US Attorney General Eric Holder, who is currently under investigation for secretly getting the thousands and thousands of phone records of journalists, as well as for likely perjuring himself before Congress, wanted to tell his side of the story to journalists. So he offered to media outlets to have a meeting with them to explain things. He was so confident and open about what he wanted to tell them and what they would ask that he refused to have it as an "on the record" discussion. Whatever happened to that "most transparent administration ever"?
Reportedly what he told them in that meeting is that he promised to not spy on them anymore. Which means he admitted that he had been spying on them, which is a 1st Amendment violation. But now he wants people to believe that they won't spy on journalists anymore after not telling them they were spying on them in the first place in a meeting where they wouldn't go on record with what they were saying? How exactly is that a statement we can believe or trust in any way?
No thanks.