12 ms·

Absolutely! I especially loved this part: >> "His leaks revealed that James Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, lied to Congress when testifyin

by r0h1n 13y ago

Absolutely! I especially loved this part: >> "His leaks revealed that James Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, lied to Congress when testifying in March that the N.S.A. was not collecting data on millions of Americans. (There has been no discussion of punishment for that lie.)"

sbt 13y ago
As a foreigner, this is probably the most astounding. After all the commotion in the 90s with Bill Clinton lying about the Monica Lewinsky affair, the double standard is striking. From the outside it seems as if Clapper is simply above the law.
- rbanffy 13y ago
  It's sad, but not surprising. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair
- dmoo 13y ago
  Also Mr Clapper probably has the goods on just about anybody who might want to bring charges.
  - freerobby 13y ago
    If this is true, it's a shame those in charge didn't learn the lesson from J. Edgar Hoover.
- er35826 13y ago
  Clapper was also in the unfortunate position of being legally required to lie: Refusing the respond, or deferring his response to a closed session, would have been evidence enough that such a program existed. Anything other than a simple, direct denial would have been 'leaking' information about the possibility of such a program existing, which is expressly against the law as well.
  - sbt 13y ago
    Ok, but then my follow up question would be: why put him in front of congress to testify in the first place? Did congress not understand that he was legally required to lie to them?
    - freerobby 13y ago
      He wasn't legally required to lie to them.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > Ok, but then my follow up question would be: why put him in front of congress to testify in the first place? Did congress not understand that he was legally required to lie to them? I think Congress would think that he is legally required to answer them truthfully, not to lie, and would be appalled at the suggestion that anyone could be legally required to testify falsely to them.
  - freerobby 13y ago
    Source please? I've never seen a legal opinion that declining to answer something constitutes a "leak." Ron Wyden also gave him multiple outs and heads ups before his testimony if he wanted to get out of it.
  - Zigurd 13y ago
    "I cannot confirm or deny" has served well enough in thousands of other cases. "Least untruthful" is a standard we should not allow to be established.
  - MichaelSalib 13y ago
    Is this true? I thought Clapper knew about the questions in advance, which means he could have easily asked committee staff to only ask those questions in closed session. Congress is usually very deferential about those sorts of issues.
  - trunnell 13y ago
    Hmm, I think that confuses the point. The NSA programs are either constitutional or not. Wyden was essentially asking, Is this program constitutional? Does it collect data on US persons without a warrant? Clapper swore an oath to the Constitution, so he should always be able to answer that question truthfully. "Yes, this program is constitutional. No, it doesn't collect data on US persons." The fact that he couldn't say that is the issue. Secrecy is not some magic sauce that makes a program constitutional. Secrecy doesn't free a program from legal scrutiny.
- Shivetya 13y ago
  Many Administration officials have been similarly caught in lies, either outright or by omission. With a complicit press and with most protest groups silenced who is to bring up charges? Let alone far too many Republicans think that in this case the NSA needs defending.
- tripzilch 13y ago
  There's a second flat-out lie, the bit where Obama claimed his executive order would have protected Snowden. There's also the part where Obama tells him that the "avenues available for somebody whose conscience was stirred and thought that they needed to question government actions[0]" are talking about it with his superiors. Problem with that is, as soon as Obama accepts that these government actions were in fact wrong or unlawful (and at least a couple of them very plainly are), he also has to accept that actions should be taken to address this situation. Then either Obama is very very stupid because he believes that talking to superiors about abuses of this scale would be met with anything but utter silence, or he is in fact playing dumb and lying through his teeth because he doesn't actually want any action to be taken. [0] the belittling, condescending tone of this phrase makes me throw up a little. But that's been the US government's attitude during this whole episode "tut tut, don't you worry your pretty little heads about this". More like an elitist aristocracy.
swalsh 13y ago
He also has a job, at a minimum you'd expect some kind of token punishment. not that it has any value... ever, but if there was a whitehouse.com petition, i'd sign it.
- nisse72 13y ago
  You mean, like this one? https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/prosecute-director-national-intelligence-james-clapper-lying-congress/HNfsgGlm https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/prosecute-director...
  - adamsrog 13y ago
    >The petition you are trying to access has expired, because it failed to meet the signature threshold.
  - cklaus 13y ago
    How did this petition expire so fast?
Tloewald 13y ago
I'm glad someone has pointed this out. Perjury is considered a serious crime (remember that Martha Stewart was hounded for simply lying to a Federal agent), and there is no more serious form of perjury than lying before congress.

