Obama... I'm speechless. I literally am speechless.

[fskimospy]

Have any case law to back your assertion? Because your crossing several different jurisdictions here since he was testifying before Congress.

I'm unaware of a single case where someone has even attempted to prosecute an official for not disclosing a classified program to an open session of Congress without some larger administration coverup being the case and since Congress was notified about these programs that's not the case here.

The appropriate answer would have been for the Intelligence Oversight Committee to have been read in on the programs, since they have top secret clearance, so that they could waive their respective members off of a sensitive but legal program.

Since the Obama administration failed to do that, there is only one conclusion to draw. They knew the programs would not stand up to scrutiny.

Uhmm, both the House and Senate intelligence committees were read in on the programs. How do you not know this?

There are a lot of issues with how classified information is handled within Congress, specifically the fact that it is hard to mobilize the rest of Congress due to disclosure procedures outside of the committees, but to say that they weren't read in is just false.

So presumably now that you know the relevant committees were read in, how does your opinion change?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Actually it is totally acceptable. No court in the land would convict him for protecting classified programs in a public forum.

No, a court could. The reasons against a conviction is explained in the Salon article. When the NSA is given an FOA request they reply that they cannot disclose that information. Clapper was in that same position and should have given that answer. Instead he lied under oath. If his defense were what you'd suggest then good luck as it's not a legal justification. Then again what's law to politicians?

 

[spacejamz]

5 year later and we still hear, "But BUUUUUUUUUSSSSHHHH!!!!!!!!!"

 

[fskimospy]

No, a court could. The reasons against a conviction is explained in the Salon article. When the NSA is given an FOA request they reply that they cannot disclose that information. Clapper was in that same position and should have given that answer. Instead he lied under oath. If his defense were what you'd suggest then good luck as it's not a legal justification. Then again what's law to politicians?

That would be his defense and again, no court in the land would convict him. In fact, he would never even be prosecuted. Hell, lots of the people on the panel with him were COMPLICIT in that statement as they knew it was false because they were on the intelligence committee.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

An administration official stonewalling on classified information??? My gosh, that's never been done before!!!! WHAT IS THE WORLD COMING TOO?

Yes, our Dear Leader is a great man merely following in other great men's footsteps. We should appreciate all he does for us. He lies to us for our benefit. He misleads and spies on us for the great good. He is a fantastic man.


Thank you, Dear Leader, for all you selflessly do for our country.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

That would be his defense and again, no court in the land would convict him. In fact, he would never even be prosecuted. Hell, lots of the people on the panel with him were COMPLICIT in that statement as they knew it was false because they were on the intelligence committee.

So someone admits they broke the law and no jury would convict. Hopefully there are some people who would decide guilt based on law but you never know. What a fool he'd be to use a defense with no legal validity. If you approve of jury nullification to lie to the public when there is no need then so be it. At the very least you've demonstrated there is no basis for trust whatsoever since perjury is an easily accepted thing even when not needed.

 

[Attic]

I can't wait to see what Clapper comes up with, can you?

/s

Clapper wasn't just lying, he was intentionally and successfully deceitful in all manner of the answers he gave to congress. We can thank Snowden for pulling the veil back a bit, otherwise we know this farce would have continued with more deceptive answers given when questions regarding what the NSA was up to were brought up.

“Just because something isn't a lie does not mean that it isn't deceptive. A liar knows that he is a liar, but one who speaks mere portions of truth in order to deceive is a craftsman of destruction.”
― Chris Jami

We see this time and again in policy from our policy makers, the deceit may be for good measure in the mind of those who support it's use (ends justify the means mentality) but the unintended consequences can't just be ignored because they were unintended. The unintended consequences are an absolute mandate of using deceit to pass, push and fund policy.


Clapper being appointed here is a joke because it's a friggen joke. He is a master of deception on an issue where deception has pissed off the American people. This particular punchline doesn't need to be analyzed to hell and back.

 

[werepossum]

I can't wait to see what Clapper comes up with, can you?

/s

Clapper wasn't just lying, he was intentionally and successfully deceitful in all manner of the answers he gave to congress. We can thank Snowden for pulling the veil back a bit, otherwise we know this farce would have continued with more deceptive answers given when questions regarding what the NSA was up to were brought up.

