Wyden's former deputy chief of staff doubts Clapper decided to lie unilaterally.

[dkf]

Last edited Sun Aug 11, 2013, 10:22 AM - Edit history (1)

Months later, the FISA Amendments Act, which the Administration contends authorizes its PRISM program, passed without the open debate that the President now contends he wanted all along. And, again, I'm only touching on a fraction of the efforts just Senator Wyden made to compel the administration to engage the American people in a democratic debate. I, obviously, haven't mentioned the Director of National Intelligence's decision to lie when Wyden "asked whether the NSA had collected 'any type of data at all on millions of Americans.'" (Btw: Given that Wyden shared his question with the ODNI the day before the hearing, I am highly skeptical that Clapper's decision to lie was made unilaterally.) Or the fact that the Obama Administration repeatedly fought lawsuits and FOIA requests for, again -- not sources and methods -- but the Section 215 legal interpretation that the Administration claims authorizes its surveillance authorities.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130810/09240524136/jennifer-hoelzers-insiders-view-administrations-response-to-nsa-surveillance-leaks.shtml

Link from this OP:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023444327

[leveymg]

1. Of all those involved in running the programs, Clapper may be among the most conscientious

and he did not enjoy the experience.

There are many in this town who are far slicker and more evasive, who would have managed to duck, slide around, deflect, mislead (most important), and moved on without answering Wyden's question - and, would have been gleefully proud of themselves for it. Clapper isn't a typical Washington power player - I saw him a couple days later at a public event -- and, he was genuinely miserable.

[dkf]

3. And do you believe he concocted it on his own?

Would he have taken that liberty given he was advanced the question about mass surveillance? He must have known Wyden wanted the admin to come clean and this was Wyden's effort to do so.

[leveymg]

4. No, I think Clapper consulted with others before his testimony, including the WH.

Not unilateral or spontaneous on the DNI's part, at all.

[dkf]

5. I wonder if anyone will ask him under oath.

If true, he was asked to fall on his sword. Sad.

[leveymg]

19. Easy. Just ask NSA for his phone records from the previous day. I'm sure they'll oblige the Comm.

[sabrina 1]

27. If he had integrity, he would not have lied to Congress. He could have stated that he was

free to answer that question. People of integrity do not lie.

Clapper, conscientious or not, is an old Bush guy. If his beliefs are distorted and the best I can say for some of Bush's supporters, they do not belong in positions of power. He is the former CEO of Booz Allen. He has a huge conflict of interest in all of this.

In fact, he is the poster boy for all that is wrong with they way our government is run. He walked straight from a Multi Billion Dollar Private Security Corp into Government to a position where he gets to influence Congress funding 'security' policies that appear to benefit his and other Private Security Corps far more than the American people.

End this relationship between Private, Mega, obscenely profitable Corporations and our Government.

[leveymg]

30. Unfortunately, most of the top people in intel are old Bush people, or Reagan people

or Clinton people - it really doesn't make a lot of difference because they are all career intelligence managers and pretty much share the same outlook on things, and there aren't a lot of alternatives to pick from for line and staff positions.

Some are better than others, and that's true for every line of work in government as well as the private sector.

I'm sure that he really had no choice in how he answered that, other than to refuse to answer, or to evade. Mr. Clapper isn't a big evader, and that's probably to his credit, and he wasn't going to take the 5th. That left him little choice. Revealing the Sec. 215 and Prism Programs wasn't really an option, either. That's my only point here.

[sabrina 1]

31. Sorry, we have two parties and to say there are no Democrats who are capable of

protecting this country is simply feeding into the lies told by Republicans. I personally KNOW Democratic military men and women who have experience in Intelligence and whom I would trust far more than any old Bush guys with our security.

If you are correct, then why vote for Democrats when all we get are old Bush guys, or old Republican Cold Warriors?

We DON'T have to buy into the 'war is the answer' Republican meme, that is a CHOICE. And it's way, way past time for Democrats, when they win, to put to rest the lie that Democrats cannot protect this country. That's Rush Limbaugh propaganda with no basis in reality.

