General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI know, I suck. But a serious question:
General Clapper told a full-frontal lie to Congress and got caught. Even confessed ("the least untruthful thing I could say"
. Since he was told he'd be asked that question at least a day prior, I can't see an excuse for it. And he could have simply not answered. But he sought to deceive.
People used to go to jail for lying to Congress. But nothing has happened to Clapper. Thus, I can only conclude that either his boss is OK with lying to Congress (and the rest of us), or that Clapper is actually the President's boss. The latter is too awful to contemplate, so let's assume the former.
If Obama is fine with lying, then why should we ever believe anything he says about the Spy On Everyone program? If he says at the SOTU that he's reining Spy On Everyone in, then how can we believe it? And is the embrace of lying only for intelligence matters, or across the board?
Ugh.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)have started prosecutions....just saying. You only even here this meme on DU....
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)Slate. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2013/06/fire_dni_james_clapper_he_lied_to_congress_about_nsa_surveillance.html
The Guardian http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/04/clapper-lie-congress-nsa-national-intelligence-counsel
US News. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/07/02/national-intelligence-director-apologizes-for-lying-to-congress
NY Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/16/us/obamas-path-from-critic-to-defender-of-spying.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=1
You know, just here. Or something.
More than six years later, the onetime constitutional lawyer is now the commander in chief presiding over a surveillance state that some of his own advisers think has once again gotten out of control. On Friday, he will give another speech, this time at the Justice Department defending government spying even as he adjusts it to address a wave of public concern over civil liberties.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)specifically? Specifically said the actual words?
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)From The Slate. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2013/06/fire_dni_james_clapper_he_lied_to_congress_about_nsa_surveillance.html
Salon reporting on a poll in which a huge majority of people want Clapper tried for perjury for get this, lying. http://www.salon.com/2013/08/15/huge_majority_wants_clapper_prosecuted_for_perjury/
The NY Times Clapper Lied to Congress. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/02/opinion/edward-snowden-whistle-blower.html?hp&rref=opinion
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)but still not "undisputed"...
Its complicated not undisputed....
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)Seriously? Complicated would be how he told the truth, but not the whole truth. An example. Let's say an explosion happened in a room. We know there was a hand grenade in the room. I tell you that I removed the hand grenade, and that means we can rule the grenade out as a cause of the explosion. I don't tell you that there was another hand grenade in the room. I told the truth, but not the whole truth, so that could be considered by stretching incredulity to the breaking point, complicated.
An explosion happens in the room, we believe a grenade was in the room. I tell you categorically that there was no hand grenade, and I'm positive that there was no grenade. Later, the fact of the grenade is established. That isn't complicated, that was an outright lie.
For scenario one I can try and argue that it was a complicated truth. It would be a idiotic half assed argument, but I could make it. If you want to make that argument, be my guest. I for one prefer not to appear as an liar or an idiot. Because I don't work for the Government, I would be charged with Perjury.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)He was damned if he did and damned if he didn't....he couldn't really answer correctly without ramifications no matter how he answered...it was still Top Secret at the time.
So yeah that's "complicated" and its complex....too complex to deem it in any way "undisputed" or that man would be up on charges.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)If President Obama had a friendly congress, then minor changes and delays to the ACA would be a breeze. But President Obama does not have a friendly congress. So what they have been doing is deciding not to enforce. Putting in writing that the US Government will not seek to enforce this rule, or that deadline. It's called selective enforcement. What it is saying is that we know you're breaking the rules, but we're not going to bust you for it. That was the Bush Co. approach to wiretapping as an example.
So while Clapper did lie to Congress, and it was a lie, no grey area what so ever. No complications, the Administration is selectively enforcing the whole Perjury charge.
The same way that the Government selectively enforces the law against cops. This by the way is not unique to the Obama Administration, but is common across every level of Government.
Torture is illegal, but the CIA did torture people. None of them has been brought up on charges for that illegal action. That doesn't mean that the torture did not take place, it is selective enforcement at work. See the case of Robert Lady if you doubt me.
You can't say that the absence of a prosecution is proof that the crime didn't happen. The absence of prosecution means only that the Government approves of the criminal action, not that it didn't take place.
If I saw a child in a locked car and felt that the child was in danger. I could break the window, go into the car, and remove the child. In doing so, I have technically committed the following crimes. Misdemeanor Breaking and Entering. Felony Kidnapping. Now the chances of me being charged with those crimes is fairly slim, nearly non existent, but that doesn't mean I did not break the window, and take the child if I am not charged. It just means that the Government approves of my criminal activity. This presumes that I notify the authorities of my actions immediately, and I don't take the child to my home.
Police ignore petty crimes of people they use as informants all the time. So long as the criminal provides information on more serious criminals, the police ignore the lesser criminal activity to get bigger fish. Does that mean that the informant is not a criminal? Not at all, it is selective enforcement at a lower level.
Your arguments are flawed, fatally in the terminology of debate. Your assertions are baseless, and the argument that the ends justifies the means is utterly disproven by history, logic, and common sense. If you keep this up, they are liable to elect you to congress.
hueymahl
(2,904 posts)Pure gold!
GeorgeGist
(25,570 posts)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)been. Don't need the Republican Congress to do anything, he lied and he should be fired. But then there is another question, Clapper is an old Bush crony, appointed by Bush. A former CEO of Booz Allen, the Security Corporation which has made BILLIONS as a result of getting Government Contracts to supposedly help keep us all safe from terrorists.
Does ANYONE other than me, think that there is a teeny, tiny conflict of interest here, that an Intel Chief whose job is to look out for our Security by keeping Congress up on what is needed to do that, might not tell Congress that in his opinion we need to spend MORE Billions on Private Security Corps to continue to 'surveil' for security purposes, or who might LIE to protect the very lucrative racket Bush set up using 'terror' to ensure massive profits for his Private Security Corps?
Probably just me because otherwise Congress would have done something to stop these appointments that have a clear conflict of interest.
He will return to his former Corp after his job is done and no doubt receive a huge thank you for all the money he directed their way, if he chooses.
The Revolving Door. Why did this President keep these old Bush people around? They continue to embarrass him, Gates, Clapper, Alexander, Generals who should have been replaced.
Are there NO Democrats qualified for these positions?
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)I remember this past summer that Clapper got a vote of confidence Sunday from the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Dianne Feinstein. She even said he was "one of the most honest" people she knows. How jaded can she get?
It would appear even Ron Wyden couldn't use the proper description to call Clapper the liar he was/is when he "should have had a more precise answer" on NSA programs.
I don't like the Democrats who got to question this untouchable. The Party works to run good Democratic candidates, but very few tread to mess up how the chess board is arranged.
What a way to waste bunch of money we keep printing!
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)That's your proof?
That pretty much answers it then, doesn't it.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)He did. It's established. It's not up for interpretation.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Are you just completely ignorant of the facts, or do you have some alternative explanation for how his words don't constitute a lie? If it's the former, do some reading. If it's the latter, let's hear it.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)absolutely....you think the Republicans would give up that opportunity? HARDLY!
