The most transparent administration ever didn’t do itself any favors at the peak of the Benghazi scandal by hand-selecting a number of journalists for a “deep background” meeting with Press Secretary Jay Carney. Now, with Attorney General Eric Holder allegedly investigating himself for seizing the phone records of AP reporters and the private emails of Fox News’ James Rosen, some Washington, D.C., news bureau chiefs are being summoned to an off-the-record briefing.
The New York Times has reportedly sent its regrets, not wishing to further encourage the administration’s behind-closed-doors brand of transparency.
Jill Abramson says NY Times "will not be attending the session at DOJ," citing off the record ground rules.
— Michael Calderone (@mlcalderone) May 29, 2013
Jill Abramson: "It isn’t appropriate for us to attend an off the record meeting with the attorney general."
— Michael Calderone (@mlcalderone) May 29, 2013
DNC Communications Director Brad Woodhouse thinks it’s the Times’ loss if it refuses this generous offer.
POTUS asked AG to review how leak investigations are done but some in the media refuse to meet with him. Kind of forfeits your right gripe.
— Brad Woodhouse (@woodhouseb) May 29, 2013
Well, @woodhouseb took things in an interesting direction just now.
— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner) May 29, 2013
Oh yes, yes he did.
@woodhouseb Wait, the very people the AG bugged and followed and whose privacy was invaded refuse to meet w/ him? #Shocked
— Bob ن (@BobHicks_) May 29, 2013
.@woodhouseb Refuse to meet with him on an OFF THE RECORD basis on topic about DOJ prosecuting leakers — and subpoenaing journalists!
— Robert A George (@RobGeorge) May 29, 2013
https://twitter.com/justinmclachlan/status/339857053407383552
I. Love. This. http://t.co/5ruUDfClsy if refuse to meet my mugger, does that mean I can't "gripe" about the mugging?
— Jonah Goldberg (@JonahDispatch) May 29, 2013
@woodhouseb Is this part of the "most transparent administration ever"?? Off record convos w/ journos after a massive intrusion?
— Frunkis (@navyvetpc6) May 29, 2013
https://twitter.com/redsteeze/status/339859950090199041
@woodhouseb So you forfeit your right to complain about the AG spying on you if you refuse to meet with him secretly? That's America now?
— Sunny McSunnyface (@sunnyright) May 29, 2013
https://twitter.com/Matthops82/status/339858242161225728
Unique view of 1st amendment
RT @JohnEkdahl:
Not attending off-the-record mtg w Holder “forfeits right to gripe”, according to @woodhouseb— johnny dollar (@johnnydollar01) May 29, 2013
"Off the record" is the new "transparency" according to @woodhouseb
— Pouncing Coder Brad (@bradcundiff) May 29, 2013
https://twitter.com/J_Kane/status/339858610970558464
https://twitter.com/ChrisBarnhart/status/339857647694127105
New definition of democracy from @woodhouseb: If you don't attend off-the-record briefings from Holder/Carney you can't question them- ever.
— Josh Jordan (@NumbersMuncher) May 29, 2013
.@woodhouseb 1) In America, the media's right to question those in power is never forfeit or subject to your conditions.
— (((AG))) (@AGHamilton29) May 29, 2013
.@woodhouseb 2) not only does Holder investigate himself, but then he gets to selectively feed the media his side off-the-record? No Thanks.
— (((AG))) (@AGHamilton29) May 29, 2013
@woodhouseb The First Amendment isn't really that hard of concept.
— Mallamutt, RINO President For Life (@Mallamutt) May 29, 2013
https://twitter.com/hboulware/status/339861438883573760
@woodhouseb Jesus, Brad.
— Dylan Byers (@DylanByers) May 29, 2013
I wish you guys would give @woodhouseb a break. A-He's obviously not very bright and B- Defending most corrupt admin in decades ain't easy
— Drew McCoy (@_Drew_McCoy_) May 29, 2013
Join the conversation as a VIP Member