Reporters Tell Attorney General Eric Holder They Won't Agree To 'Off The Record' Meeting As Scale Of Journalist Spying Expands
from the thousands-and-thousands dept
A few quick updates on the continuing saga of the DOJ's highly questionable spying on the communications of reporters. First up, we find out that the AP is claiming that the DOJ's scooping up of phone records wasn't nearly as limited as some people have suggested, but rather contained records for "thousands and thousands" of phone calls. Remember, the DOJ's own guidelines say that any such record retrieval must be very targeted rather than broad.Of course, as all of this was happening, a sympathetic story leaked to the press, claiming that Eric Holder feels tremendous remorse for the specific case of the spying on James Rosen. Though, as you read the details, it sure sounds a lot more like "political expediency" rather than honest "remorse."
The sweeping seizure of the AP phone records had thrown Justice on the defensive. But at least in that case Holder had some personal insulation; having been interviewed by the FBI, he'd recused himself from the investigation and, thus, had not personally signed off on the subpoenas. In the Fox case, however, Holder knew he bore a direct measure of responsibility. He had approved a search-warrant application that equated a reporter's newsgathering activities with criminal conduct. That put Holder at the center of the brewing controversy, all while the Obama administration was being buffeted over allegations that the IRS had targeted conservative groups and by the continuing Benghazi tempest.However, he supposedly is upset that his public image is not reflective of what he thinks of himself.
By week's end, Holder knew he had to be proactive in stemming the criticism and restoring the department's credibility with the press. He and his advisers began exploring ways to reform the Justice Department's internal guidelines for investigating leaks to safeguard the media against overly intrusive tactics. (Obama announced a review of the guidelines during a major speech on counterterrorism last Thursday.) Meanwhile, on Friday, Holder made a round of calls to Capitol Hill in an attempt to mollify concerned lawmakers. In calls to Sens. Charles Schumer (D-NY), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Holder said he understood why there had been such an outcry over his department's actions. As one of Holder's advisers put it, the message was: "Look we get it. We understand why this is so controversial, and we're ready to make changes to find the right balance." At the same time, Holder enlisted their help to get a media-shield law passed in Congress. (On Sunday, Schumer announced the formation of a bipartisan "gang of eight" to press for the legislation.)
But sources close to the attorney general says he has been particularly stung by the leak controversy, in large part because his department's—and his own—actions are at odds with his image of himself as a pragmatic lawyer with liberal instincts and a well-honed sense of balance—not unlike the president he serves.Of course, one way to avoid being accused of such things is... you know... not to do them in the first place.
In response, Holder announced that he'd be holding a meeting with news organizations to go over the DOJ's guidelines on getting access to such information. But, he couldn't even do that correctly. After announcing that this meeting would be off-the-record, a variety of news organizations, including the NY Times and the Associated Press announced they would not attend.
Of course, they could just attend and then "leak" the results. What would Holder do in response?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: attorney general, eric holder, off the record, reporters, spying
Companies: associated press, ny times
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Throw a big hissy fit, and then lash out in some sort of incredibly petty way. I can read this guy like a book; I can see his ego from halfway across the country. Just hearing third-hand about him talking about his "image of himself" makes me nauseous. It sounds like a bad fanfiction author describing his self-insert.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PrIson
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Holder seems to think that the monitoring of e-mail and other communications of the Media strikes me as a way to either prevent another Wikileaks style event or they are looking to stifle dissent from their critics in the media.
Not that anyone should be surprised that Obama's government is trying to stifle it's critics (the IRS fiasco with the Tea Party and other groups for example)isn't exactly the first time this sort of thing has happened, and it won't be the last.
The Bush Government smeared CIA agents and many other who were stead fast against the Iraq war campaign and after the war started, and even tried to go after whistle blowers.
Mind you Obama has Bush beat on the punishment of Whistle blowers, in fact the Obama government has prosecuted more whistleblowers that any other U.S. government in history.
Obama and bush weren't the only ones though who want to stifle the press and whistle blowers Nixon too went after the NYT reporter after a story leaked that embarrassed his government.
That being said it would seem there is some kind of a renewed effort to go after and silence critics of the government from a variety of different levels, you see it from the IRS, to the Pentagon, to the White House.
The recent proposals to allow the government to access any kind of communications of reporters, critics, whistle blowers and your average citizen is just the start of a huge collection of following the electronic trail of anyone and sucking up and ciphering whatever data they fell is justified whether your are a suspect of something or just someone who got caught up in the vacuum.
Used to be that government agencies like the NSA were forbidden from spying on Americans domestically, well apparently after William Binney the head of the NSA spying program said that they were spying on Americans that pretty much confirmed what most people already expected.
Everyone I am sure remembers the ATT San Francisco employee who found the plans for that special room at ATT's wire center and how that pipe of traffic was intercepted and routed through the black boxes that were in that room and then to be passed on as usual.