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)the lie to go unpunished. That's how nutty they are.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Valerie Plame ring any bells?
Marr
(20,317 posts)Your zeal is almost religious. You insist that if A happened, the Republicans would do B. When confronted with the fact that A did in fact happen, you insist that it cannot be true, because the Republicans did not do B.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)What's so hard to understand about this? You should probably re-examine your assumptions.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Why don't you understand complicated? Nuance doesn't work for you?
It's complicated and that is why they didn't....this is hardly "complicated" to understand why...
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)From here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/james-r-clapper/gIQAOeVKAP_topic.html
Why would his own party attack him for doing things they approve of?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)they wouldn't throw a voter...and that is all he is not a pol....under the bus to get at Obama? If this were "undisputed" as charged...HE would be up on charges...
Rand Paul DID demand it...Last I remember HE is a Republican.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Their gigantic Military/Industrial/Security Complex corporate donors make billions and billions of dollars from it.
Why on earth would the Republican Party want to end it?
I think I finally have seen it all: a pretend Liberal citing Republican support for the surveillance state as a reason for Democrats to support it. Sweet tap-dancing Christ on a unicyle.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I simply disputed the "undisputed" claim....nothing more...
Trust me when I say this..."IF" it were truly "undisputed" that man would be up on charges RIGHT NOW! You could take that to the bank...
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Therefore I take it that you approve of those things.
bobduca
(1,763 posts)Let's hope it's managers get discouraged and decide to create a new less abrasive pro-nsa persona.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Regarding the GOP and the secret government-national security apparatus: IMFO, the servants of warmongering banksters have been calling the shots since Nov. 22, 1963.
Background: The Terrifying Background of a Man who Ran a CIA Assassination Unit
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)And your "take it to the bank" is sadly laughable. Most of Congress are conservatives. Clapper is a conservative. Those that support him tend to be conservatives. HE IS A F'N REPUBLICAN. Since when do we defend F'N REPUBLICANS. He lied to Congress.
delrem
(9,688 posts)"The least untruthful" =/= "truthful"
Whatever the hell "gray area" you consider "the least untruthful" response resides in, for ordinary folk it resides in an untruthful area. With maybe a bit of old decayed gray stuff that once might've been chocolate thrown in as the kind of disarming adjective loved so much by people like Glenn Beck.
lark
(26,068 posts)You know the repugs top priority is $$ and the 1% and the MIC is at the top of both. They want war, they want spying on us as both enrich them. There's no way they'd bring this up on charges, their masters would cut off the money flood due to the damage to all the selling of "spy stuff". Notice that they also aren't taking him on over TPP either, again he's with them on that so they turn turtle and hide.
merrily
(45,251 posts)
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)because THE F'N REPUBLICANS LOVE HIM as do the Conservative Dems among us.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)In his letter to the newspaper, referring to one of the key Senate advocates of NSA reform, Litt continued: “Senator Ron Wyden asked about collection of information on Americans during a lengthy and wide-ranging hearing on an entirely different subject. While his staff provided the question the day before, Mr Clapper had not seen it. As a result, as Mr Clapper has explained, he was surprised by the question and focused his mind on the collection of the content of Americans’ communications. In that context, his answer was and is accurate.
“When we pointed out Mr Clapper’s mistake to him, he was surprised and distressed. I spoke with a staffer for Senator Wyden several days later and told him that although Mr Clapper recognized that his testimony was inaccurate, it could not be corrected publicly because the program involved was classified.”
Litt concluded: “This incident shows the difficulty of discussing classified information in an unclassified setting and the danger of inferring a person’s state of mind from extemporaneous answers given under pressure. Indeed, it would have been irrational for Mr. Clapper to lie at this hearing, since every member of the committee was already aware of the program.”
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)You're going to need to do better than that. He's paid good money to keep these lying, spying bozos out of the trouble they create for themselves. He's a lying fuck, and he was caught dead to rights.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and then my question was IF he lied....why didn't the Republicans string him up to slap President Obama?
Why did they miss THAT chance?
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Republicans aren't interested in exposing the domestic spying program because they want it in place. Name any bipartisanship you've seen over the last several years. What was the object of that bipartisanship? If you answered "circling the wagons around the surveillance state", you're right. They want the same thing. Aside from that, may I ask why it is you're looking to forecast logical conclusions out of Congress? I'm being serious with that question. What on earth has led you to believe that Congress acts in logical and predictable ways?
If we're going to do this, let's raise the discourse and skip the obvious stuff. If you're going to continue in the same vein, mark me as uninterested.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)they shut the freaking govt down! Good grief they salivate for something like "lying to congress"!
Marr
(20,317 posts)Even though he admitted to having lied.
So your assumptions about how things work are clearly flawed.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)My assumptions about Republicans is spot on actually....
Marr
(20,317 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Not "uncontested."..its complicated...
merrily
(45,251 posts)Clapper has never recanted that statement.
And you want to trump that with a newspaper article?
solarhydrocan
(551 posts)too wrapped up in the bs red/blue nonsense to realize that the people at the top and in control are working for the same agenda.
Look at what most Democrats supposedly support now:
Drone bombing
24/7/365 total worldwide surveillance
Big Bank bailouts
Mandatory purchase of corporate insurance
If a Republican were in office those things would matter. Of course the R's aren't going to actually challenge these things because one day they will be back in power.
It's a circus, and the American people have themselves to blame.
bobduca
(1,763 posts)its not working.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Things can be very cozy in the embrace of tremendous mischief.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Contempt of Congress charge? You seriously think they wouldn't go after that like a dog to a bone if it was "undisputed"?
HARDLY!
The Republicans still hate Pres. Obama and would go after him if he spit on the sidewalk...
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Think... who was General Clapper's previous employer? Who owns that company?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Rand Paul would have gotten his way....and he didn't!
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Serious people don't use the accused's own attorney as a basis for constituting whether or not something is in dispute.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)of Contempt of Congress....he is NOT therefore it IS in dispute! Period.
AND Rand Paul will have succeeded in his effort to do just that....he wasn't therefore IN DISPUTE
bobduca
(1,763 posts)But you just keep those Hyper-partisan rose-tinted goggles on ok?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)were you asleep at the wheel when Ted Cruz practically single-handedly shut down the govt?
Hyperpartisan googles my big toe! I have 20/10 vision thanks very much for your concern about my eyesight.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Funny thing, Clapper himself said during a Senate hearing--not to third parties unsworn, but during a Senate hearing--that he had previously given the Committee the "least untruthful answer."
Untruthful means lie. Not rocket science.
I would put a statement before a Senate committee in the process of looking into, among other things, whether Clapper previously perjured himself, way ahead of the news story you posted.
Or are you saying that Clapper lied when he testified that he had been untruthful to the Senate in the past?
