‘Blood on Your Hands’: Former NYT Editor Blows the Whistle On How Obama Really Handles The Media

‘Blood on Your Hands’: Former NYT Editor Blows the Whistle On How Obama Really Handles The Media

‘Blood on Your Hands’: Former NYT Editor Blows the Whistle On How Obama Really Handles The Media

4,320Shares By Justen Charters 1 hour ago

In January of 2014, former New York Times Executive Editor Jill Abramson described the Obama administration as “the most secretive White House she’s ever dealt with.”

Then, during a speech Wednesday at the Chautauqua Institution, Abramson revealed to the audience even more insider information on how Obama officials handle the media, according to Newsbusters.

“I have heard Obama officials say more than once, ‘You will have blood on your hands if you publish this story,”

It’s a question of balancing competing interests, the government’s claims versus the public’s right to know. “When someone says, ‘You’ll have blood on your hands,’ you pause and take it very seriously,”

Next, Abramson explained how her views shifted after 9/11. Because President Bush’s former Press Secretary Ari Fleischer requested that the NY Times and other major media outlets not publish sources or methods the intelligence community was using after the attacks took place. Her publication followed the order for a “few years.” However, they eventually went against it by running a story about warrantless wiretapping of suspected terrorist contacts.

Abramson then pointed out a big difference between President Bush and President Obama. She said Bush never launched any investigations after they leaked the story, but that Obama  has launched eight criminal investigations into whistleblowers’ actions.

In addition, Abramson exposed the Obama Administration for their secret subpoenaing of phone and email records of reporters at Fox News and the Associated Press.

As far the origin of the “blood on your hands” remark, according to Abramson, one of the individuals she heard it from was Obama’s Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. Abramson shared an experience in which Clapper argued with her over the phone about a potential story.

Clapper claimed the story could hinder efforts to stop a terrorist plot and told Abramson she would have “blood on her hands” if she published it. Abramson responded by agreeing to Clapper’s request.

For one reason or another, telling someone that publishing a story would cause them to have blood on their hands seems as logical as prosecuting a gun for murder. And, it’s pretty telling when an influential liberal like Abramson helps put to rest Obama’s bogus claim that he would have “the most transparent administration ever.”