead, Circuit opposed a split and directed Microsoft to comply with existing restrictions on its conduct against rival software vendors and PC producers. Again, this appeared to be anything less than a shining accomplishment. But Microsoft shelved plans to smash a little-known search firm called Google in the face of ongoing surveillance of its actions against competitors.

Google grew into so many Internet-related markets two decades later that its place in many of them remains unassailable. Google has been able to buy out or push out almost any company that dares to compete in a number of markets with it. Once again, the engine of disruptive innovation has broken down, and a brave, thoughtful federal and state enforcers' antitrust challenge could be just the thing to help restart it.

Look at the entire Alphabet, not just advertisements

Look at the whole alphabet, not just ads. News reports indicate that Google's litigation will concentrate on the domination of web advertising by the corporation, which is alleged to depress publishers' ad revenues. The suit may also discuss the behavior of Google against rivals in search markets, such as travel and search for goods. In order to see how it contributed to the acquisition of monopoly control in different markets, it should also look at Google's history of mergers and acquisitions, such as the 2007 purchase of advertising company DoubleClick.

Antitrust enforcers will go high on the reach of the complaint. Consumers will not benefit much from a suit that questions Google's actions in the advertisement markets alone. Although the vast collection of Google data on the browsing habits and preferences of users, extracted from its ad networks, causes great harm to customers, it is not yet clear if hundreds of smaller rivals in the ad-tech market, some of which are extremely shady, would be better user privacy stewards. The response here includes both antitrust and much-needed new regulations on privacy. That's going to assist customers around the board.

Google's leveraging of its current market dominance in search, Web browsing (Chrome), and mobile operating systems (Android) should also be questioned by the DOJ and states to keep out competition. The lawsuit should also question whether the collection and control of user data by Google through so many applications and computers, plus data from millions of websites linked to Google's advertisement networks, gives it an advantage that causes anti-trust scrutiny in other markets. These are, in part, novel and challenging antitrust law arguments. Yet enforcers are expected to target hard. Success in keeping Google responsible for its use of monopoly power can help the courts and probably Congress adjust antitrust law for the digital era, even if it does not succeed entirely. It can also help create a bulwark against the Internet's further centralization. And as history indicates, even a suit that eventually does not lead to a split will help make room for creativity outside the walls of today's tech giant from different outlets.

Have a large remedies toolbox: interoperability, innovation follow-on, laws of conduct, and breakups

By now, it is clear that antitrust law enforcers ought to seek solutions beyond money damages. Without altering their actions drastically, Google and Alphabet are big enough to treat almost every fine as a cost of doing business. As part of the litigation, a court-ordered breakup of Alphabet could also be seriously considered, perhaps an order to separate parts of Google's advertising company or to unravel Google's most controversial acquisitions.

In the government's quiver of solutions, however, breakups should not be the only bolt. Asking Google to allow its rivals to create interoperable goods would strike at the root of Google's monopoly issue and could be an easier lift. As we've seen across several examples, building products that can link to current, dominant products, without permission from the incumbent vendor, can be a powerful antimonopoly tool. It can help bring users back into power.

That may mean ordering Google not to interfere with products that block Google-distributed advertising and monitoring in Google's case. Allowing ad- and tracker-blocking technology to thrive will allow consumers to shape the ad-tech industry by supporting businesses that obtain less user information and are more accountable for the information they have. It could also promote innovation in that market (note: one of those innovations is the Privacy Badger of the EFF, but this could benefit several services). Google will have to fight for users' views and clicks in that case by protecting their privacy.

Interoperability requirements implemented as an antitrust remedy or as part of a settlement mitigate many of the concerns that come with more generalized mandates for technology because orders can be crafted to accommodate the technologies and procedures of a particular organization. To ensure enforcement, it may require constant monitoring and help prevent security concerns or other problems that may occur from a one-size-fits-all approach.

A perfect chance to start solving the issues of the monopoly control of Big Tech is the pending litigation against Google. If enforcers act boldly, they will set new precedents for antitrust that will stimulate competition across high-tech markets. As a spur to progress and a monopoly solution, they should also use this opportunity to advance interoperability.

Who are Google's Lawyers?

Google has had a handful of familiar outside lawyers since the companies have dealt with several antitrust court appearances over the past few years. 

In a pending private antitrust lawsuit accusing the search giant of monopolizing the online search advertising market, Google has turned to Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati. When the department questioned the company's search activities, Wilson Sonsini also helped Google fight off the FTC back in 2011. Without penalizing Google, the FTC closed the case in 2013.