The amount of data they could suck up was quite substantial, and I imagine that capability is dwarfed even more some by todays standards.
The fact that Obama government is trying to give the government unlimited powers to peer into Americans of all walks of society whether their is a belief of a threat or not to America seems to signal what a lot of people have feared, and that is all your private communications are for the government to access, whether there is a need or not.
It seems that the powers that be don't think the constitution matters in it's eyes when it comes to the communications of American citizens, whether you are a suspect in the eyes of the government matters not, but yet you are told not to worry and that it's nothing to be concerned about.
The era of freedom is starting to become a very loose term and one that the government seems to think it at their discretion.
Much like Communist governments have tried to control the government and the people, as such with some of the Muslim governments as well, and even dictator ships, it seems the Obama government as with government by presidents before it
still wants to roll back the freedoms, laws and parts of the constitution it feels are too liberal for the people to have and enjoy.
Tyranny comes in many different ways, and the government rolling back freedoms could be just a start of one version of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
i don't generally have heroes, but he is one amongst all the whistleblowers i greatly admire: manning, whitehead, kiriakou, etc, HEROIC citizens with a conscience...
holder, et al ? fucking zeroes: no respect for the constitution, much less common, proper human behavior and consideration...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://boingboing.net/2013/05/28/media-hypocrisy-in-rosen-case.html
Julian Assange was charged under the same 1917 Espionage Act and all those media outlets shut their mouths and let it happen, now that its happening to them they cry?
LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Then they came for the Gays, and I said nothing, for it was not me.
Then they came for the minorities, and I said nothing, for it was not me.
Then they came for me, and there was no one to speak.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh wait, because he's "one of us".*
*By which I mean one of those seemingly immune from his own watchman. Qui custodes qui custodient? Not this guy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It doesn't matter at this point. The only even rremotely satisfying conclusion will be him retreating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Balance, my ass! Get a search warrant or don't snoop. Easy as that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And thats the problem. He found a judge that approved that malarkey. I think we should equally scrutinize the judge that approved the warrant and demand his retirement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Frak Holder first and then we look at the judge and the people above Holder that certainly granted Holder his current path.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How about you just follow the laws that ALREADY EXIST, that CONGRESS MADE FOR YOU TO FOLLOW?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am remorseful also!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I am remorseful also!
hee hee hee
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
not unlike the president he serves.
The liberal president which imprisons people without charge? Yup, not unlike each other. Neither liberal, nor pragmatic, nor balanced, however.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've been haveing these ethical blackouts
If I found I had been doing things at odds with my image of myself, I would either revise my image of myself, or consult a psychiatrist about my Jekyll-and-Hyde behavior (and maybe consult a lawyer before turning myself in to the police). My first concern would not be stemming the public controversy I had caused.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guidelines
> He and his advisers began exploring ways to reform the Justice Department's internal guidelines
Oh sure, reform the guidelines that aren't being followed, that will help. Maybe consider adding "follow these guidelines" to the guidelines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What surprises me...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's hard to feel sympathy for a bunch of hypocrites
-Aaron Swartz gets prosecuted on bogus CFAA claims? Who cares, until he committed suicide, then briefly mention it, but then who cares after a few days?
-Over a third of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay being held have been cleared of ALL charges for YEARS, and were determined to NEVER have been a threat to the US in the first place, or a terrorist. Yet they're still being held there 3+ years later because their home country doesn't want them/wont' guarantee their security, and US politicians don't want to release a bunch of innocent people accused of terrorism in the US. The mainstream media says "who cares", until several months into a massive hunger strike, then they care briefly for a few days, then they don't care again.
-Government does lots of warrant-less wiretapping on millions of Americans. Mainstream media thinks it's largely not worth reporting, even when lots of stories about innocent people being watched by the government for simply being or looking like Muslims come out. Mainstream media gets wire tapped and their emails read, and suddenly Mainstream media thinks this is a HUGE problem, just not when it happens to regular Americans, ONLY when it happens to them.
The Justice Department and prosecutors and law enforcement doing all this stuff aren't great people either. But the Media hardly has a leg to stand on here at claiming to be completely innocent when they let the government get away with violating everyone else's rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's hard to feel sympathy for a bunch of hypocrites
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's hard to feel sympathy for a bunch of hypocrites
Gee, I think I'm seeing a pattern here. For years, you've allowed your politicos and LEOs to run roughshod over your constitutional rights *for security* reasons, and you now think it's horrifying that they're even doing it to your Fourth Estate.
So when does mainstreet USA grow a backbone and live up to all the highfalutin' talk the USA was founded upon? You guys can crow and kvetch all you want, but until I see *a lot* more of you MEANINGFULLY standing up against this crap, you'll remain little more than noise from the peanut gallery, and we'll all continue being dragged down into hell with you.
You guys can't even keep Hollywood in line, and that's just money problems. Does your Declaration of Independence still actually mean anything to any of you?