Marr
(20,317 posts)The fact that Clapper lied to Congress is not in dispute.
I'd say it's pretty obvious why he hasn't been charged with anything. The lie he told served the interests of power. The partisan political games are like pro wrestling-- they're bullshit theater for gullible people.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)this isn't one that needs a lot of expertise to make a judgement. It's about as blatant a lie as I've ever seen.
1000words
(7,051 posts)"Ugh," indeed.
mike_c
(37,046 posts)I don't believe ANYTHING Obama or anyone in his administration says about surveillance without probable cause, but where's the line? Since I am convinced he/they will lie easily and frequently about THAT, what forms the basis for trust in any other regard? I don't know.
spin
(17,493 posts)Both Presidents and Congress feared J. Edgar Hoover who was known as the "most powerful person in Washington."
The NSA has far more ability to gather data than Hoover ever had during his reign.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)And other people's sex lives...
...we're not really on board with the whole idea of women being people and having control over their bodies,...
OK, we're not really fine with anything except for the rich and powerful people being beyond the law, we're totally "fine" with that.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)"No" is lying to Congress.
"Yes" is leaking classified information. In fact, any answer other than "No" is leaking classified information, since it was a "Yes or No" question. "I can't answer that here" is the same as "Yes".
At least "No" can be corrected at a later date in a classified environment. And apparently was.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)And he may not have received the question beforehand.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)And Wyden said he supplied the question in advance, and he knew the answer was a lie, and that he was shocked that Clapper chose to lie. They probably supply the questions in advance specifically to negotiate tricky issues.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Then Wyden also broke the law.
If he knew that Clapper would have to reveal classified information to answer the question truthfully, then asking the question in an unclassified environment is a crime.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)OK, we've gone to full 1984 status.
Or you need to ponder this all a bit more.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)And you've signed away your first amendment rights to get a security clearance, then yes. He's giving Clapper the choice between committing a crime or revealing classified. Legally, not much different than paying Clapper to reveal classified.
Anyone who doesn't have a clearance can ask because they still have first amendment rights.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)I'm not sure why you've opted to defend garbage like this, but it doesn't change the fact that he lied.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Clapper had a choice between committing a capital crime and committing a not-capital crime.
He chose the one without the possibility of the death penalty, and who's damage could be corrected in a classified environment.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)And you're not going to change the law either. He broke the law, and he was not compelled to do so. I find myself wondering why someone on DU would make up excuses for a right wing spying piece if shit who lies when he opens his mouth. What's your game, sir?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Wyden gave him a choice of breaking the law or breaking the law.
I'm not making up anything. If you would like to demonstrate I'm wrong, feel free to explain how Clapper could answer the question without breaking either law.
Btw, as mentioned below Congress can hold contempt proceedings against Clapper. How come Wyden hasn't been pushing for some?
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)...I'll be glad to fully inform you in a closed session'.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)That answer is the same as "Yes" - there's no reason to say that if the answer was "No".
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)would expose the actual answer, but too bad. He lied to congress. You'll want to tread carefully when endeavoring to defend and exonerate a professional liar. It's a pretty corrosive and self-destructive path.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)It's revealing classified information. That's illegal.
If Wyden had asked a more open-ended question, Clapper would have more options. "Tell me about programs that....." would give Clapper room to not break the law - an answer like the one you provided would work.
But Wyden insisted on a "Yes" or a "No". As a result, Clapper had no room to delay until a classified session.
The fact that there was no answer that did not break a law doesn't mean Clapper's a good guy. It just explains why Clapper is not being prosecuted - it was a perjury trap.
tkmorris
(11,138 posts)I understand the logic you are using to arrive at that conclusion, but it's faulty. People are asked all the time questions that they cannot answer since doing so would reveal classified information. They ALWAYS say some flavor of "I cannot answer that question for reasons of National Security" or some such. Hell, the Carabinieri (Italian police) once asked me a question that I had to answer in much that way, and I'm a total nobody. I reported the question and how I responded up the chain and no one had any issue with it.
It happens quite literally ALL THE TIME and is handled in just that way. Sure, admitting that there is a security reason you can't answer admits something, but it shuts down further questioning quite nicely and is exactly how those with security clearances are told to answer.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)If Wyden had asked a question like "Tell me about programs that...." or "What programs do ......" Clapper would have had a way to delay until a classified session.
When Clapper tried to avoid answering, Wyden demanded a "Yes" or a "No". That left no room to maneuver.
The proper way to handle this would have been for team Clapper to alert Wyden before the hearing that the question would be a problem. Once in the hearing, Clapper's options were limited.
Those with security clearances are also told not to go on TV. Not the same situation.
Plus, the Italians could have arrested you - the fact that they did not does not mean they could not.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)...there may be no end to the dangerous lies that inform your opinion. When you put yourself out there over and over again in the defense of what everyone else knows to be a lie, it harms your credibility. I'm not saying your intent has anything to do with it--you appear to believe what you're saying. But everyone else knows with no uncertainty that Clapper lied to Congress.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)(I was at two of the concerts in this series. Best concerts I ever attended.)
ctsnowman
(1,904 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)He chose lying.
Nice framing attempt, though.
choie
(6,900 posts)DUers are defending this motherfucker because he is Obama's man. If Bush had nominated this lying sack of shit you can be sure they would be calling for his head,
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)Just because Obama adopted his crooked ass doesn't mean I do.
ctsnowman
(1,904 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)matter in a closed session. Clapper handled it so that the information he was denying or trying to hide was revealed. He revealed it. It was a lie. It was corrected. The truth came out.
Our government keeps too many secrets from us. It is so bad that I have to say I do not think we live in anything approaching a democracy. There is no excuse for the extent of the secrecy. Some secrecy may be necessary, but we need to know that our e-mails and other activity on electronic media is under surveillance. We are not free when such a fact is kept from us. In fact, we are not free when the government collects our metadata.
I have not worked in government intelligence services, but I have done an unusual configuration of jobs that includes working in the billing, service department of a telephone company, having a great-aunt who was "central" in a small town way back when and research in another capacity that sometimes involved telephone records. So I know what can be done with metadata. I do not want anyone outside of the telephone company collecting my metadata without a court order, a subpoena served on me as well as on the telephone company. I pay for the phone service, and I feel that as a part of my phone service, I purchase my phone and internet data. The government should subpoena it if they want to see it. The Fourth Amendment requires no less.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)But in the hearing his options were limited because he and his people fucked up.
Probably. It's difficult to say for certain, since they are secrets.
Except it isn't.
Everything Snowden leaked included not targeting Americans, except for the phone metadata. That one is only legal due to the 1979 SCOTUS precedent.
But leaving that small "targeting" step out gets more readers, so few are mentioning it.
Unfortunately, the SCOTUS ruled in 1979 that phone metadata is a run-of-the-mill business record that belongs to the phone company. As a result, it has no expectation of privacy and the 4th amendment doesn't apply.