[leveymg]

34. I have a little inside baseball story to share will you.

Last edited Sun Aug 11, 2013, 02:03 PM - Edit history (4)

Back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, I was a Demo apparachnik in Leon Panneta's Congressional District. Leon had a reputation for being really, really liberal and had impeccable an anti-war credentials, and generally regarded as something of a progressive Saint in those days.

Well, anyway, one day I met with Leon in his District Office and among other things was excited to share a newly-patented process for creating hydrogen using sunlight invented by a University of CA professor I had met. I asked Leon if there was any way he could help this seemingly cheap alternative energy process along on one of his committees, and he just asked me a couple questions:

Who is the Majority Leader and What State is he from?

I responded it was Jim Wright from Texas.

He said, does that answer your question?

That was a sobering lesson about the nature of government, the Democratic Party, and Democratic liberals. After Mr. Panetta was made CIA chief, and I later learned that Leon had been one of the backers of the Syrian regime change within the Administration, I was saddened but not surprised.

[sabrina 1]

49. I don't doubt your story. But it doesn't mean there are no Democrats who actually are

Democrats and not willing to start all these wars all over the world.

We are always looking to where they point us. NOT at the Progressive side of the party. We allow them to tell us 'yes, he's a good Democrat but he doesn't have a chance' while they pour money into some Third Way War Monger with a 'D' after their name. Well, that is OUR fault. From now I will support the one THEY tell me 'doesn't have a chance'. Because that is only true if we believe them.

[dkf]

35. What if he is told the "patriotic" thing to do is to lie? If he was evasive that was a tip off.

Sacrificing his honor for the good of the country.

[sabrina 1]

51. Honor ....

The word has no meaning any more. He should have taken the fifth, anything, rather than lie. What was he protecting? A lie is only justified if at all, if it is to protect the people. Protecting the people from the truth with lies has never been the honorable thing to do unless there is some imminent threat to them. That was not the case here at all. They were protecting their cushy money flow in the guise of 'security'.

Clearly he knows who he works for. Bush thought he was being 'Patriotic' also.

The problem with all these people is they have lost sight of reality, remaining as they do, in their own small obscenely wealthy bubbles.

We need people in power who are in touch with the PEOPLE. These people view Americans as the enemy. And we are, to their bank accounts as soon as we find out what they are up to.

[dkf]

56. Yes this is the new version of honor where you are a patriot by covering up violations....

of the constitution.

It's post constitutional America.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023443569

[riderinthestorm]

2. Wait wut? I've been reliably informed here that Clapper never lied!111!!!!1

Oh, and that lying to Congress is not such a big deal anyway, if he did it, which he didn't... unlike whatever illegal actions that scumbag Snowden has done.

[BlueStreak]

11. Clapper never would have had to like if not for Snowden. It is all Snowden's fault.

[LuvNewcastle]

6. K&R Good article.

Considering how officials have scorned Americans calling for transparency by comparing us to Al Qaeda, it's clear what they think of us. We aren't their employers. We're the enemy.

[ProSense]

7. Direct quote from Senator Wyden

MJ: Then he had to basically admit that he was not telling the truth.

RW: After the hearing, one of my staff went to a secure room and said that this was inaccurate and needed to be corrected. Gen. Clapper's people said they knew it was inaccurate and they still wouldn't correct it. At that point it never, or at least for quite some time, would never have been known. Then there were the (Snowden leaks) and Gen. Clapper started offering one answer after another with respect to why he did it.

The president said that to make all this work, you need to do vigorous oversight. In order to do vigorous oversight, the leadership of the intelligence community has got to be straight with the American people and straight with the Congress. For there to be vigorous oversight, the intelligence community's got to be straight with the American people and the Congress and that has not been the case.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023381665

[dkf]

8. The bigger question is if he was instructed to lie and if so by whom.

[ProSense]

9. LOL! Yeah, I see where this is going.

Good luck with that.

[cantbeserious]

14. It Is Never Too Late For Impeachment Proceedings With A Sitting President

eom

[ProSense]

16. Are you calling for Obama's impeachment?

Based on what?