The USA was once a beacon of freedom to the world. Recently, you've become the exact opposite of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How awesome?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How awesome?
Too Big To Jail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Slow to wake up
And before I get dumped on, yes I scan Drudge regularly and read many of the stories linked but I spend more time in the comments. I would suggest some of you look at those comments and you'll see just how much resentment is building...it's not pretty and is a bit scary at times.
All that said, I wasn't much different than most people. I graduated as a Liberal but will retire as a Conservative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Slow to wake up
Pointing out issues does not necessarily cause ad hom attacks, perhaps it was the way in which you engaged in "factual conversation".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Slow to wake up
I suspect that, as with most people who go down the path you're on, you once felt there should be some equality, fairness, and balance to the world. Now that you've gone out and grabbed yourself a bigger than average piece of the pie (which, I'm sure you'll claim you "earned" with your exceptional hard work and intelligence) you want to keep it for yourself and your cronies.
Give me a break with that shit. You didn't grow "older and wiser" - you sold out. Period.
All that said, I do agree that Obama, his administration, et al are gigantic shitbags. But that has nothing to do with them being liberal. In fact, the reason I despise them so is that they're neo-cons disguising themselves as liberals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Slow to wake up
Damned straight I earned what I have. And to see how much is given away to undeserving people pisses me off.
Last time I looked Obama didn't do a damn thing for me. I built this and I'm sure anyone else here that has their own business can appreciate what I'm saying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Slow to wake up
Really who are this undeserving people you are talking about? I have seen a few but compared to the corporate tax breaks, manipulation of their books, overseas tax shelters and hundred of million of dollars spent bribing(err Lobbying)easily dwarfs many times over these few undeserving people you might be talking about. Wake up and stop inhaling all the t-shirt ink buddy. Apple has over 100 billion dollars hidden overseas that just one corporation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Slow to wake up
/sarcasm
Read back over your post. All I hear is, "Me! Me! Me! Mine! Mine! Mine! Damn freeloaders! Get off my lawn."
There once was a time you gave a fuck about the other humans around you and not just yourself. That time is clearly past.
Damn right you sold out.
Oh, and thank you so much for illustrating my point. ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Slow to wake up
Tell me again about how much of a hard worker you are and what you deserve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Slow to wake up
Did you build the roads to your home? Did you build the cars that your customer drives on? Did you weave the material that your shirts are made out of? Did you build your own equipment? Did you design the circuit boards?
That's what Obama meant when he said "you didn't build that". There's a whole infrastructure in America that your business depends upon, and your business could not exist without this infrastructure, and no, you did not build that infrastructure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Slow to wake up
Had a political science professor (real interesting guy - a card carrying Communist with his very own FBI Red File) once who described the transition from liberalism to conservatism as a person ages not from the person or ideas changing, but that the political scale is constantly moving from left to right. A liberal idea moves towards an conservative idea over time. What is a liberal idea today will be a conservative idea 20 or 30 years from now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Slow to wake up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Slow to wake up
You're saying politics in the US is getting more and more liberal? So the stuff conservatives are saying now is what liberals were saying 30 years ago? That doesn't ring true to me, it feels more like the opposite. Only if you're talking about social tolerance sort of issues could I see the trend towards liberalism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Slow to wake up
I don't think it's true for every issue, per se. But there is some evidence of this. Take gay marriage for example. 20 years ago that was a extremely left wing liberal idea. Now it's becoming mainstream and eventually it will be a conservative idea to future generations.
I also think that that lines between liberalism and conservatism has been extremely blurred by our two-party political system these days. Although they tend to label themselves one or the other, I really don't think that either is truly one or the other any more and using them as a yardstick isn't really accurate.
That political science class I took was almost 30 years ago and I'm still not really sure how true the sliding scale theory really is, but it was something that stuck with me to this day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Slow to wake up
Yeah as I said for such issues, I can definitely see that. Gay marriage, equality of the sexes and races, and so on. Otherwise though I'm not convinced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Slow to wake up
But did you do the same when the prior administration was engaging in evil?
The problem isn't liberal vs conservative. That's the distraction intended to keep us divided and fighting over irrelevancies.
No party or ideology has the high ground here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Big Brother/Big Sis Disclaimer:
This is a personal ideation. It is in no way a call to such action, by myself or others......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Balance?
Translation: Illegal actions by the ruling elite are not the issue here. Doing them to the extent that those ruled start to wake up is where we have to be more careful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Congress
Unless Congress is willing to fulfill its obligations, we have to just rely on presidents and their administrations following the letter and spirit of the law on a pinkie-swear. And they usually follow the law, unless it's easier not to. Just like you and I would do: if there were no chance of getting caught speeding through a school zone, we'd usually slow down almost to the speed limit unless it was really important and we were late to work or something, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Congress
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My favorite part
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real victim here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have one word for this:
Delusional
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Just like John Steele, only more dangerous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where's the outrage for the plebes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]