From yesterday's properly lop-sided meeting between the press and the powers that be--WaPo, the WSJ, Politico, New Yorker and the NY Daily News met with the attorney general, the deputy attorney general, the chief of staff to the attorney general, the deputy chief of staff and counsel to the attorney general, the chief of staff to the deputy attorney general, the principal associate deputy attorney general, the deputy assistant attorney general, the chief of the Policy and Statutory Enforcement Unit, and the acting director, Office of Public Affairs--it is reported that
Holder ... indicated that the decision to label Fox News reporter James Rosen as an "aider and abettor" in a criminal investigation wasn’t necessary.
Thank you.
Then came rumors of a mission impossible:
[T]he Attorney General sought to assure the journalists that he and the DOJ were trying to seek a balance between the demands of national security and the free flow of information.
Can't be done. "Free flow" means free flow, and "balance" means external or even prior restraint, which didn't go down too well with the Supreme Court in NY Times v. U.S., the Pentagon Papers case. Thus, short of amending the Bill of Rights, true balance means unconstitutional.