We need a law to change that.
There has not been a ruling on it yet, AFAIK, but I strongly suspect that some Internet data will also not be legally protected. For example, when you point your web browser at DemocraticUnderground.com, you send a lot of unencrypted data out to multiple companies to actually receive the web page.
If we're writing new laws, we should include that too.
merrily
(45,251 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)that is not related to a specific criminal investigation is not permitted by the Fourth Amendment. The facts are just not comparable. In addition, the technology has changed. The government is anonymously scooping up metadata.
That is very different from requesting from a phone company data on calls involving specific numbers at specific dates or within a specific time period and of a specific suspect in the context of the investigation of a crime.
Further, the computer capability of the government to analyze the metadata makes its collection as a vast database an entirely different matter than the review of phone bills of suspects in a specific criminal investigation.
I may be hoping unrealistically that the Supreme Court will understand the difference between the facts of the cases, but I think that if we are to preserve our democracy, it is essential that the collection of metadata by the government and perhaps by private companies be made illegal. We are not just numbers. We are not just data. We are human. We are voters. We are living in a supposed democracy in which our ideas and our thoughts and votes count. The collection of metadata by our government or even by some of the private companies renders all the idealistic values that have made our nation strong as a nation of free individuals just a joke. A dirty joke.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)In his letter to the newspaper, referring to one of the key Senate advocates of NSA reform, Litt continued: “Senator Ron Wyden asked about collection of information on Americans during a lengthy and wide-ranging hearing on an entirely different subject. While his staff provided the question the day before, Mr Clapper had not seen it. As a result, as Mr Clapper has explained, he was surprised by the question and focused his mind on the collection of the content of Americans’ communications. In that context, his answer was and is accurate.
“When we pointed out Mr Clapper’s mistake to him, he was surprised and distressed. I spoke with a staffer for Senator Wyden several days later and told him that although Mr Clapper recognized that his testimony was inaccurate, it could not be corrected publicly because the program involved was classified.”
Litt concluded: “This incident shows the difficulty of discussing classified information in an unclassified setting and the danger of inferring a person’s state of mind from extemporaneous answers given under pressure. Indeed, it would have been irrational for Mr. Clapper to lie at this hearing, since every member of the committee was already aware of the program.”
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)“One of the most important responsibilities a Senator has is oversight of the intelligence community. This job cannot be done responsibly if Senators aren’t getting straight answers to direct questions. When NSA Director Alexander failed to clarify previous public statements about domestic surveillance, it was necessary to put the question to the Director of National Intelligence. So that he would be prepared to answer, I sent the question to Director Clapper’s office a day in advance. After the hearing was over my staff and I gave his office a chance to amend his answer. Now public hearings are needed to address the recent disclosures and the American people have the right to expect straight answers from the intelligence leadership to the questions asked by their representatives.”
I look forward to your retraction.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)so sad...you all wanted that Contempt of Congress and were DENIED!
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)He also said his own answer was "too cute by half", not "a brain fart".
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Wyden says he did. Clapper says he didn't.
Wyden could have been insufficiently specific when he sent the question in advance, and then was more specific in the hearing. Or Clapper could have fucked up and not warned Wyden, privately, that that question can not be answered in an unclassified hearing.
In either case, at the actual hearing Clapper's options were to break the law or to break the law.
merrily
(45,251 posts)The least untruthful answer is still untruthful. Untruthful means lie.
You're being embarrassingly transparent again.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Clapper's options were to break the law and lie, or break the law and reveal classified.
That doesn't make Clapper a saint. But it does mean he can't be prosecuted for it.
merrily
(45,251 posts)His response could have been "I cannot answer that question, one way or the other."
Or, "I will need more time to answer to that question."
Or any variety of answers that would neither have disclosed the information nor been perjurious.
He chose perjury instead. If I had done that, I'd be in trouble.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)I claimed he lied in order to avoid leaking classified information.
Two problems.
First, he tried deflecting. Wyden demanded a yes or no.
Second, that still leaks classified. The only reason to answer that way is if the real answer is "yes".
Nope, you'd have the same out, for the same reason.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)over the Republican, Bush Administration holdover.
But then again, I'm a Liberal and we do things like that. You Conservatives tend to go the other way.
merrily
(45,251 posts)
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)The question wasn't illegal. Answering it would be.
If the question was supplied in advance it is irrelevant as a question reveals nothing about the answer.
merrily
(45,251 posts)without also knowing that it was classified info. Another possibility is that the info should never have been classified. How come you can't come up with excuses and rationalizations for Wyden as you can for Clapper and Genachowski's FCC? After all, Wyden is a Democrat, too.
Hissyspit
(45,790 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)That is the response over and over on sensitive issues such as intelligence issues. He did not need to lie. No was a lie. It may have been patched up and forgiven but the fact remains: it was lie. And Clapper most probably knew that he was lying.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The only answers to the question were "Yes" or "No". In fact, Wyden insisted on a "Yes" or "No".
There is no reason for "No" to be classified. So an answer like you suggested would reveal that the real answer was "Yes".
Oh, I'm certain he knew he was lying. But that doesn't change the fact his only options were to break one law or to break another law.
He chose the path that could be "fixed" later, in a classified session. That required lying in the unclassified session.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Wyden knew that Clapper could not provide a legal answer - either he'd lie, or he'd reveal classified.
Since Wyden put him in a situation where he could only break the law, Clapper isn't being prosecuted.
It would be a little like a cop ordering you to make an illegal turn to clear an intersection after an accident. You can either break the law by interfering with the investigation, or you can break the law by making an illegal turn. If the cop writes you a ticket for the illegal turn, a court will refuse to enforce it.
(And no, that doesn't make Clapper good, it means he and his people fucked up by not telling Wyden before the hearing that Clapper could not answer the question in an open hearing)
merrily
(45,251 posts)The minute he asked the questions as specifically as he did, about millions of people being surveilled, it was 100% obvious that he knew what he was talking about. Wyden's not being prosecuted for it. And Clapper would not have been prosecuted for an honest answer, either.
Clapper knew the question in advance. He is no fool. Nor was he the only one who knew about the question. He would not have kept that to himself. He did not "fuck up" by showing up at that hearing.
He WANTED to lie on national television, to tell Americans under pains and penalties of perjury that they were not being surveilled by the millions for no apparent reason.
He's not being prosecuted because he did what he was supposed to do.
I know you'll deny this left and right, and people who already support this administration, whether they are paid to do so on this board or not, will agree with you. Others will see the truth. So have at it.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)he is outside of the law.
This is lying to Congress about violating the Constitutional rights of all Americans, not a traffic ticket.
There were other answers:
"I cannot answer that question without revealing classified information"
"I need to answer that in a closed session"
"I need to consult with my lawyer"
"I can neither confirm or deny"
"I'm cannot answer that question"
etc.
