5 ms·

It's common practice for anyone called to testify before congress to request a closed session if they believe their testimony will violate their oath of secrecy

It's common practice for anyone called to testify before congress to request a closed session if they believe their testimony will violate their oath of secrecy. Clapper did not. Instead he testified before open congress and lied, which was unnecessary, unless he was guilty of the charges in question -- knowingly directing NSA staff to spy on Americans, which the NSA's charter explicitly disallows. Therefore Clapper deliberately misled authorities in order to escape prosecution for a crime. That is the very definition of perjury.

cmurf 9y ago
Go kick rocks. You've contributed zero new information, you haven't progressed your argument beyond pettiness. And the idea someone can deliberately mislead authorities to escape prosecution is just stupid: you're insisting these are keystone cops if they can be so easily deliberately mislead, and yet you see through it. The hubris required to state what you've stated. You are way, way dumber than you think you are. Considering no one on the committee, in DOJ, nor the president at the time, considers it perjury - note that Wyden himself doesn't consider it perjury he considers it a lie to the American people, not a lie to the committee, and very clearly lays this problem of the surveillance state at the feet of many (on that committee including those who came before him who aren't even in office anymore) rather than being ignorant trying to pin this on one person. If you want to be serious, get serious, stop being silly. Do better, if you can. You have not bothered to think through how such a perjury trial, involving the discussion of classified programs and actions, witnesses who have taken oaths not to discuss it - could not be public. Had you bothered, you wouldn't say stupid things suggesting how a perjury trial would somehow gain us some introspection into our absurd surveillance state and hold it accountable, rather than making it far worse. It's so completely idiotic that you'd focus on one person and one event instead of the elephant in the room, which is a massively dysfunctional system over decades of far worse lies and failures, it almost qualifies as trolling, except it's too stupid even for that.
- dang 9y ago
  This degree of incivility is a bannable offence on Hacker News regardless of how wrong someone else is. Please don't do this again. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - cmurf 9y ago
    It is uncivil to try to gaslight one person for the sins of society, and I would consider it unethical to not call someone out for having done so.

cmurf 9y ago

Go kick rocks. You've contributed zero new information, you haven't progressed your argument beyond pettiness. And the idea someone can deliberately mislead authorities to escape prosecution is just stupid: you're insisting these are keystone cops if they can be so easily deliberately mislead, and yet you see through it. The hubris required to state what you've stated. You are way, way dumber than you think you are. Considering no one on the committee, in DOJ, nor the president at the time, considers it perjury - note that Wyden himself doesn't consider it perjury he considers it a lie to the American people, not a lie to the committee, and very clearly lays this problem of the surveillance state at the feet of many (on that committee including those who came before him who aren't even in office anymore) rather than being ignorant trying to pin this on one person. If you want to be serious, get serious, stop being silly. Do better, if you can. You have not bothered to think through how such a perjury trial, involving the discussion of classified programs and actions, witnesses who have taken oaths not to discuss it - could not be public. Had you bothered, you wouldn't say stupid things suggesting how a perjury trial would somehow gain us some introspection into our absurd surveillance state and hold it accountable, rather than making it far worse. It's so completely idiotic that you'd focus on one person and one event instead of the elephant in the room, which is a massively dysfunctional system over decades of far worse lies and failures, it almost qualifies as trolling, except it's too stupid even for that.

dang 9y ago
This degree of incivility is a bannable offence on Hacker News regardless of how wrong someone else is. Please don't do this again. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- cmurf 9y ago
  It is uncivil to try to gaslight one person for the sins of society, and I would consider it unethical to not call someone out for having done so.