“Just because something isn't a lie does not mean that it isn't deceptive. A liar knows that he is a liar, but one who speaks mere portions of truth in order to deceive is a craftsman of destruction.”
― Chris Jami

We see this time and again in policy from our policy makers, the deceit may be for good measure in the mind of those who support it's use (ends justify the means mentality) but the unintended consequences can't just be ignored because they were unintended. The unintended consequences are an absolute mandate of using deceit to pass, push and fund policy.


Clapper being appointed here is a joke because it's a friggen joke. He is a master of deception on an issue where deception has pissed off the American people. This particular punchline doesn't need to be analyzed to hell and back.

Clapper being appointed here would be a joke if Obama had any honest intention of making reforms. He does not. Nor would Romney or McCain, most likely. Politicians are seldom interested in limiting their own power, and as we've seen here Obama's progressive base is fine with being lied to. There are only two things remaining to be determined. The first is whether the press, themselves often targets, give the President cover on this flimsiest of pretenses. The second is whether Obama gives a shit whether or not they do. He's already made it crystal clear that he is willing and eager to simply stonewall on and shut down any investigation, from the BATFE to the IRS.

Considering that he can't be defeated electorally and the Democrats will make sure he is not removed from office, the only possible stick or carrot here is the possibility of a SCOTUS appointment, unless someone sees something I'm missing. I see no other leverage short of the Pubbies solidly taking the Senate in '14 - in which case one would need some method to ensure that the next President doesn't simply do the same thing. Obviously that isn't true for a President Biden, but I've seen nothing indicating that any likely Republican President would not do the same thing as well. Frankly I see no way the American people don't lose on this issue. It's probably just inevitable that a government this large and this powerful begins to prey on its citizens.

 

[Attic]

That's well said.


"Truth is treason in the empire of lies."

Rest assured the real work isn't being done to bring Americans the truth on this issue. The real work is centered around how to stop and/or mitigate future Snowdens more effectively. Politicians generally agree on the NSA issue.

Anyone paying attention has witnessed Snowden effectively put his finger in the eye of the current admin after every obfuscation attempt on the NSA front. Basically Snowden simply waits for the admin to lie in their excuse for what the NSA does and has the ability to do then he points out the outright lie/deceit.

 

[Kadarin]

that NSA press conference was complete BS. clapper as the head guy to investigate himself is a joke.
spying on every american. spying for the dea is already abuse. I can't take this guy serious anymore. I can't believe I voted for him. if only snowden had leaked before the 2012 election...

Agree 100%

 

[Fern]

A Clapper appointment is a joke.

As are those defending his outright lying to Congress. It's shameful.

Fern

 

[irishScott]

A Clapper appointment is a joke.

As are those defending his outright lying to Congress. It's shameful.

Fern

Bu... but a court wouldn't convict him of lying! So you have no right to complain!!!

Yeah, never mind if they should/shouldn't convict or why they wouldn't convict, the mere fact that they wouldn't makes this all better in the eyes of eskimopie, 2timer and others apparently.

 

[woolfe9998]

Bu... but a court wouldn't convict him of lying! So you have no right to complain!!!

Yeah, never mind if they should/shouldn't convict or why they wouldn't convict, the mere fact that they wouldn't makes this all better in the eyes of eskimopie, 2timer and others apparently.

I suggest you go back and re-read Eskimospy's post #12. He wasn't saying only that he wouldn't be convicted for lying. He also says something else, to wit:

It would have been a crime for Clapper to have told the truth in that forum

So your statement above - that he was defending him by merely pointing out that he wouldn't be prosecuted for perjury - is a straw man. He was, rather, defending him because he claims that answering truthfully would itself have been a crime. If true, that is a much more plausible defense of Clapper.

Whether he is correct about that or not, I do not know. However, you should direct your response to that issue rather than waste everyone's time building a straw man.

 

[Fern]

Clapper did lie. While that's a problem, IMO it's not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that he's one of those who believes domestic spying is OK. That it's not a violation of the 4th.

Oversight requires judgement. Judgement as to when things go too far or stray from the law/Constitution. Given that he thinks domestic spying is acceptable I have no faith in his judgement.