U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 47 › § 1001
18 U.S. Code § 1001
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.
Also, regarding perjury trap, I would argue the doctrine does not apply:
Perjury Cases—Special Problems and Defenses -- Perjury Trap
The perjury trap is a form of entrapment defense, and thus must be affirmatively proven by the defendant. The defense is rarely proven, even though the claim is relatively common when grand jury testimony gives rise to perjury charges. See Gershman, The Perjury Trap, 129 U. Pa. L. Rev. 624 (1981). The defense requires that the defendant show the false answer was illegally procured by the government. Thus, when the grand jury is attempting to obtain useful information in furtherance of its investigation, the perjury trap doctrine does not apply. United States v. Brown, 49 F.3d 1162, 1168 (6th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 377 (1995); United States v. Chen, 933 F.2d 793, 797 (9th Cir. 1991).
jeff47
(26,549 posts)"I need to answer that in a closed session"
"I need to consult with my lawyer"
"I can neither confirm or deny"
"I'm cannot answer that question"
All of these reveal classified. There is no reason for a closed session, confirm or deny, or all the rest if the answer is "No".
"Basically" should have indicated it is similar to, but not exactly a perjury trap.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)prosecuted because it violates his 5th amendment rights.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)When Clapper tried to avoid answering, Wyden demanded a "Yes" or a "No". Anything other than "No" reveals that the truthful answer is "Yes".
Team Clapper fucked up by putting him in that situation instead of talking to Wyden beforehand. But in the hearing itself Clapper had no legal options.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)He lied. He won't be charged with lying, because he had no legal way to avoid lying.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)than telling the truth? He lied to Congress then admitted he lied to a reporter so he could explain himself without the fear of cross-examination. He is a lying Republican that for some strange reason is being supported by DEmocrats.
randome
(34,845 posts)He lied when he tricked his coworkers into giving him their passwords. If his lies are justifiable, why aren't Clapper's?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)Snowden? He still hasn't explained what he meant when he said he "saw things". To me, it seems like he simply stole as much as he could and gave it away, hoping something would 'stick' to the Administration.
It hasn't worked out so well for him.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)a lowly whistle-blower whose girlfriend was a pole dancer. I clearly understand your reasoning.
Here's mine. Clapper lied to cover up his violations of the law and Constitution, while Snowden's lies were to expose those violations.
In supporting Clapper you are supporting a conservative Republican. And I thought you didnt like Republicans.
randome
(34,845 posts)The courts have ruled repeatedly on that.
And the metadata collection was known since 2007. No one cared until Snowden did his kabuki theater dance across Europe. And boy, did he make a splash with those who were looking for something on which to fasten!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]
Hissyspit
(45,790 posts)Or at least you know he did as much as I know he didn't. Be sure and keep repeating it as fact, though.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024183858
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/12/16/an-nsa-coworker-remembers-the-real-edward-snowden-a-genius-among-geniuses
Andy Greenberg, Forbes Staff
Covering the worlds of data security, privacy and hacker culture.
SECURITY | 12/16/2013 @ 8:30AM |3,015 views
An NSA Coworker Remembers The Real Edward Snowden: 'A Genius Among Geniuses'
- snip -
The anonymous NSA staffer’s priority in contacting me, in fact, was to refute stories that have surfaced as the NSA and the media attempt to explain how a contractor was able to obtain and leak the tens of thousands of highly classified documents that have become the biggest public disclosure of NSA secrets in history. According to the source, Snowden didn’t dupe coworkers into handing over their passwords, as one report has claimed. Nor did Snowden fabricate SSH keys to gain unauthorized access, he or she says.
Instead, there’s little mystery as to how Snowden gained his access: It was given to him.
“That kid was a genius among geniuses,” says the NSA staffer. “NSA is full of smart people, but anybody who sat in a meeting with Ed will tell you he was in a class of his own…I’ve never seen anything like it.”
former9thward
(33,424 posts)He could have said, "I will answer that in a classified session." That is not the same as "Yes." Or he could have said, "I am not going to answer that." Just because he works for Obama does not mean he should be protected. He would not be if he worked for Bush.
randome
(34,845 posts)Maybe that means he's no good at fudging the truth. Which, if you think about it, is a good thing, right? If his intent was simply to lie because he's an evil scumbag, don't you think he would have said it the way you stated?
Why didn't he? Why did he choose to say it in a way that generates outrage within the Internet bubble? Think about that.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]
jeff47
(26,549 posts)There is no reason for a classified session if the answer was "No".
He tried to avoid answering. Wyden demanded a "Yes" or "No" answer.
So Cheney's in prison now? No? Huh. Odd if working for Bush was no protection.
Clapper lied. Won't be prosecuted because he had no legal way to avoid the lie. That doesn't make this situation good, or somehow make it not a lie.
former9thward
(33,424 posts)Or a prosecutor in a Star Chamber. Just because he "demanded a yes or no answer" does not mean someone had to give it to him.
merrily
(45,251 posts)"Yes or no, Clapper."
"I can't, Senator. Not in this forum."
What would Wyden do? Give him three demerits for not answering in the requested manner?
By the way, how exactly do we know that Wyden demanded a yes or no answer anyway? Did someone post a video or cite a transcript, or are we just taking Jeff47's word for it? Think I'll google.
merrily
(45,251 posts)At least "No" can be corrected at a later date in a classified environment. And apparently was.
Because, coincidentally, I just read a quote from Wyden that suggested that, the day after the hearing, Clapper had been offered the opportunity to amend his response, but Clapper did not avail himself of it.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)meaning the questions in advance....he was mistaken about which program he was discussing. THIS is why he wasn't in contempt.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)apple of the eye of the conservatives.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)bobduca
(1,763 posts)to a "PLAY DUMB AND HIJACK" tactic.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)the same Republican working for Pres Obama. According to some here, he was a bad Republican under Bush but now is a good Republican under Pres Obama.
Either Pres Obama liked what he saw in the spy agencies run by conservatives or he couldnt do anything about it.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023406605
He believes that the administration should be able to LIE in response to Freedom of Information requests, even to the courts.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2185303
He also lies to us:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/08/06/209692380/obama-to-leno-there-is-no-spying-on-americans
Yes, we have a major problem here. K&R
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Ugh.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)do-over of the 2008 election.
bobduca
(1,763 posts)and less Hope.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Since what we need is further and further away from us, couldn't pass that up…
Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)
Recursion This message was self-deleted by its author.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)follow up with a contempt procedure. Of course, they are too busy trying to get Eric Holder to turn over "Fast and Furious" documents and are holding him in contempt.
Why hasn't Ron Wyden tried to get Clapper held for contempt????? Might it be because he doesn't think it was perjury?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Where the head of the IRS was fired, who had nothing whatsoever to do with the awful decision to check if groups with "Tea Party" in their name might have something to do with politics?
Whether Congress does something or not, he serves at the pleasure of the President.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)seek a contempt procedure????
