US Intelligence Intervened With DOJ To Push HPE-Juniper Merger (axios.com) 12
Earlier this month, Hewlett-Packard Enterprise settled its antitrust case with the U.S. Justice Department, "paving the way for its acquisition of rival kit maker Juniper Networks" for $14 billion. According to Axios, the deal was heavily influenced by national security concerns and a desire to bolster American competition against China's Huawei. The outlet reports that the U.S. intelligence community "intervened to persuade the Justice Department that allowing the merger to proceed was essential to helping U.S. business compete with China's Huawei Technologies, among other national-security issues." From the report: "In light of significant national security concerns, a settlement ... serves the interests of the United States by strengthening domestic capabilities and is critical to countering Huawei and China." The official said blocking the deal would have "hindered American companies and empowered" Chinese competitors. A Justice Department spokesman added that DOJ "works very closely with our partners in the IC [intelligence community] and always considers their views when deciding how best to proceed with a case."
The merger was back in the news this week with reports that two senior enforcers in the DOJ's antitrust division were fired Monday amid infighting over the department's settlement greenlighting HPE's $14 billion acquisition of Juniper. Attorney General Pam Bondi had conversations with top intelligence officials that convinced her there was a strong national interest in not driving allies to Chinese technology, a senior administration official tells us.
The merger was back in the news this week with reports that two senior enforcers in the DOJ's antitrust division were fired Monday amid infighting over the department's settlement greenlighting HPE's $14 billion acquisition of Juniper. Attorney General Pam Bondi had conversations with top intelligence officials that convinced her there was a strong national interest in not driving allies to Chinese technology, a senior administration official tells us.
nope (Score:1, Interesting)
Expensive buggy crap with over-priced support does not compete with cheap stuff that works.
Re: (Score:3)
I would classify neither HPE or Juniper's networking gear as "expensive buggy crap." Both of them produce fantastic equipment and have for decades.
Just a lil bit more (Score:5, Insightful)
The merger was back in the news this week with reports that two senior enforcers in the DOJ's antitrust division were fired Monday amid infighting over the department's settlement greenlighting HPE's $14 billion acquisition of Juniper.
If those two senior enforcers were pre-trump, it's all you need to know about this bullshit.
Bondi sees fellow Cabinet members "almost daily at happy hours, dinners, Bible studies," the official added. "It all feels very natural."
Everyone knows Donald 3:16 - "The lord came down and said, "these two corporations shall merge and be even bigger, because China." Kumbaya! You corrupt, dumb bitch!
Re:Just a lil bit more (Score:4, Informative)
This is my take,
(1) The merger was blocked unexpectedly, and almost immediately after Trump took office - and it wasn't the only one. These newly blocked mergers, along with previously pending mergers, were made conditional on going along with some of the social controls Trump wants to implement. Many of them were told get rid of "DEI", get rid of Colbert, that sort of thing.
(2) These two "enforcers", it sounds like they were instrumental in approving the merger, and probably did it before such concessions could be extracted from HPE. They went against the agenda, hence they were removed.
(3) (a) I could see the CIA being used as a mouthpiece for the more traditional, business-focused class of oligarchs. The CIA may be the only people someone like Bondi will listen to. Business interests may have sent someone with a CIA badge over there to get the merger approved.
(b) Or, maybe they're interested in having only to backdoor 1 company instead of 2. (In their head, that's going to be "fighting China".)
(4) May not be related, but highly coincidental timing - not long after the merger was blocked, a big capital group (forget the name) started making moves to push out the CEO Neri. He'll probably be gone by the end of the year. If you know Neri, he is very invested in "DEI" initiatives, HPE hosts all kinds of cultural events - Diwali, gay pride, women in tech, the whole 9. There's a fresco in the headquarters showing how blacks in America advanced from slaves, to soldiers, then astronauts. The kind of stuff that Trump would demand to be taken down, and I don't see Neri conceding to. They may have decided he has to go.
Re: (Score:2)
Slater and several Justice officials, including Rinner and Alford, signed the settlement rather than staff attorneys on the case, a move that sources familiar with merger protocol called unusual. Chad Mizelle, Attorney General Pam Bondi's chief of staff, was one of the officials who signed the deal. Mizelle had directed the antitrust division to settle the case, according to a person briefed on the matter. After Slater pushed back, Mizelle sought to fire Slater's deputies in retaliation, the person said.
Sounds like corrupt dealings to me. The DOJ also probably broke the law it seems.
U.S. law seeks to guard against backdoor merger clearance of merger deals by requiring merging companies to disclose communications with "any officer or employee of the United States concerning or relevant to" a settlement proposal.
Re: (Score:2)
More nope. (Score:2)
Attorney General Pam Bondi had conversations with top intelligence officials that convinced her there was a strong national interest in not driving allies to Chinese technology, a senior administration official tells us.
Did they mention those allies' reciprocal tariffs on American products? I bet they didn't!
Juniper did not need HPE. HPE needed Juniper. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
has little to do with national security.
I think at this point anything that might vaguely increase competition with Chinese companies is defined as "national security". So its not surprising that was the pitch made to get the lawsuit dumped.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt reducing competition will benefit consumers.