[cantbeserious]

18. Congress Must Decide If The Lies Merit Impeachment

eom

[ProSense]

21. What lies? I asked if you support impeachment. n/t

[cantbeserious]

26. Only Congress Can Decide If Impeachment Is Warranted Based On The Lies Told By The Administration

eom

[ProSense]

28. What lies? You can at least specify why Congress would entertain this decision. n/t

[cantbeserious]

29. Senator Ron Wyden's Revelations Regarding Obama Obfuscation On Illegal Domestic Surverillance

eom

[ProSense]

39. You have a link to Wyden accusing the President of lying? n/t

[BlueStreak]

10. I am starting to hate this administration almost as much as Cheney's

None of this is about keeping Americans safer. it is all about process and secrecy as a normal mode of operation.

We'll put the citizens on a "need to know" basis. That's a far cry from "We the people ..."

Constitutional scholar, my ass.

[LuvNewcastle]

12. He's like an atheist who has a lot of knowledge about the Bible.

[backscatter712]

15. Hey, I resemble that remark!

But yeah, Obama's been far better at teaching about the Constitution than following it...

[LuvNewcastle]

17. LOL!

Yes, I've seen other atheists on DU who know the Bible. I'm not a Christian, but I was raised going to church and I'm pretty familiar with it myself. I think that if you're going to be against something, it's good to know exactly why you're against it.

[Waiting For Everyman]

25. That is a very apt analogy. nt

[cantbeserious]

13. Yes - And Let's Add Transparent Hope And Change - A Sad State Of Affairs All Around

eom

[BlueStreak]

32. It is shocking -- When Obama met his moment of truth when clever speechwriting wouldn't get him by

he had to make a choice, and he made the wrong choice. That seals his fate for me and millions of others. No redemption is possible from this point. We have to direct our efforts to limiting his damage, just as we did with Bush/Cheney.

And let's not lose sight of the probability that Hillary would have made that same wrong choice when trapped in her own moment of truth.

I find it interesting that Biden has been very quiet while Obama has been out taking such a strong position with the authoritarians.

[ProSense]

22. "Constitutional scholar, my ass."

He takes pride in that: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023425852

[Mojorabbit]

47. What does that have to do with anything? nt

[Coyotl]

20. This is an important detail "Wyden shared his question with the ODNI the day before"

[BlueStreak]

38. This is exactly the issue. Wyden lays it out perfectly -- IN MAY, 2011

And let's not lose sight of the fact that in the past, it was always American newspapers that brought out the truth. That may be the biggest unspoken part of the story -- that we no longer have any significant national media that is independent enough to do that. This story has only come out because the UK's GUARDIAN was willing to do what the New York Times and Washington Post had done in the (distant) past.

Democracy worldwide is on very thin ice. The fascists are consolidating power each year.

[dkf]

43. I'l bet Snowden was aware of what Wyden was trying to do also.

[BlueStreak]

45. I bet he was aware that over two years had passed and nobody had lifted a damn finger

[Waiting For Everyman]

23. Everybody should read that entire article.

First thing, Congress needs to be un-muzzled, beginning with the dissenting members of the Intelligence Committees. DiFi needs to GO, as chairman of Senate Intel. She has one hell of a lot of nerve. Apparently she has kept an iron grip on the dissenters, preventing them from communicating much of anything to anybody.

Wyden's Communications Director wrote this:

"...during my tenure in Wyden's office, I probably spent in upwards of 1,000 hours trying to help my boss raise concerns about programs that he couldn't even tell me about. (italics in original)

He is barred from telling his own staff what his concerns are, whose job it is to communicate with the public; he is likewise barred from telling his colleagues in the Senate what his concerns are... meaning not only is there zero debate -- he can't even bring the subject up in the Senate, on the floor or privately. This is preposterous!

And yet Obama had the colossal nerve to actually say this:

"What makes us different from other countries is not simply our ability to secure our nation," Obama said. "It's the way we do it, with open debate and democratic process."

What absolute BULLSHIT, Mister President! How dare you! If he tried all day to do it on purpose, he couldn't have come up with something more offensive to say!