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)It was Outrageous! Outrageous!
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)who resign are not considered 'fired.' Miller retired, Grant retired, Lerner retired, and heck....Paz still works for them.
Here's his resignation statement..you think he isn't drawing a well-deserved federal pension.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2013/05/16/steven-millers-resignation-memo-to-irs-employees/
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Wow.
OK, Clapper could be asked to resign, then resign, and then be retired.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Totally
Vattel
(9,289 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)And try to overcome the shame.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Wasn't that another post about another fake scandal you apologized for???
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Steven Miller was forced out prematurely. It was not a planned retirement.
Second - I'm a scandal fabricator? Tell us, who said the following:
"the misconduct that it uncovered is inexcusable. It’s inexcusable, and Americans are right to be angry about it, and I am angry about it. I will not tolerate this kind of behavior in any agency, but especially in the IRS, given the power that it has and the reach that it has into all of our lives. And as I said earlier, it should not matter what political stripe you’re from -- the fact of the matter is, is that the IRS has to operate with absolute integrity. The government generally has to conduct itself in a way that is true to the public trust. That’s especially true for the IRS. So here’s what we’re going to do. First, we’re going to hold the responsible parties accountable. Yesterday, I directed Secretary Lew to follow up on the IG audit to see how this happened and who is responsible, and to make sure that we understand all the facts. Today, Secretary Lew took the first step by requesting and accepting the resignation of the acting commissioner of the IRS"
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)An official close to Miller told Fox News, shortly after Obama's brief announcement, that the IRS chief was "set to resign the position of acting commission as of early June." He was planning to leave the IRS entirely a "couple of months later, regardless of the current controversy," the source said.
Sources told Fox News that Miller will remain on the job "for a couple of weeks."
The House Ways and Means Committee said after the announcement of Miller's resignation that he still will attend a hearing Friday.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/16/obama-to-meet-with-treasury-officials-over-irs-scandal/
Miller took the acting job with his retirement date already set...... any wasn't fired because he did nothing wrong.
Or are you saying the IRS officials did something wrong????
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)The June resignation was a technicality because he was acting director, which has a term limit. He was expected to continue leading at that point but with a different title.
And you didn't answer my other question: who was the Fox News lover who belongs to that hair-on-fire quote?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)And here you are...Benghazi and the IRS.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)and I made you provide the statutory reason why.
So, thank you for doing my citing for me. Didn't it occur to you something was up when a lawyer asked you for a cite?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Perhaps you can help me understand your thinking a little better?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)He had already been scheduled to retire on the same date as his resignation was effective. He retired, period.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)he graciously gave the President some political cover.
merrily
(45,251 posts)into believing that Obama had requested his resignation to punish him.
Not really my idea of grace on the part of public servants.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)First, I don't think a President and acting IRS head deceiving Republicans is cool just because they're Republicans. They pay taxes, too. Or at least some of them do.
Second, Obama made a televised speech about accepting the resignation because certain things just could not be tolerated, etc. I did not see him ask Democrats to meet him at camera three, ala Jon Stewart, so he the President could give us Democrats the real skinny about the "resignation."
Do you assume only Republican Americans were fooled by that speech? I was fooled by it, so I guess someone forgot to send this Democrat the Democratic memo with the truth about the speech.
Who was NOT fooled by the speech? Republicans. At least Republicans in the Senate. Because the way that I learned that I had been deceived by my President (yet again) was that a Republican Senator mentioned the pre-planned retirement with full pension when the Committee was again questioning this gracious public servant.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)It really sold well and his cred went up. He knew it couldn't be legally answered by someone without congressional immunity.
If Wyden really wanted to do some shit he'd reveal everything he knew about the Committee on Intelligence on a speech on the floor, because he has absolute immunity under the Speech or Debate clause. He can literally reveal everything and anything about the Committee on Intelligence without batting an eye. He might be removed from it, but he could spill the beans in an instant.
This is utterly why I am appalled at the whole NSA thing because frankly, it's being slowly accepted and ignored as not a big deal.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)raising their street cred as opposed to substantive reform, who will hold them accountable???
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)but perhaps there was more to it?
"If Wyden really wanted to do some shit he'd reveal everything he knew about the Committee on Intelligence on a speech on the floor, because he has absolute immunity under the Speech or Debate clause. He can literally reveal everything and anything about the Committee on Intelligence without batting an eye. He might be removed from it, but he could spill the beans in an instant."
Might it be because he wishes to remain in a place with access to further information? It could be because he'd rather try to get the information out in due time, in such a way that he can reveal more in the future. While he could reveal everything immediately, this way he can still get information out (albeit in a much slower and less likely to succeed manner) and not have to lose a spot in the Committee on intelligence.
Feel free to correct me on this. Wyden has been my senator for years and I have generally been impressed by the majority of his work.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)They're probably not big enough to warrant falling on ones sword over it.
If they were you can bet someone would do it, just out of consciousness.
I'm not criticizing Wyden, I think he's doing the political maneuvers that he has to do. Just recognize political maneuvers over genuine inquiry. Wyden knows the answers to his questions and Wyden can easily reveal those answers if he so chooses. Therefore if the answers are truly earth shattering he'd be wrong not to release them.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Hell if I know…
How much of this country is being run by what was clearly described to JFK by Eisenhower? How much has that gotten out of control and why was Kennedy the last executive attempting to do anything about it?
All good questions...
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)public portion, since it comprised classified matters.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)I think we know the answer to that question.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)You either have something to say with the courage of your conviction, or you have games to play.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)This OP is intended to shit stir, little else.
The President is going to talk about NSA reforms today, and continue to do so over the coming months, as reforms start to roll out.
A focus on reforms should be viewed as a positive event, but that would run counter to the "President Obama runs a totalitarian police state" meme that is so popular on DU these days. And we can't have that.
Therefore ... its time for some manufactured outrage.
Welcome to the "game".
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)I don't agree with you, but I appreciate your answer.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)that Clapper is Obama's boss? After all ... that's what the OP claims.
Nevermind ... let's skip that, instead let's consider this part of the OP.
Notice the word "we" in that section. The goal of the OP is to encourage "we" DU members to ignore what the President says before he has said anything.
Why?
Because if the President does rein in the NSA, it ruins one of the OP's long standing narratives.
Which begs the question ... should the intelligent and thoughtful members of DU listen to the President, assess the reforms he puts forward on their merits, and then decide on their own whether they make sense ... or, should they take the OP's perspective, that we not really listen to anything the President says, and just assume that the President is about to LIE to us on this topic, and probably all other topics as well?
On edit: Notice also how the OP in this section also takes Clapper's "lie" and uses it to call President Obama a liar.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Next, it is a discussion board we're on, so I'm not terribly surprised that the OP is discussing what he thinks r.e. these reforms.
