Breitbart doesn't even know what “blackmail” means

More unintentional comedy, courtesy of Breitbart and Big Government.

As CF noted, Breitbart's defending himself against the claim by Columbia Journalism Review that he's “blackmailing” Attorney General Eric Holder. This, after Breitbart went on Fox News last week and demanded that the DOJ launch an ACORN investigation or that Breitbart would reveal more undercover videos during next year's election season.

Here's Breitbart defending his look-at-me, investigate-or-else charade [emphasis added]:

And now to address the fever-swamp's notion that what I said on “Hannity” last night was “blackmail.” Blackmail occurs when one party threatens to reveal an unsavory piece of information about another party, and demands money in exchange for silence.

There's no way Breitbart is trying to blackmail Holder, because Breitbart isn't demanding money, right? Laugh along at Breitbart's ignorance as you read the definition of “blackmail”:

1. (Law) to exact or attempt to exact (money or anything of value) from (a person) by threats or intimidation; extort
2. to attempt to influence the actions of (a person), esp by unfair pressure or threats
Blackmail has been defined in the broad sense to mean “compelling someone to act against their will or gaining or attempting to gain something of value.” Courts vary on interpreting what “something of value” includes, but it is not necessarily a money payment in all cases.
Does blackmail only involve the demand of money? No. Does it involve unfair pressure or threats? Yes. But apparently Breitbart isn't familiar with the facts.
Trust us, this is not an unusual occurrence.
UPDATED: Laugh along with his Breitbart passage, as well:
[CJR] has been sitting it out on the sidelines, waiting - rooting - for Hannah Giles, James O'Keefe and me to make a mistake.
Believe me, nobody has to “root” for Breitbart to make a mistake. He does that all by himself. Huge, embarrassing ones, too.