A person who is a strong proponent of civil rights, most particularly the 4th, is who is needed.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Everyone would immediately take that to be a yes. Terrible idea. I would have fired him just for that.

No. After it came out that he lied there were plenty of senior people (some former officials) on both sides of the aisle suggesting how he could have crafted his answer. I'll emphasize that it was not a 'gotcha question'. He was informed well ahead of time that that question would be asked.

And IMO with the above post you go way over the line. You actually support lying for convenience etc.

Your position - that intelligence people should lie when confronted with such a question - is such that these Congressional hearings on national security or Intel is a complete waste of time. There's no point, none whatsoever, if they're going to lie.

Fern

 

[jpeyton]

I thought Walter killed Mike in the first part of the season?

 

[Agent11]

Next press conference someone should ask Obama what the definition of 'outside' is.

 

[Lash444]

Agree 100%

I agree as well, though I certainly don't think Romney would have broke the news. I think those of you across the aisle who point at Benghazi... IRS scandal...are all throwing as much mud hoping some of it will stick. Was it news, sure. Was it what you were hoping to make it out to be? Not so much.

I have never wanted to have a third party in my life, as much as I want one for this next election. You can cry and point at Obama for this all you want. I hate it as much as you do, but I don't think this pointing fingers at him is going to do you any good.

Congress was knee deep in it. Obama was knee deep in it. Bush was knee deep in it.

You think the next President on either end of these two parties is going to come forward and scuttle the NSA? No. So how much does having your privacy mean to you? For me personally, if a candidate can't say that they are going to reverse what has already been done... then they are not receiving my vote. This is probably the first year that I consider myself independent. I just can't bring myself to support anyone who thinks this is the will of the people.

If you can't realize your own party is as much at fault for this... then you don't really have the right to complain about it. You are part of the problem.

 

[werepossum]

Clapper did lie. While that's a problem, IMO it's not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that he's one of those who believes domestic spying is OK. That it's not a violation of the 4th.

Oversight requires judgement. Judgement as to when things go too far or stray from the law/Constitution. Given that he thinks domestic spying is acceptable I have no faith in his judgement.

A person who is a strong proponent of civil rights, most particularly the 4th, is who is needed.

Fern

Well said. However, it makes no difference who carries out the oversight, for Obama clearly has no intention of changing anything substantive. Even the Pubbies, who are desperately looking for something to destroy Obama, are behind him on this.

I agree as well, though I certainly don't think Romney would have broke the news. I think those of you across the aisle who point at Benghazi... IRS scandal...are all throwing as much mud hoping some of it will stick. Was it news, sure. Was it what you were hoping to make it out to be? Not so much.

I have never wanted to have a third party in my life, as much as I want one for this next election. You can cry and point at Obama for this all you want. I hate it as much as you do, but I don't think this pointing fingers at him is going to do you any good.

Congress was knee deep in it. Obama was knee deep in it. Bush was knee deep in it.

You think the next President on either end of these two parties is going to come forward and scuttle the NSA? No. So how much does having your privacy mean to you? For me personally, if a candidate can't say that they are going to reverse what has already been done... then they are not receiving my vote. This is probably the first year that I consider myself independent. I just can't bring myself to support anyone who thinks this is the will of the people.

If you can't realize your own party is as much at fault for this... then you don't really have the right to complain about it. You are part of the problem.

If the majority on both sides are unwilling to make such issues a primary concern, why would you imagine a third party would have a different point of view? In reality we are addicted to Uncle Sugar's sweet milk and manly musk, perfectly willing to trade freedom for entitlements and security.

This is little different from the Dark Ages when peasants presented themselves to strongmen, penny in hand and noose around neck, trading away freedom and all the privileges and terrors of freedom for the relative protection and guaranteed meals of the serf or slave. And like the Dark Ages, it might well take centuries for our descendants to free themselves - assuming they care to ever even try. The freebies are only going to get better, life without Uncle Sugar's benevolent hand is only going to get more difficult, and Islamic terrorism is only going to get worse. Freedom may have just evolved out of the human animal.