Google is also a client of Paul Weiss, who, during the DOJ's antitrust trial, represented Microsoft for Bill Gates' empire. 

For most foreign investigations, including the EU's nearly $ 3 billion antitrust fine accusing the corporation of rigging its search results to benefit its own goods, Google has relied on Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP. In his almost 13-year antitrust case brought by the DOJ, Cleary also represented IBM Corp. In 1982, the government finally dismissed the lawsuit.

Google's likely lawyers will include: Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison, Kasowitz Benson Torres, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Williams & Connonlly, King & Spalding

Twitter CEO Subpoena Over Blocking Content

The Senate Judiciary Committee will vote to subpoena Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey next week to testify on allegations the company is stifling conservative viewpoints. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) is leading the fight. He says Twitter blocked him from sharing a New York Post article about Hunter Biden.

The article alleged Hunter Biden introduced his dad, Democratic Presidential nominee Joe Biden, to Ukrainian officials. But Cruz says no one could share it on social media. “Suddenly Jack Dorsey and a handful of Silicon Valley billionaires are deciding that no criticism, no allegations, no evidence of corruption concerning Joe Biden are permissible,” Cruz said. “That is blatant election interference.”

“Facebook and Twitter have policies to not spread things that are utterly unreliable,” Coons said.  

Jack Dorsey CEO announced Twitter changed its policy Friday morning said in a tweet, “Straight blocking of URLs was wrong.”  This was likely pressure for lawsuits threatened.  

White House Chief Of Staff Warns Of Potential Lawsuit Against Tech Giants. White House chief of staff Mark Meadows on Monday suggested that the Trump administration would bring a lawsuit against the social media companies that have recently restricted and blocked news reports about Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

 White House chief of staff Mark Meadows on Monday suggested that the Trump administration would bring a lawsuit against the social media companies that have recently restricted and blocked news reports about Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

In an interview on “Fox & Friends,” Meadows said that the online platforms try to censor conservatives and suggested that if the story about Joe and Hunter Biden was about President Donald Trump and his family, tech companies would have not blocked the story.

The Chief of Staff’s comments come in the wake of a report by the New York Post alleging to have obtained emails from a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden. Many Democrats have claimed the story is an effort to discredit Joe Biden and an attempt by Russia to help elect Trump. So far, neither of the Bidens have denied the authenticity of the emails.

The threat of a lawsuit was also prompted by the actions Twitter took to lock Trump’s reelection campaign account last Thursday for trying to share the New York Post story.

Meadows said he has not received any intelligence suggesting that the Russians were involved in the emails being extracted from Hunter Biden’s laptop as Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) has alleged.

NEW — U.S. Senator Josh Hawley has formally requested @Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and @Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to appear before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism in a coming hearing titled "Digital Platforms and Election Interference.” pic.twitter.com/VlXBo17bX0

— Senator Hawley Press Office (@SenHawleyPress) October 15, 2020

Facebook Bans Ads Questioning Safety Of COVID-19 Vaccines

Clearly, Mark Zuckerberg had enough of being dragged in front of Congress and hectored by a gang of senior citizens, and listening to the ACLU leader slam his business as a vessel for violent hate speech. Since Facebook has done a full 180 on its stance on speech, especially sensitive political speech, over the past few months. Apparently, Zuckerberg was shaken by his non-interventionist stance by declaring that during the last week of the campaign, FB would not allow new political advertising, and only yesterday by declaring that Facebook would clamp down on its site on holocaust deniers.

Salvos against QAnon and electoral disinformation have also been launched by the organization, thus taking an active approach to political advertisements and political material in general. 

And as global authorities try to persuade the public that, despite the expedited approval process, a potential COVID-19 vaccine would be safe to take, Facebook has agreed to give them a hand by deleting all material that allows users to refuse to take a vaccine. In a blog post published Tuesday, it set out the latest global agenda.

Facebook would draw the line and enable users who argue against "mandatory vaccination," a valid political stance the company said was (not a claim made in "poor faith" as some on the left insist), and post as usual. They quoted an instance of a Virginia state lawmaker who posted "STOP FORCED CORONAVIRUS VACCINATIONS."

Although the above advertising will be permissible under the new legislation, it will forbid advertisements that directly prevent people from taking vaccines by presenting the vaccines as ineffective or dangerous. 

"If a vaccine is specifically prevented by an ad that advocates for/against legislation or government policy, it will be refused," a CNBC spokesperson wrote. "That includes presenting vaccines as useless, ineffective, dangerous or unhealthy, describing vaccines for diseases as harmless, or as harmful or deadly ingredients in vaccines." 

