Most of the major news media networks are declining Eric Holder's invitation to meet off the record over the media communication warrants and subpoenas carried out by Holder's Justice Department. ABC apparently, will accept the condition and attend.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/30/holder-runs-into-roadblocks-on-off-record-meetings-on-scandals/
Holder apparently thinks he can charm and cajole most of the media, which heretofore had been wholly supportive of the administration. The question is, what does Holder have to hide that he wants it off the record?
1 comment:
My basic initial question would have to be "In this particular instance, of what possible benefit to the public is an off-the-record meeting with Holder??" None that I can see. Good on the media outlets (even the "liberal" ones) who have, at least so far, declined to participate, and a pox on those who did/will. A lot of sycophants out there, occasionally on either side of the aisle.
Relative to Holder's possible perjury in this matter to date, a quote from the article: A Justice Department official on Thursday defended the attorney general's testimony, calling it "accurate and consistent with the facts" of the case. "At no time during the leak case ... before or after the FBI sought the search warrant, have prosecutors sought approval to bring criminal charges against the reporter," the official said.
This statement may be true as far as it goes, but that is not very far at all. Holder said significantly more than that no prosecutions had been sought. His testimony was/is fairly Clintonesque, and its thrust was to say that he knew nothing about, and essentially did not participate in, the acquisition of the records. Blatant lies under oath, which constitute perjury (only a "bit', however, according to Siarlys, or was that about Lerner??) and/or a similar but separate felony under Title 21, United States Code, Section 1001.
Post a Comment