by r0h1n 13y ago

sbt 13y ago

As a foreigner, this is probably the most astounding. After all the commotion in the 90s with Bill Clinton lying about the Monica Lewinsky affair, the double standard is striking. From the outside it seems as if Clapper is simply above the law.

rbanffy 13y ago
It's sad, but not surprising. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair
dmoo 13y ago
Also Mr Clapper probably has the goods on just about anybody who might want to bring charges.
- freerobby 13y ago
  If this is true, it's a shame those in charge didn't learn the lesson from J. Edgar Hoover.
er35826 13y ago
Clapper was also in the unfortunate position of being legally required to lie: Refusing the respond, or deferring his response to a closed session, would have been evidence enough that such a program existed. Anything other than a simple, direct denial would have been 'leaking' information about the possibility of such a program existing, which is expressly against the law as well.
- sbt 13y ago
  Ok, but then my follow up question would be: why put him in front of congress to testify in the first place? Did congress not understand that he was legally required to lie to them?
  - freerobby 13y ago
    He wasn't legally required to lie to them.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Ok, but then my follow up question would be: why put him in front of congress to testify in the first place? Did congress not understand that he was legally required to lie to them? I think Congress would think that he is legally required to answer them truthfully, not to lie, and would be appalled at the suggestion that anyone could be legally required to testify falsely to them.
- freerobby 13y ago
  Source please? I've never seen a legal opinion that declining to answer something constitutes a "leak." Ron Wyden also gave him multiple outs and heads ups before his testimony if he wanted to get out of it.
- Zigurd 13y ago
  "I cannot confirm or deny" has served well enough in thousands of other cases. "Least untruthful" is a standard we should not allow to be established.
- MichaelSalib 13y ago
  Is this true? I thought Clapper knew about the questions in advance, which means he could have easily asked committee staff to only ask those questions in closed session. Congress is usually very deferential about those sorts of issues.
- trunnell 13y ago
  Hmm, I think that confuses the point. The NSA programs are either constitutional or not. Wyden was essentially asking, Is this program constitutional? Does it collect data on US persons without a warrant? Clapper swore an oath to the Constitution, so he should always be able to answer that question truthfully. "Yes, this program is constitutional. No, it doesn't collect data on US persons." The fact that he couldn't say that is the issue. Secrecy is not some magic sauce that makes a program constitutional. Secrecy doesn't free a program from legal scrutiny.
Shivetya 13y ago
Many Administration officials have been similarly caught in lies, either outright or by omission. With a complicit press and with most protest groups silenced who is to bring up charges? Let alone far too many Republicans think that in this case the NSA needs defending.
tripzilch 13y ago
There's a second flat-out lie, the bit where Obama claimed his executive order would have protected Snowden. There's also the part where Obama tells him that the "avenues available for somebody whose conscience was stirred and thought that they needed to question government actions[0]" are talking about it with his superiors. Problem with that is, as soon as Obama accepts that these government actions were in fact wrong or unlawful (and at least a couple of them very plainly are), he also has to accept that actions should be taken to address this situation. Then either Obama is very very stupid because he believes that talking to superiors about abuses of this scale would be met with anything but utter silence, or he is in fact playing dumb and lying through his teeth because he doesn't actually want any action to be taken. [0] the belittling, condescending tone of this phrase makes me throw up a little. But that's been the US government's attitude during this whole episode "tut tut, don't you worry your pretty little heads about this". More like an elitist aristocracy.

swalsh 13y ago

He also has a job, at a minimum you'd expect some kind of token punishment. not that it has any value... ever, but if there was a whitehouse.com petition, i'd sign it.

nisse72 13y ago
You mean, like this one? https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/prosecute-director-national-intelligence-james-clapper-lying-congress/HNfsgGlm https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/prosecute-director...
- adamsrog 13y ago
  >The petition you are trying to access has expired, because it failed to meet the signature threshold.
- cklaus 13y ago
  How did this petition expire so fast?

Tloewald 13y ago

I'm glad someone has pointed this out. Perjury is considered a serious crime (remember that Martha Stewart was hounded for simply lying to a Federal agent), and there is no more serious form of perjury than lying before congress.