 

[werepossum]

I suggest you go back and re-read Eskimospy's post #12. He wasn't saying only that he wouldn't be convicted for lying. He also says something else, to wit:

So your statement above - that he was defending him by merely pointing out that he wouldn't be prosecuted for perjury - is a straw man. He was, rather, defending him because he claims that answering truthfully would itself have been a crime. If true, that is a much more plausible defense of Clapper.

Whether he is correct about that or not, I do not know. However, you should direct your response to that issue rather than waste everyone's time building a straw man.

I'm going to play proggie and yell "Straw man"! You and Eskimo are claiming that Clapper lying is a reasonable thing because had he told the truth about this program, that would have been a crime. Yet people testifying in front of Congress are often asked questions to which they cannot truthfully answer. As Fern points out, this is hardly a unique situation and the required form of answer is well known. Thus the penalty to Clapper had he divulged the program is merely a deflection and a straw man because his choices were not binary.

Such a stance allows the government to do absolutely anything illegal simply by classifying it, effectively elevating the Executive Branch to dictatorship whilst negating the powers of the Judicial and Legislative Branches to uncover and punish such crimes.

 

[woolfe9998]

I'm going to play proggie and yell "Straw man"! You and Eskimo are claiming that Clapper lying is a reasonable thing because had he told the truth about this program, that would have been a crime. Yet people testifying in front of Congress are often asked questions to which they cannot truthfully answer. As Fern points out, this is hardly a unique situation and the required form of answer is well known. Thus the penalty to Clapper had he divulged the program is merely a deflection and a straw man because his choices were not binary.

Perhaps it is a deflection, but I don't understand where the straw man is here. Please point out how Eskimospy's stating that Clapper telling the truth would have been a crime is straw manning someone's argument.

Eskimospy's argument is not mine. I don't even know if it *would* have been a crime to testify truthfully. I was simply pointing out that IS mischaracterized his argument to make it sound weaker than it was. If the argument he actually made is refutable, then he should have refuted it.

As to your point, which presumably is that Clapper should have "neither confirmed nor denied," I may agree here. However, I'll play devil's advocate for the moment. If you have a system where it is important for certain programs to be kept secret otherwise they are compromised and of no value, does saying "I can neither confirm nor deny" satisfy that interest? Doesn't "I can neither confirm nor deny" signal to any reasonable listener that you're actually confirming because otherwise you would have denied?

Such a stance allows the government to do absolutely anything illegal simply by classifying it, effectively elevating the Executive Branch to dictatorship whilst negating the powers of the Judicial and Legislative Branches to uncover and punish such crimes.

Here, you're just wrong. As was pointed out above, correctly, Congress has committees which have top secret clearance precisely so that they can monitor what is going on. The problem here is that Clapper's statement was made before an open Congress. If he had been addressing a closed committee consisting of people with the proper clearances, it would have been an entirely different thing.

 

[werepossum]

Perhaps it is a deflection, but I don't understand where the straw man is here. Please point out how Eskimospy's stating that Clapper telling the truth would have been a crime is straw manning someone's argument.

Eskimospy's argument is not mine. I don't even know if it *would* have been a crime to testify truthfully. I was simply pointing out that IS mischaracterized his argument to make it sound weaker than it was. If the argument he actually made is refutable, then he should have refuted it.

As to your point, which presumably is that Clapper should have "neither confirmed nor denied," I may agree here. However, I'll play devil's advocate for the moment. If you have a system where it is important for certain programs to be kept secret otherwise they are compromised and of no value, does saying "I can neither confirm nor deny" satisfy that interest? Doesn't "I can neither confirm nor deny" signal to any reasonable listener that you're actually confirming because otherwise you would have denied?

Here, you're just wrong. As was pointed out above, correctly, Congress has committees which have top secret clearance precisely so that they can monitor what is going on. The problem here is that Clapper's statement was made before an open Congress. If he had been addressing a closed committee consisting of people with the proper clearances, it would have been an entirely different thing.

For the first, the only alternative to outing a classified program is clearly not lying because people get asked such questions all the time. Pretending that he HAD to lie because the program is classified is building a straw man to show the consequences of him outing the program as if that were his only recourse. In reality he could easily have deflected the question or requested to go into closed session.

