being an fbi director is a big job, it s a hard job. when i know you re in those positions, you re supposed to follow the rules, follow the law, follow department of justice practices and if you do that, you ll be subject to criticism, but you know what suck it up and take the heat. final thought, i went to bed last night thinking that this was a shoddy and poorly drafted letter. i said to myself, what exactly is he trying to communicate. i have a different impression today. my impression today is one of him trying to balance these responsibilities that he faces, feeling an obligation to say something but yet not wanting to put his thumb on the scale and suggest that there s criminality here when he really doesn t know what he s got. final word is yours. yeah. the problem is by sending this letter he did put his thumb on the scale. we ve seen reporting in new york this morning from jane that he defied the wishes of the attorney general who wanted him to follow standard practice and
highly unlikely they re going to face a lawsuit in this case, may mainly as we know in defamation cases truth is a defense. however, even though we can show they acted negligently, meaning rolling stone here possibly, the question i reckless and that is the threshold that they may not be able to meet. plus we still haven t this is shoddy journalism, but we don t know if it s wrong journalism. that s the other problem is there s a difference between shoddy, not checking your facts, and having it right but doing it in such a poor way. jackie may very well have been telling the truth in the material situation here. katie, there s a big difference between journalism and the law, isn t there? to be a journalist, you just say i m a journalist. in law, we go to school, we take courses and evidence, we even take tests about this stuff. rolling stone and journalists just say we re journalists and can just put it out.
highly unlikely they re going to face a lawsuit in this case, may mainly as we know in defamation cases truth is a defense. however, even though we can show they acted negligently, meaning rolling stone here possibly, the question is was it reckless and that is the threshold that they may not be able to meet. plus we still haven t this is shoddy journalism, but we don t know if it s wrong journalism. that s the other problem is there s a difference between shoddy, not checking your facts, and having it right but doing it in such a poor way. jackie may very well have been telling the truth in the material situation here. katie, there s a big difference between journalism and the law, isn t there? to be a journalist, you just say i m a journalist. in law, we go to school, we take courses and evidence, we even take tests about this stuff. rolling stone and journalists just say we re journalists and can just put it out.
so they it would be bad story for national security. there is no reason in this case, as least i can tell. if they brought them in and this is why we did it to rosen but i don t get it. greg: what about this democratic party spokesman the media has no right to gripe if they don t meet holder off the record. andrea: very stupid. they consider government to be, media to be a tool of the government. she showed his hand by saying king holder has summoned you to the white house. if you do not come, you can t gripe. who behaves like this? i think that they are showing the mentality in the white house. this is the second shoddy, very poorly executed media strategy by the white house. the first was to say our media shield lay arguments law that will protect you from me, now he is going to have a meeting to talk
so they it would be bad story for national security. there is no reason in this case, as least i can tell. if they brought them in and this is why we did it to rosen but i don t get it. greg: what about this democratic party spokesman the media has no right to gripe if they don t meet holder off the record. andrea: very stupid. they consider government to be, media to be a tool of the government. she showed his hand by saying king holder has summoned you to the white house. if you do not come, you can t gripe. who behaves like this? i think that they are showing the mentality in the white house. this is the second shoddy, very poorly executed media strategy by the white house. the first was to say our media shield lay arguments law that will protect you from me, now he is going to have a meeting to talk about guidelines to protect