3 ms·
> 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 s
by 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.