Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Editorials & Other Articles
In reply to the discussion: Here's Why Snowden Plea Negotiations Are Going Nowhere [View all]MADem
(135,425 posts)10. Told "us." Didn't tell the Chinese, and the Russians.
A Senator cannot be prosecuted for anything he or she says on the Senate floor. That was Daniel Ellsberg's first attempt, when he was trying to get the PP out--to try to get Sen. Fullbright and others to introduce portions of the Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record. They didn't do it because they had designs on greater leadership and were playing the "seek consensus amongst colleagues" game (something asswipes like Rand Paul don't worry about). At the end of the day it was Mike Gravel who made it happen, IIRC, and only then right before the NYT was going to take the leap and publish anyway.
Ron Wyden was an asshole, frankly--he asked a question that put the person being interrogated (that Weasel Clapper, I'm not "praising" him by a long shot) in an impossible situation. No matter HOW Clapper answered, his response was "wrong." He was given a choice between LYING or REVEALING CLASSIFIED MATERIAL. He couldn't refuse to answer--that would put him in contempt. He chose LYING, and Wyden's disregard for the witness is why Clapper didn't get "sanctioned." Wyden put a gun to Clapper's head and left him without any choice. Wyden should have asked that question in closed session, so he didn't put Clapper in an impossible situation, or he should have gotten his fortitude together and made a declarative statement and taken the heat ALL BY HIMSELF, using his own powers of immunity, instead of phrasing his comments in the form of a question to play "Gotcha" with Clapper.
What he ended up doing was making Clapper sympathetic. It was a boneheaded move.
Ron Wyden was an asshole, frankly--he asked a question that put the person being interrogated (that Weasel Clapper, I'm not "praising" him by a long shot) in an impossible situation. No matter HOW Clapper answered, his response was "wrong." He was given a choice between LYING or REVEALING CLASSIFIED MATERIAL. He couldn't refuse to answer--that would put him in contempt. He chose LYING, and Wyden's disregard for the witness is why Clapper didn't get "sanctioned." Wyden put a gun to Clapper's head and left him without any choice. Wyden should have asked that question in closed session, so he didn't put Clapper in an impossible situation, or he should have gotten his fortitude together and made a declarative statement and taken the heat ALL BY HIMSELF, using his own powers of immunity, instead of phrasing his comments in the form of a question to play "Gotcha" with Clapper.
What he ended up doing was making Clapper sympathetic. It was a boneheaded move.
Members of the United States Congress enjoy a similar parliamentary privilege as members of the British Parliament; that is, they cannot be prosecuted for anything they say on the floor of the House or Senate. They also enjoy the right to be present in Congress: that is, they may be in prison or jail the rest of the time, but they have the right to attend Congressional sessions, speak on the floor, vote, etc. These rights are specified in the Constitution and have been fairly uncontroversial in U.S. history. Courts have consistently interpreted them very narrowly.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_immunity#United_States
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
40 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
It's a recent web-rumor. I have no reason to suspect there are any serious talks
struggle4progress
Jun 2014
#2
Not exactly wild speculation: it points out where Snowden's difficulties
struggle4progress
Jun 2014
#16
I doubt that the Chinese or Russians were at all surprised by Snowden't revelations.
JDPriestly
Jun 2014
#6
Time and more information about who was placed under surveillance, what the criteria was for
JDPriestly
Jun 2014
#7
Good article--amazing how "surveilled" people are on a day-to-day basis without any NSA help.
MADem
Jun 2014
#8
There were whistleblowers before Snowden who told us what was going on. Gore points that out.
JDPriestly
Jun 2014
#9
In the world of people who are not partisan. Clapper ran 'round to the political talk shows,
MADem
Jun 2014
#17
In the real world, in the world where people aren't focused on political party preference
MADem
Jun 2014
#20
Uh, so we shouldn't ask any questions that might put wrongdoers in the awkward position of
snot
Jun 2014
#29