Eric Holder Tells Press in Off-the-Record Meeting: We Won’t Spy on You Anymore

DeepseekerADS

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
14,880
Reaction score
21,742
Golden Thread
0
Location
SW, VA - Bull Mountain
Detector(s) used
CTX, Excal II, EQ800, Fisher 1260X, Tesoro Royal Sabre, Tejon, Garrett ADSIII, Carrot, Stealth 920iX, Keene A52
Primary Interest:
Other
WASHINGTON (TheBlaze/AP) — In a meeting with Attorney General Eric Holder, executives from several news organizations said the attorney general pledged to change the way the Justice Department conducts investigations that involve reporters.

Government officials said they would work to change guidelines on issuing subpoenas in criminal investigations involving reporters and ensure searches that have raised concerns recently about freedom of the press are not repeated, the editors said.

The news executives made the comments Thursday after meeting with Holder and some of his aides.

The discussion took place following an outcry from news organizations over the Justice Department’s secret gathering of some Associated Press reporters’ phone records and some emails of a Fox News journalist.

Last week, President Barack Obama ordered a review of the Justice Department guidelines.

One of the news media participants, Marty Baron, executive editor of the Washington Post, said the news executives told the department officials that reporters were concerned about using their email and concerned about using their office telephones.

“It was a constructive meeting,” said Baron. “They expressed their commitment to the president’s statement that reporters would not be at legal risk for doing their jobs.”

Jerry Seib, Washington bureau chief of The Wall Street Journal, said that in addition to the commitment to change the guidelines, there also was a renewed commitment to support a federal shield law for journalists. Such laws in force in many states protect journalists from having to reveal confidential sources.

“We diplomatically raised our concerns – don’t know what’s going to happen if anything,” said Jim Warren, Washington bureau chief of the New York Daily News. “Who knows what’s going to happen if they practice what they seem to preach and try to change some laws that we feel are very relevant. I think it’s sort of an opening gambit.” Warren said “there were some specifics talked about, more of a legal and statutory nature,” but he did not elaborate.

Other news media participants were Jane Mayer, a staff writer for the New Yorker; and John Harris, editor in chief of Politico.

The Associated Press didn’t attend the meeting because it objected to the meeting being off the record. The New York Times said it wouldn’t attend because of the department’s off-the-record ground rules.

Asked why the news executives decided to participate, Baron said people in the press frequently have off-the-record discussions.

“We feel very strongly about the issues here,” said Baron. “This was an opportunity for us to share our views with people at the highest level of the Justice Department.”

Besides Holder, Deputy Attorney General James Cole and seven other Justice Department officials also participated.
 

Holder is still guilty of perjury...

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
 

YES he is!!!!

"Trust me, I won't spy on you again"

Sure they won't - he needs to draw unemployment. He'll be remorseful and sad - maybe he'll qualify for disability.....
 

if he did "nothing wrong" --then why are things going to be done differently ?--this is just smoothing things over with the "media" to get them off their backs , plain and simple -- holder should be fired --freedom of the press * its one of those pesky lil "rights" --that the govt likes to forget that "we the people" have.:notworthy:
 

Last edited:
I used to tell my sister I wouldn't spy on her too,or read her diary.:laughing7:
 

the pesky media didnt get upset when they were after the 2nd amendment! but, most of the media was ready to have it done away with!!!!!!!!:BangHead:
 

"Change you can believe in!" from the people who brought you "Stick with what works!" Someone from Chicago told me just after the election that put this current bunch in power that now America will get a taste of "Chicago-style politics!" I have since learned that means a one party system dominated by a boss controlled political machine whose slick politicians dangle patronage (one hand washes the other) before competing ethnic and racial groups in return for votes! Better get your friends and family off the couch in 2014 even if it means looking over your shoulder!
 

It won't matter how many you can get to vote big, it still won't be enough. There are way too many people getting hand fed by the government and the worthless in this country won't want that to change. We are producing more and more dependents daily and, because these dependents don't care about anything but being hand fed, they could care less about gun control as well.
 

If your teenage son says "daddy I want drink any more" it means "daddy I drink"...
 

Holder is still guilty of perjury...]

And last I knew , people that break the law go to jail ........:dontknow:..... Oh I forgot :icon_scratch:, UNLESS your connected to the O administration........:BangHead:
 

I also heard he isn't going to lie anymore and he isn't going to give a bunch of guns to the drug cartel anymore. I'm glad he could get a high-ranking government job where he could learn how to be an honest American. There are surely a lot more things he shouldn't be doing anymore.................like working for the American people.
 

If he's not going to do anything anymore, he now is a liability to the Administration, and should be sent done the road counting mailboxes!
 

Sure, he can count mailboxes but I wouldn't believe the number he comes up with. :)
 

remember as STALIN -LONG AGO SAID --OF COURSE WE LET "THE PEOPLE" FREELY VOTE * (BECAUSE ITS NOT WHAT THE PEOPLE VOTE THAT MATTERS --ITS WHAT THE VOTE COUNTERS SAY THE PEOPLE VOTED THAT MATTERS , AFTER ALL ) IF ONE "OWNS" THE VOTE COUNTERS --IT IS ALL IN THE "BAG".
 

Last edited:
remember as STALIN -LONG AGO SAID --OF COURSE WE LET "THE PEOPLE" FREELY VOTE * (BECAUSE ITS NOT WHAT THE PEOPLE VOTE THAT MATTERS --ITS WHAT THE VOTE COUNTERS SAY THE PEOPLE VOTED THAT MATTERS , AFTER ALL ) IF ONCE "OWNS" THE VOTE COUNTERS --IT IS ALL IN THE "BAG".

When your favorite sports team loses do you always believe "the fix was in". Just wondering.
 

I was just quoting a famous historical figure who knew a thing or two about "winning elections" * -- and its a fact that if one has control of the "vote counters" the election is in the bag , that is clear to anyone that can think for themselves.
if in areas that required "photo id's to vote " person A gets 25% of the vote (wins 1 out of 4 states) and in areas that require "some form of ID to vote " person A" only gets 40% of the vote states wise -- but in areas that are easy to commit voter fraud in (areas that require no "proof" of voter id to vote )---person A gets 100% -- a 60 % difference --plus there same areas had areas in philly where 59 voting stations did not have even a single vote for Romney and some had "black panthers" as poll watchers ? --
 

I was just quoting a famous historical figure who knew a thing or two about "winning elections" * -- and its a fact that if one has control of the "vote counters" the election is in the bag , that is clear to anyone that can think for themselves.
if in areas that required "photo id's to vote " person A gets 25% of the vote (wins 1 out of 4 states) and in areas that require "some form of ID to vote " person A" only gets 40% of the vote states wise -- but in areas that are easy to commit voter fraud in (areas that require no "proof" of voter id to vote )---person A gets 100% -- a 60 % difference --plus there same areas had areas in philly where 59 voting stations did not have even a single vote for Romney and some had "black panthers" as poll watchers ? --

Right and one can find irregularities in every election going back to Washington. You have tens of millions of people voting g do you think there has EVER been an election ever that was 100 accurate? What was your thoughts on the chad election? Fair and just??
 

Right and one can find irregularities in every election going back to Washington. You have tens of millions of people voting g do you think there has EVER been an election ever that was 100 accurate? What was your thoughts on the chad election? Fair and just??

The difference is the line is crossed when it is intentionally rigged and not irregularities.



Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
 

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top