Yesterday's thread also had apologists offering lines similar to the one Ambinder got from one of his "sources":

"If you decide today precipitously to waive this privilege, you can't get it back. If you decide to assert it, you can always retract it in the future"

In fact, one commenter yesterday, who even claimed litigation experience, said that this assertion of the Bush claim was a "coded" signal to the judicial panel that the Obama administration secretly holds the opposite position. What utter nonsense.

The problem inherent in this approach is that it forces the government to argue both sides of the question of using state secrets to throw cases out before any consideration of individual secret facts. The judges on the panel, with their leading questions, were offering the government what seems to me to be the one and only opportunity to change the government's position, by attributing it to the change in administrations. By keeping the Bush position and claiming it as theirs, the Obama DOJ now will lose significant credibility if it changes its position at a later time.

How can changing sides on a position during the litigation of a case ever be seen as a winning strategy? The Obama DOJ had a single credible chance to do that and threw it out the window. If they do it at a later date in this (or any other) case, their argument will lose all force.

What struck me about the clip is that O'Reilly seemed to think that he had a "scoop". He was wanting to get all worked up about Obama having a list of reporters to be called on and asked Fleischer to confirm for him that Bush never did that and always came in a took questions from anyone. Pretty severe lack of awareness...

From Media Matters (h/t Blue Texan at FDL):

During the February 10 edition of Fox News' Happening Now, co-host Jon Scott claimed that "the Senate is expected to pass the $838 billion stimulus plan -- its version of it, anyway. We thought we'd take a look back at the bill, how it was born, and how it grew, and grew, and grew." In tracking how and when the bill purportedly "grew," Scott referenced seven dates, as on-screen graphics cited various news sources from those time periods. However, all of the sources and cost figures Scott cited, as well as the accompanying on-screen text, were also contained in a February 10 press release issued by the Senate Republican Communications Center. One on-screen graphic during the segment even repeated a typo from the GOP document, further confirming that Scott was simply reading from a Republican press release. The Fox News graphic and the GOP press release both claimed that a Wall Street Journal report that the stimulus package could reach "$775 billion over two years" was published on December 19, 2009.

Note to Fox: I know you guys are very impressed with your own abilities and those of the RNC, but claiming that you can quote from an article that won't be written for another seven months yet is a bit cheeky.

the calculated kabuki press conference, stage-managed by the White House employing the nation's most elite reporters as high-profile extras

When we are talking about the White House press corps, how in the world can the words "most elite" ever modify "reporter"?

Maybe if you insert "formerly" before "most" the sentence could be saved...

Jane Hamsher lives in Washington. Has she applied for a White House credential? I'd love to see her breaking "the grid" apart.

The same legislation that Democrats claimed to support last year, to restrict the use of the State Secrets privilege, should be enacted to prevent its ongoing abuse.

At this point, is there reason to believe Obama would sign the bill? Given the DOJ position yesterday, I think it's more likely he would veto it.

What a glutton for punishment you are. Did you read the post? If you did, how could you say this:

None of us can really know anything about why the secrets act is being invoked because only the judge can review the classified information, and all of you are making assumptions based on Glenn's opinion.

One of the major points we're discussing today is how the DOJ's use of state secrets in this particular case was to dismiss the case before the judge sees anything.

Do try to keep up.

Simply put, his instructions were to dance and buy time. When all you are willing to say to a judge is "that is the position," you are sending a clear (if coded) message to the court that "the position" is subject to change.

If it's not too much trouble, could you please tell me where I can get a new secret decoder ring? I seem to have misplaced the one I got in a box of Cracker Jack in 1967.

That's the number for the staff at the Senate Judiciary Committee. They just heard from me, asking for a hearing where they ask Eric Holder to justify yesterday's position. Maybe a few hundred more phone calls to them will help them to decide that a hearing would be good...

I love your re-definition of POTUS. I offer in return the new acronym, OSOBO:

Our
Sold
Out
Barack
Obama

We backed him. He sold us out. In less than a month.

I've sent the email to him. I left a blistering message on the message line (with a real person answering, no less).

Maybe it's time to make a push with Pat Leahy's office. As Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee and as a co-sponsor of the previous legislative attempt to reign in state secrets, maybe we can get him to make a quick call for a hearing where Holder has to step up and explain this monstrously bad decision.