Regarding whether or not we should believe what the President says, he did go on Jay Leno's show awhile back and flatly state that the NSA does not spy on the American public. The NSA does spy on the American public. As such, a healthy dose of skepticism is called for when Obama announces the changes he will put in place. I think the best thing he could do for himself is to get someone with solid progressive credentials to be in an oversight position over the NSA.
Finally, you've said that the OP cares more about having a talking point than about stopping the abuses and the inherent sickness of the domestic surveillance program. It's clear from that statement that you pretty much detest the OP. I choose to believe the much more likely scenario: the OP would rather lose an insignificant battle on a discussion board than to continue to have the NSA spying on Americans who haven't done anything wrong.
randome
(34,845 posts)The metadata that can only be viewed after four levels of approval? I doubt most people consider that to be 'spying'.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Thanks for the reply, but please don't bother if after all this time, your moral code won't permit you to admit a painful truth.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)re:nevermind ... which is why I said nevermind. That phrase by the OP was intended for the "jury", who he then tells to ignore it. you'll notice in the thread lots of folks agree with that view.
I did not say you have to BELIEVE what the President says ... I said you should want to LISTEN FIRST and not start with the assumption that he is lying ... which is what the OP is suggesting.
The OP does not cal for a "healthy dose of skepticism", he says the President is going to lie, not only about this, but about other things unrelated, because Clapper lied. That's what he says in the excerpt I provided.
You did not answer the question I asked you in my post.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)joshcryer
(62,536 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)
KauaiK
(544 posts)Someone coming after Clapper will just be the same. Perhaps I am too resigned to the fact the the military (and militarizing of the the Police) and Corporations run this country now. Congress dances to the tune of Corporations. Corporations benefits from the NSA.
PS: I don't think Manny sucks. I think he is thought provoking for discussion.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)in line.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)At the very least, it's time to suspend elections indefinitely. Billions after billions spent on campaigns, elections, Air Force One, Secret Service, Congressional offices, staffs, junkets, etc. For what?
If none of the people we elect have ultimate power. I think they do.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Yes, I'd say that.
If none of them elected can overcome the inertia to do anything… However, there are some on the far enough away on the legislative branches to make some of us still … glimmer between sucking our beers down… to see any hope.
jsr
(7,712 posts)Demeter
(85,373 posts)The people who actually run the country stay completely out of view.
3WM sucks too.
840high
(17,196 posts)the board in all of DC.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)
ancianita
(43,303 posts)We're SUPPOSED to be made cynical by it. We're not supposed to STILL, after all these decades of official lying, be dismayed by its current visibility.
Congress COULD have gone after both Clapper and Obama through Clapper, but didn't. After all the misery Congress has perpetrated upon this administration, you no longer need to wonder why they didn't attempt to "bury" his presidency with this.
Your conclusions about what we should further believe from Obama are fair. But...
We should not still be in the shock and "who else is as shocked as I am?" stage of politics with Obama by now. ( It won't help us get concessions from Hillary or the DLC if, by looking outraged or dismayed, we progressives' still look disorganized. We don't have to be uniform, but we have to show a tougher kind of unity to get policy concessions and legislation from the next congress and president).
We should all be in the planning stages of planning revolutionary tactics bent toward restructuring the Bush's corporate laws, intel networks and the makeup of SCOTUS. We should be operating now as if they mostly lie publicly until facts back them up. The body politic needs to demand more than words forevermore.
The hierarchy doesn't even matter to me anymore. There's no military or judicial power that the prez has ever used against criminals in his government, so why worry about who is boss at this point. Also, there's no longer any "embrace" of lying in either realm; this "embrace" is your realization of what's been going on for decades.
Thanks for the post and raising good points and questions. This is just my two cents.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)lying to congress. The Presiding officer of the Chamber would refer the matter to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. It is the duty of the U.S. Attorney to refer the matter to a grand jury for action.
Why is Congress pussyfooting around? They could have him answering questions from a Grand Jury tomorrow. Being called before a Grand Jury for lying to Congress and perjuring himself would almost demand his resignation. It is like they want to bitch about it but don't want to do anything about it.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Gee… I hate to keep quoting these great quotes, but who can argue with them?
The unanswered question is "why?"
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)They want to use it to attack, but they really don't want to do anything to address the problem because they want to get the power for themselves.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Manny's got it bad.
Sid
zeemike
(18,998 posts)But sense it is to disturbing to even think of that I suggest that everyone put that thought out of their mind...and find something that is less troubling to rationalize it away with.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Unless you are going to go Kennedy conspiracy theory and tell me that Clapper can, and will, have Obama killed if Obama makes a move, Obama is clearly Clapper's boss.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)FORWARD.
Tigerram
(13 posts)Well your surprised really !! Lying has been around a long long time..I believe it was a Snake that started it..Or when the First Politician moved his Lips..Just sayin ..
merrily
(45,251 posts)time.
Obama soon made a big announcement about having accepted the IRS's guy's resignation, effective "such and such a date."
Very impressive....until I watched a hearing in which the IRS guy was being questioned again.
During that hearing, it turned that "such and such a date" had long been planned as the guy's retirement date and he was retiring with full benefits. IOW, nothing happened to him either, except some tarnish to his legacy, which, after all, is the risk you take when you perjure yourself to Congress on national TV.
Look, we tired of the kabuki and some of us caught onto it only very recently. Can you just imagine how tired of the kabuki Washington, D.C. must be?
We know they're crooked. They know they're crooked. They know we know they're crooked. Must we all keep pretending otherwise? Are you really so cruel that you would insist that they try to keep up appearances forever?
Nothing is going to happen to Clapper, unless maybe he gets an ambassadorship, like Baucus is getting, probably for ACA and TPP. But, only if Clapper wants one, of course.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)I don't remember that.
merrily
(45,251 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)That would make his firing sudden retirement much more understandable.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Convenient, yes, but I am not sure if it was also sudden.
It was convenient in that it allow Obama to appear to fire him without really harming him except, as already stated, as to his legacy.
merrily
(45,251 posts)It focuses on missteps, more than lying. However, from McConnell's statement at the end of the story, you can infer that he had previously made denials to Congress about IRS "missteps," which denials later proved untrue.
As my previous post said, after this dramatic resignation announcement, it came out at yet another hearing that the effective date of the resignation was only the guy's long-planned retirement date.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Or a Chrétien?
neverforget
(9,513 posts)could bring charges against Clapper. Clapper could have avoided all of this by saying before the Committee "I can disclose this information in closed session as it's classified." He didn't. Instead he gave "the least untruthful answer" aka a lie. Some people defend him here because Obama has kept Clapper on board. Whatever. But when this shit happens under a Republican, I'll remember this shit because IOKIFYAR
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)Some of your worst work yet.
ucrdem
(15,720 posts)link: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/rand-paul-james-clapper-national-security-agency-101306.html
Dec. 19: Paul: Clapper should resign for 'lying to Congress'
link: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/193597-paul-calls-on-clapper-to-resign
Dec. 20: GOP reps want Clapper investigated for lying to Congress
link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/12/20/the-switchboard-gop-reps-want-clapper-investigated-for-lying-to-congress/
It's a Benghazi in other words. Flogging Snowden is helping the GOP win no matter how much you might wish it weren't.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)Since they only investigate fake scandals.
