4 ms·

Either way Clapper would be breaking the law. In this case was placed between the choice of breaking his SF-182 NDA (which actually does have criminal implicati

by mpyne 13y ago

Either way Clapper would be breaking the law. In this case was placed between the choice of breaking his SF-182 NDA (which actually does have criminal implications... just ask Snowden) or lying to Congress in response to a question that the Congressman asking knew the answer to, but didn't want to take the risk of putting into the record himself. An interesting take on the matter is at http://joelbrenner.com/clapper-and-wyden-scenes-from-a-sandbagging/ http://joelbrenner.com/clapper-and-wyden-scenes-from-a-sandb...

dllthomas 13y ago
The questions were pre-approved. He could have objected to it beforehand, in private.
- mpyne 13y ago
  That's immaterial though. The questioner knew the answer was classified, so it's not as if that was a surprise, because the questioner was a member of the Select Committee on Intelligence. In other words, he wasn't asking for his own edification, he was asking in order to force Clapper to either lie or break his oath by divulging the secret. Even saying "I can't answer that" would be an admission for the same exact reason hacktivists give a shit about warrant canaries. But whether Clapper objected or not, Sen. Feinstein apparently got an inkling the question would be asked, as she made clear at the start of the session that there would be a closed hearing immediately afterward for questions that couldn't be discussed in an open forum. And since Wyden and Udall both knew the actual answer, if they were so convinced the answer should be made public then either could have simply put it in the Senate record thanks to their Constitutional privilege and taken the risk that would come with that. Instead the risk was shifted entirely onto the public servant who didn't have Constitutional immunity from prosecution.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    It's entirely material as to whether it was forced. Clapper knowingly permitted himself to be in a situation where his only options were to break one of two laws. He can't then use that as an excuse. He chose to break one of those laws when he chose (when reviewing the questions) that he was going to permit the question, and he's plainly guilty of breaking the law. "And since Wyden and Udall both knew the actual answer, if they were so convinced the answer should be made public then either could have simply put it in the Senate record thanks to their Constitutional privilege and taken the risk that would come with that." Agreed, and I would think more highly of them if they had. I'm not sure what the game was. That still does not change the fact that Clapper is guilty, though.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      > Clapper knowingly permitted himself to be in a situation where his only options were to break one of two laws. That makes no sense whatsoever. One does not simply refuse to show up to testify to Congress! I mean, if you want to talk about things which are disastrous for a democracy, having the Executive routinely ignore their responsibility to testify on their actions to the Legislature would be right up near the top of the list! > That still does not change the fact that Clapper is guilty, though. Of course not, that was the whole idea. If he had told the truth you'd be able to rightly say "That still does not change the fact that Clapper violated his oath, though". There's a reason that he isn't being charged with anything, unlike Helms before him.
      - dllthomas 13y ago
        "That makes no sense whatsoever. One does not simply refuse to show up to testify to Congress! I mean, if you want to talk about things which are disastrous for a democracy, having the Executive routinely ignore their responsibility to testify on their actions to the Legislature would be right up near the top of the list!" Of course it makes sense. If the questions were pre-approved as I stated, he would not have had to refuse to show up in order to avoid being put in this situation. He would simply have had to not approve the question - which would have been the most in line with his obligations and least misleading to the rest of congress and the American people. There is apparently some dispute as to whether the questions were, in fact, pre-approved. But as you hadn't contested it, I think it's fair that it remain the assumption for this sub-thread.

by mpyne 13y ago

dllthomas 13y ago

The questions were pre-approved. He could have objected to it beforehand, in private.

mpyne 13y ago
That's immaterial though. The questioner knew the answer was classified, so it's not as if that was a surprise, because the questioner was a member of the Select Committee on Intelligence. In other words, he wasn't asking for his own edification, he was asking in order to force Clapper to either lie or break his oath by divulging the secret. Even saying "I can't answer that" would be an admission for the same exact reason hacktivists give a shit about warrant canaries. But whether Clapper objected or not, Sen. Feinstein apparently got an inkling the question would be asked, as she made clear at the start of the session that there would be a closed hearing immediately afterward for questions that couldn't be discussed in an open forum. And since Wyden and Udall both knew the actual answer, if they were so convinced the answer should be made public then either could have simply put it in the Senate record thanks to their Constitutional privilege and taken the risk that would come with that. Instead the risk was shifted entirely onto the public servant who didn't have Constitutional immunity from prosecution.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  It's entirely material as to whether it was forced. Clapper knowingly permitted himself to be in a situation where his only options were to break one of two laws. He can't then use that as an excuse. He chose to break one of those laws when he chose (when reviewing the questions) that he was going to permit the question, and he's plainly guilty of breaking the law. "And since Wyden and Udall both knew the actual answer, if they were so convinced the answer should be made public then either could have simply put it in the Senate record thanks to their Constitutional privilege and taken the risk that would come with that." Agreed, and I would think more highly of them if they had. I'm not sure what the game was. That still does not change the fact that Clapper is guilty, though.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    > Clapper knowingly permitted himself to be in a situation where his only options were to break one of two laws. That makes no sense whatsoever. One does not simply refuse to show up to testify to Congress! I mean, if you want to talk about things which are disastrous for a democracy, having the Executive routinely ignore their responsibility to testify on their actions to the Legislature would be right up near the top of the list! > That still does not change the fact that Clapper is guilty, though. Of course not, that was the whole idea. If he had told the truth you'd be able to rightly say "That still does not change the fact that Clapper violated his oath, though". There's a reason that he isn't being charged with anything, unlike Helms before him.
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      "That makes no sense whatsoever. One does not simply refuse to show up to testify to Congress! I mean, if you want to talk about things which are disastrous for a democracy, having the Executive routinely ignore their responsibility to testify on their actions to the Legislature would be right up near the top of the list!" Of course it makes sense. If the questions were pre-approved as I stated, he would not have had to refuse to show up in order to avoid being put in this situation. He would simply have had to not approve the question - which would have been the most in line with his obligations and least misleading to the rest of congress and the American people. There is apparently some dispute as to whether the questions were, in fact, pre-approved. But as you hadn't contested it, I think it's fair that it remain the assumption for this sub-thread.