FIRST ON FOX: The House Judiciary Committee is requesting a briefing from the Justice Department on how it is working to combat “potential conflicts of interest and political bias” in its lawsuit against Google, amid reports that the Big Tech giant’s lead attorney is helping prep Vice President Kamala Harris for the debate against former President Donald Trump.
Fox News Digital obtained a letter House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, sent to Attorney General Merrick Garland on Tuesday morning.
Rep. Jim Jordan, a Republican from Ohio and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, speaks during a hearing in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, June 13, 2024. (Tierney L. Cross/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
“The Committee on the Judiciary and the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government continue to conduct oversight of how and to what extent the Executive Branch has colluded with companies and other intermediaries to censor lawful speech,” Jordan wrote.
HARRIS PREPS FOR DEBATE WITH GOOGLE LAWYER, CREATING ‘CONFLICT OF INTEREST,’ TRUMP CAMPAIGN SAYS
Jordan went on to cite a Fox News Digital report that revealed that the lead attorney defending Google in U.S. v. Google LLC, a high-profile antitrust case led by the Justice Department, is simultaneously advising and prepping Harris for the debate against Trump on Tuesday night, hosted by ABC News in Philadelphia.
Karen Dunn, who is Google’s outside counsel through law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, is listed in the lawsuit as a “lead attorney.”
Attorney General Merrick Garland speaks during a news conference at the Justice Department in Washington, D.C., in April 2023. (AP/Susan Walsh)
Dunn is also on Harris’ campaign team to prep her for her debate against Trump. Dunn also advised Harris ahead of her 2020 vice presidential debate against then-Vice President Mike Pence.
The Trump campaign, last month, called out a potential conflict of interest.
Former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris will debate in Philadelphia. (Getty)
“In light of existing evidence that the Biden-Harris Administration pressured and colluded with Google to censor the lawful speech of American citizens, we write to request a briefing about how the Department of Justice is working to combat potential conflicts of interest and political bias in United States v. Google LLC,” Jordan wrote.
“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,” Jordan added.
Jordan reminded Garland that when he was nominated attorney general, he pledged to “guarantee the independence of the Department from partisan influence.”
“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,” Jordan wrote.
Jordan said that “given this potential conflict of interest,” he is requesting a briefing on how the DOJ is working to combat “this and other potential conflicts of interest and political bias” in the Google case.
Jordan asked that DOJ staff arrange the briefing by Sept. 24.
Google recently cut a deal with the California government for both entities to pay a combined $180 million to fund state newsrooms. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
Neither the Harris campaign nor Dunn responded to Fox News Digital’s request for comment on Dunn’s work ahead of the debate.
The revelations also come after Google came under scrutiny following the assassination attempt against Trump. Google’s autocomplete search results did not initially register the July 13 assassination attempt against Trump.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Google admitted that it initially blocked and eliminated search prompts for the assassination attempt against Trump, saying they were prohibited by design and part of the company’s policy to prevent search results for “hypothetical political violence against current figures.”
“We do not allow predictions that can be interpreted as accusations against individuals or groups of serious malevolent acts, where there is a lack of well-established or expert supporting evidence,” he said.