Eric Holder's 'Off-The-Record' Meeting With Journalists Leads To 'On-The-Record' Quotes, But Not Much Else
from the blah-de-blah-blah dept
Remember how Eric Holder wanted to hold a meeting with a bunch of journalists as he seeks to revise the “guidelines” the DOJ sets up for itself (fox watching the hen house, anyone?) on how it spies on journalists? A meeting where many top news organizations refused to go because it was officially “off the record?” In the end, the media seemed to be split on whether or not to go, as summarized by the Huffington Post (who didn’t go):
Not going: New York Times, AP, Huffington Post, McClatchy, CNN, CBS News, Fox News, Reuters, and NBC News.
Going: The Washington Post, Politico, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times/ Chicago Tribune, ABC News, Bloomberg, USA Today.
And then, for all the fuss, at the end of the meeting, DOJ officials told the reporters they could discuss “in general some of the ideas that were discussed,” though it appears that some points still remained off the record. As for what was publicly disclosed, it sounds like reporters were not impressed.
At the session, Holder and Deputy Attorney General James Cole expressed a willingness to revise the guidelines for such investigations, journalists present at the get-together told POLITICO.
But Holder stopped short of offering any concrete changes to the guidelines. Instead, the Attorney General sought to assure the journalists that he and the DOJ were trying to seek a balance between the demands of national security and the free flow of information, and sought suggestions from the journalists on how those changes might be achieved.
Ah, so the hens get to suggest to the fox how they’d like their rights to be violated, and then the fox gets to decide how best to “incorporate those suggestions”? I’m sure that will work out just great. As some who were in attendance noted, nothing in the meeting suggested that the DOJ was actually going to change or adjust its policies.
Filed Under: eric holder, journalists, off the record, surveillance, warrants
Comments on “Eric Holder's 'Off-The-Record' Meeting With Journalists Leads To 'On-The-Record' Quotes, But Not Much Else”
An administration full of crooks and liars
“This is the most transparent administration in history.” — Barack Obama to the most gullible electorate in decades.
Re: An administration full of crooks and liars
Gullible implies that everyone believed him.
Re: Re: An administration full of crooks and liars
Those who elected him believed him. Hence “most gullible electorate”.
Re: Re: Re: An administration full of crooks and liars
I don’t think he was elected based on his promise of transparency. It was pretty much known to be a joke by the time his second election rolled around.
Re: Re: An administration full of crooks and liars
Not “everyone”…only enough voters to win both elections by thin margins.
And they aren’t all crooks and liars, but far too many of them are.
I think the main problem is that the Attorney General views the Constitution as a “policy guideline”.
Re: Re:
They all called in sick that week during Politischool.
Re: Re:
not even that
Re: Re:
If I may quote Pirates of the Caribbean:
“…They’re more like guidelines anyway.”
His name should be Eric Holdon, or Eric Hangon.
1) Journalists need to be spied upon because they might publish tidbits of confidential information.
2) Low level army personnel leaking evidence of war crimes is treason.
3) Bankers aiding and abetting terrorists is ok.
4) Bankers laundering drug money is ok.
5) High level politicians outing under cover people is ok.
There seems to be a pattern here.
Re: Re:
The rich can do what they want.
This is nothing new.
They impeached Nixon for less than the shit Obama has pulled.
Re: Re:
“They impeached Nixon for less than the shit Obama has pulled.”
Really?
Republican Nixon resigned before the impeachment process was completed to avoid the shame.
Oh, and please list the “shit” Republican Nixon, in fact, did and the “shit” Obama’s been accused of, but not proven, unless you know of something that has, in fact, been proven in a court of law.
Re: Re:
In Nixon’s time it was standard for powers-that-be to maintain a believable facade of lawful government. People expected a lot more from politicians then. While they are not necessarily any more honest than they are today, politicians had to work harder back then.
Blah-de-blah-blah-my-race-had-nothing-to do-with-me-getting-this-job-I-swear-it-blah-de-blah-blah…