[sabrina 1]

33. That absolutely needs to end. The practice of having only a few Reps know what this

government is up to and then being gagged from telling the rest of us.

Snowden was more necessary than we knew and now what Wyden couldn't tell us, a Whistle Blower did.

That is why they are so up in arms. Their cozy little protection racket has been exposed. Wyden they knew was no threat so long as his lips were sealed.

That means that 90% of the country is NOT REPRESENTED if the people they elected are barred from knowing what they need to know in order to represent them.

Democracy!! Not what we thought it was!

[snappyturtle]

40. You are exactly right. And yet there are folks here who see Snowden

only as a traitor whom they'd like to see have his mouth duct taped
and hung from the Washington monument. The hatred is surreal.

IF we get this mess straightened out, history will prove that it took
the whistle blowing of Snowden and subsequently, the unshackled
Wyden, to remedy the dark place we find ourselves. imho

[Waiting For Everyman]

42. It's easier to control just a few people who are in the know, than the full Congress.

And it's fewer people to pay off with campaign donations. It's quite a neat little situation the "intelligence community" has set up for itself, isn't it?

Your comments are exactly right.

This is sickening. I really feel we're at the beginning of another Watergate type of situation, where it's like an unraveling sweater with one thing leading to another, and another.

[dkf]

37. Moreover look what difi's instructions were to Wyden's staff on what they were allowed to say...

In fact, after the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing in which Wyden attempted to close the FAA's Section 702 loophole, which another important Techdirt post this week explains, "gives the NSA 'authority' to run searches on Americans without any kind of warrant," I -- as Wyden’s spokesperson -- was specifically barred from explaining the Senator's opposition to the legislation to the reporters. In fact, the exact response I was allowed to give reporters was:

"We've been told by Senator Feinstein's staff that under the SSCI's Committee Rule 9.3, members and staff are prohibited from discussing the markup or describing the contents of the bill until the official committee report is released. The fact that they've already put out a press release does not lift this prohibition."

[Waiting For Everyman]

44. DiFi is emerging as one of the major villains in this.

That "allowed by her" statement is absurd, it says nothing understandable at all. She has basically prevented the committee from serving the purpose it was created for.

I wouldn't be shocked if it's the same on the House side, but I haven't seen anything specific about that yet.

I just hope that some savvy reporters are preparing some great questions to grill DiFi with about this. In her public sstatements so far, which consist mostly of rude stonewalling, her demeanor comes off as very guilty. (I am not bad at "reading" people and I will bet that she is dirty as hell in this, truth be known.)

[dkf]

52. We are kidding ourselves if we think we will get anything new.

Her purpose is to hide it all not inform us.

[sabrina 1]

50. DiFi works for the MIC and there is proof if ever we needed it. She gagged members of

Congress from speaking to the people they represent. That is reprehensible. Another one with a 'D' after her name working all sides but mostly the money side. Sickening.

[KoKo]

24. It's a good read. Also she explains why Wyden can't expose what he knows

on the floor of the Senate in comments which would make him immune. Her point is that he would lose his seat on Intelligence Committee and so would his staffer who has security clearance for breaking the "code of silence" they have to abide by.

Some have questioned why Wyden and Udall haven't just come out with the info. But, I can see her point.

[reformist2]

36. None dare call it... multilateral lying!

[AppleBottom]

41. Thanks for posting this

It's sad that the pro-NSA and propaganda threads have really littered this place.

[Mojorabbit]

46. This is a great article. nt

[dkf]

53. If anyone needs documentation of the admins response...

They have it now.

[DirkGently]

48. All parsed & planned in advance, of course. n/t

[DJ13]

54. No, really

It just slipped out, like passing gas, he didnt mean it.

[blackspade]

55. K&R!

[BlueCheese]

57. I believe Clapper was more or less ordered to lie.

When the lie was uncovered, the White House fully backed him up, calling his testimony "straight and direct".

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/304783-white-house-clapper-was-straight-and-direct-in-nsa-testimony

If the administration had its way, we would never have found out about any of these programs. The notion that they ever wanted a debate, or wanted the process to be open and transparent, is frankly insulting to the intelligence.