Facebook also plans to push recommendations on how and when to get the flu vaccine for all individuals.

There is no coincidence with the timing. Analysts at Goldman Sachs wrote in a recent research note that confidence in the vaccine may be a significant obstacle to its eventual eradication. "We agree that the greatest obstacle will be to persuade the broad population to take the vaccine to effectively minimize the burden of disease and virus circulation to very low levels. Our basic case assumes such large acceptance, but this will probably entail a safe and very efficient vaccine, faith in the mechanism of approval and rollout, no out-of-pocket costs, and efficient public and community campaigns."

And news about JNJ 's recent halt was definitely not encouraging, especially because the public was still not aware of what was going on in the US with the halted AstraZeneca-Oxford trials. 

As we have noted, the decision of Facebook comes as Bill Gates challenges Trump's FDA's authority, and Kamala Harris tells the American people that she "will not take" a vaccine approved by Trump.

Throughout Africa, a host of other terribly paralyzing and debilitating diseases have been reported in vaccines developed by Gates but never tested on humans until used in Africa. 

This is India's medical study addressing the paralysis arising from the vaccinations of Gates, affecting 450,000 children and babies for life. This is why Gates was sued for his Crimes Against Humanity by India. The last page summarizes the damage sustained by 1/2 million young Indians. The remainder of the study is a very technical, accurate, and horrible medical report. 

Because of his Crimes Against Humanity carried out with his vaccines around the world, India, Russia and China have barred Gates from entering or using his vaccines for life.

FBI Has Stopped Hundreds of Online Scams

The bureau has reviewed more than 3,600 complaints related to COVID-19 ploys that tout fake vaccines, cures and charity drives, among other things.

For example, the cooperative effort has been disrupted:

• An illicit website pretending to solicit and collect donations to the American Red Cross for COVID-19 relief efforts. 

• Fraudulent websites that spoofed government programs and organizations tricked American citizens into entering personally identifiable information, including banking details. 

• Websites of legitimate companies and services that were used to facilitate the distribution or control of malicious software.

Multiple federal agencies have worked to analyze the complaints, investigate ongoing fraud, phishing, or malware schemes, and assemble vetted referrals. Agencies have sent hundreds of these referrals to the private-sector companies managing or hosting the domains. Many of those companies, in turn, have taken down the domains after concluding that they violated their abuse policies and terms of service, without requiring legal process. Domain registrars and registries have advised the department that they have established teams to review their domains for COVID-19 related fraud and malicious activity. Cybersecurity researchers have also made important contributions by developing sophisticated tools to identify malicious domains and refer them for mitigation. Law enforcement is actively reviewing leads, including those referred by private firms, to verify unlawful activity and quickly pursue methods for disruption.

As a further example, shortly after the IRS notified the public of web links to apply for the COVID-19 related stimulus payments, the FBI identified a number of look-alike IRS stimulus payment domains. These look-alike domains are often indicative of future phishing schemes and in order to minimize the potential fraudulent use of the these domains, the FBI alerted numerous domain registries and registrars to the existence of these look-alike URLs.

“The department will continue to collaborate with our law enforcement and private sector partners to combat online COVID-19 related crime,” said Assistant Attorney General Brian A. Benczkowski of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division. “We commend the responsible internet companies that are taking swift action to prevent their resources from being used to exploit this pandemic.”

The Justice Department is also working to provide COVID-19 related training and technical assistance in other countries through the International Computer Hacking and Intellectual Property (ICHIP) program. In one Justice Department-supported action, a state prosecutor in Brazil took down a fake site purporting to belong to a leading Brazilian brewery. The website publicized the distribution of free sanitizer, but in fact was infecting the computer systems of numerous Brazilian consumers with malware. The ICHIP-mentored prosecutor further requested that the site’s U.S.-based registrar suspend it and preserve any account and transactional data linked to the site. The investigation is ongoing, and the ICHIP continues to mentor the prosecutor remotely on this case and on best practices for engaging with U.S. registrars and providers. Similar activities are planned in other regions with ICHIP attorneys. Learn more about the Criminal Division’s ICHIP Program, jointly administered by the Criminal Division’s Office of Overseas Prosecutorial Development, Assistance and Training and the Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, here.

Numerous Justice Department components are working to combat COVID-19 related crime nationwide. For a list of department efforts, visit https://www.justice.gov/coronavirus/news.