Instead, since this is a real scandal, they are passing the buck to the DOJ, who they know will do nothing.
And now in turn, Obama is coming out and passing the buck back to the Worst Congress Ever, which he obviously knows is incapable of jack shit.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)You're ok with lying so long as it hurts Rand Paul's position. I value truth.
randome
(34,845 posts)That's the truth.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)You're not going to prevail, so you may as well stop. You're a lost soul if you're not able to admit what you and everyone else know: he lied to congress. It's best you not start lying in the defense of a Republican liar.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)You wanted changes and you're about to get them. You sound like someone who cannot take 'Yes' for an answer.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]
ProSense
(116,464 posts)added to teh list.
AP Source: NSA phone data control to come to end
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024345908
randome
(34,845 posts)End of story. Let's all huddle and shiver together at the imminent end of civilization as we know it.
Or, you know, we could have lives.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"End of story. Let's all huddle and shiver together at the imminent end of civilization as we know it. "
...who are perpetually unhappy that Obama is President. It burns them to the core. The only thing they can do is spin disenchantment and doom and dimiss everything he does. They can't stand the notion that he gets credit for anything. It's more important to them to destroy Obama's credibility than any Republican.
I'm happy with the progress this President has made and will make in his next three years. I'm always going to be happy. Thank you for Obamacare, President Obama. When single payer arrives, I'll still be happy...happier.
Single payer is coming....we're doomed? LOL!
djean111
(14,255 posts)IMO the whole system of trusting government is irretrievably broken.
Anything said is 12 dimensional chess, just playing with congress, Congressmen and everyone else can lie because something is considered confidential or whatever, campaign promises are supposed to be regarded as well, whatever it takes to get elected.
All sides.
Easier to see what actually happens, once it is clear that bad stuff cannot be stopped, and base support and votes on that.
For me, most speeches by most politicians may as well be from Funny or Die or The Onion. Saves a lot of time and angst, really.
treestar
(82,383 posts)
You know that, Prosense. And they made him do it! The 182nd Keyboard Brigade. He doesn't really want to! 
And then if any terrorist attack does occur, it'll be "thanks Obama." By now, we know where they are really coming from.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)I guess that my OP didn't make that clear.
randome
(34,845 posts)There is never a reason to take anyone's word for anything. That's life, in case you haven't noticed until now. All any of us can go on is our feelings. Obama is trying to help this country. You are too foolish or too depressed or too something to encourage that. You just want to see the worst in everything.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
treestar
(82,383 posts)is very, very true!
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)God forbid the "President Obama runs a totalitarian police state" meme takes a hit today and in the months to come.
What a disaster that would be.
Shivering Jemmy
(900 posts)Being put under oath in front of congress in a *public hesring * does not compel honesty in cases where info is classified. If it had been a closed hearing that is another matter.
Puglover
(16,380 posts)
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)And I agree. 
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)And I'm probably missing most of it due to the ignore list.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Clearly we have some here that would gladly jump off a cliff defending the MIC.
librechik
(30,957 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)and has nothing to do with security clearances and what can't be said in public, lest something be compromised.
Buns_of_Fire
(19,144 posts)After all, what the NSA has sucked up, the NSA can disgorge -- probably right around election time, should it suit them. The ghost of Jedgar Hoover is strong around there.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)not a doubt in my mind
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Bawhahahahahahaha!!!
Question for you Manny; did they subpoena the General to show up that day or was he merely invited to answer some questions?
Autumn
(48,951 posts)A damn good Liberal.
riqster
(13,986 posts)I'd ask "why are they OK with being lied to?" as well.
Progressive dog
(7,598 posts)then it can't be prosecuted. Maybe they didn't believe a crime had been committed.
It is funny that all these reporters, talking heads, and Obama haters couldn't get a Republican Congress to agree with them.
merrily
(45,251 posts)hearing was over, Wyden gave Clapper an opportunity to amend his answer.
After the hearing was over, my staff and I gave his office a chance to amend his answer," Wyden said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/06/11/sen-wyden-clapper-didnt-give-straight-answer-on-nsa-programs/
Same article: DiFi vouched for Clapper, saying he was the most truthful person she knows and he must have misunderstood the question.
Saying I heard as a child: "One lies and the other one swears to it."
Sad part: Clapper may actually be the most truthful person DiFi knows.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)At least that's what's been claimed somewhere upstream in this sorry spectacle of a thread.
merrily
(45,251 posts)"I cannot answer this question without violating a law, unless the President gives me permission to answer it."
Doesn't Wyden on the committee that gets classified information from the President?
The thread isn't a sorry spectacle just because some posters on it are desperately trying to defend Clapper (no doubt because Clapper's conduct and that of the NSA reflects on Obama). I*'ve already seen on another thread that President Obama is so great for being willing and able to clean up Bush's mess. Five years after inauguration and the NSA's current behavior is still Bush's fault.
And people don't think we have the government that we deserve.
Of course, with posters, it's hard to tell who is genuinely in love and who is on the payroll of one government or political entity or another. (Bill Maher: He's not your boyfriend.) I'm sure each of us has his or her guesses, though.
Autumn
(48,951 posts)"what an illuminating thread". You do it well Manny. Others may try but they lack the flavor of your posts.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)is really of any consequence or concern.
davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)"People used to go to jail for lying to Congress. But nothing has happened to Clapper. Thus, I can only conclude that either his boss is OK with lying to Congress (and the rest of us), or that Clapper is actually the President's boss. The latter is too awful to contemplate, so let's assume the former. "
I don't think we can safely assume that it's the former. I think it must at least be asked, and at least privately wondered if the latter is a real possibility.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)And that's this: be serious, for once.
So-called "lying" to Congress turns into a "Contempt" citation, who then refers the matter to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, who is then supposed to empanel a Grand Jury to decide whether this is actually actionable.
The last person cited for "criminal contempt"?!? Erik Holder, cited by Darrel Issa and the GOP House for not giving them the answers they wanted to hear in the so-called fast-and-furious "scandal".
Last I checked, the Attorney General is not in jail.
This entire premise is based on facts that you could have, and should have, known. Under some interpretations, a case could easily be made that you were attempting to deceive the people reading this screed of yours into believing something that is not true. So therefore, by your own logic, anyone who doesn't have a problem with you is "fine with lying". And since I don't have a problem with you, since you are darkly amusing to me as a completely counterproductive hyper-left-wing activist, that means that you can't trust anything *I* say. Which means...
...wait. Wait. Let's back that up. Maybe I went a step too far there.
I guess what I'm really asking is, don't you have anything better to do with your time?
Seriously.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