For the second, yes, to a degree. But people asked these questions typically either ask to go into closed session to discuss any NSA programs or point out that if such a program did exist they would be unable to acknowledge it in open session so there is no point in answering at all. Either would be preferable to blatantly lying to the American public.

For the third, you have a valid point there. However, what is the point of having closed sessions at all if administration officials are free to lie under oath outside of those classified closed door sessions? The opposing party may well make accusations of lawbreaking, but if the administration's stooges are free to perjure themselves in open session who is going to believe the accusations considering that the closed door proceedings are themselves classified? Remember that Congress has no enforcement powers of its own. How then do we provide any level of oversight to the Executive Branch if it is free to lie under oath and those charged with oversight are bound by classification? How would one get an indictment if the accusation cannot be made and the accused is free to deny it under oath with no possible consequences?

If we have no penalties for perjury, how can we even have a system of law? "Your Honor, the State is lying about arresting my client with drugs on him. I have a dozen witnesses lined up who will testify under oath that the State kidnapped my client this very afternoon and forcibly dressed him in an orange jump suit with total disregard for truth or that my client is clearly an Autumn and should wear only primary colors and Earth tones."

 

[hamrecycling]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...led-by-clapper-who-denied-spying-to-congress/

First it's "fire the shotgun through the door" Biden for it's gun control comission, now it's Clapper (the guy who was caught on camera bald-faced lying to congress) for his NSA "reform."

...
...

THE FUCK?! Seriously I cannot divine how, in this or any of a series of parallel universes, he thought this was a good idea. Is he just the weakest President in history, the dumbest, have fucking aliens taken control of his mind because it would take a perspective as divorced from humanity as an actual alien for this to make any sense... unless he's intentionally trying to wreck his presidency?

Well irish, all i can think is " ALL THE ABOVE "

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

As to your point, which presumably is that Clapper should have "neither confirmed nor denied," I may agree here. However, I'll play devil's advocate for the moment. If you have a system where it is important for certain programs to be kept secret otherwise they are compromised and of no value, does saying "I can neither confirm nor deny" satisfy that interest? Doesn't "I can neither confirm nor deny" signal to any reasonable listener that you're actually confirming because otherwise you would have denied?

Regarding Eskimospy's position I refer you to post #29. It is not within Clappers perview to dismiss standing law.

I refer you to "18 USC § 1621 - Perjury generally"

Whoever—
(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or
(2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true;
is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.

That's about as unambiguous as can possibly be and therefore a defense saying that lying was necessary isn't going to work. Someone might infer that something was going on, but Clapper was given advance notification of the questions. Due diligence required that he give informed testimony, and it's hardly credible that in his position he was wholly ignorant. He could have come in and cited laws that forbid the discussion of the topic and not answered further, explaining that to do so would be a violation of law at least in the forum he found himself. It is not for him to conclude that any possible inference is an acknowledgement in fact and therefore violate the law. It is for him to give accurate testimony or give reason why he cannot. Lying under oath is a crime as the statute clearly states.

The Salon article I linked to says that any possible charges would be met with other defenses and no doubt would be successful. That would in no way clear him of deception, merely provide a means to prevent his punishment.

That brings us to the real problem and that's credibility. When a high official believes that the rule of law does not apply to him for any reason whatsoever, why should he or those who support him be trusted? The whole situation stinks and it is not trivial.

 

[irishScott]

I suggest you go back and re-read Eskimospy's post #12. He wasn't saying only that he wouldn't be convicted for lying. He also says something else, to wit:



So your statement above - that he was defending him by merely pointing out that he wouldn't be prosecuted for perjury - is a straw man. He was, rather, defending him because he claims that answering truthfully would itself have been a crime. If true, that is a much more plausible defense of Clapper.

Whether he is correct about that or not, I do not know. However, you should direct your response to that issue rather than waste everyone's time building a straw man.

As Hyabusa Rider pointed out, the proper response in that scenario is "neither confirm nor deny" or some variation thereof. He could swamp the answers of other questions with similar responses if he wanted plausible deniability.

If someone can find definitive proof that his only legal option was to lie I might change my tune, but I've never heard of such a scenario when testifying under oath.