General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
Clapper appears to have perjured himself.
(not that he cares)Sen. Ron Wyden says Director of National Intelligence James Clapper had a day to prepare his answer to Congress that there was no widespread collection of Americans' phone records.
Clapper, in answer to Wyden's questions in March testimony, denied that any intentional and massive sweep of Americans phone records as part of counterterror surveillance was occurring. It was revealed in the last week that two such programs do exist and were recently renewed.
In a statement to The Associated Press, Wyden said when NSA Director Keith Alexander didn't provide a full answer to questions about the programs, Wyden gave Clapper a day's notice that he would be asked the question at the hearing. Afterwards, he said, he gave Clapper's office another chance to amend his answer, but Clapper declined.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/us-no-plans-end-broad-surveillance-program
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
morningfog
(18,115 posts)
PNW_Dem
(119 posts)When is the last time someone got thrown in jail for lying to congress under oath? What is the recourse? Seriously, I’m not a lawyer and I’d like to know. Does it really mean anything that they are “under oath”? Is anyone out there qualified to answer this?
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)But I don't recall it ever being enforced.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Past bad acts are now cover for current bad acts.
Well played.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Some like Gen. Hayden came out of 9/11 with even more career spin and trajectory. Remarkable, that.
Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)Fucking hilarious.
Can you imagine what would happen if a regular person used that phrase in front of a judge?
PB
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)think
(11,641 posts)"Wittingly"....
Definition of wittingly from the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
With full awareness of what one is doing <whether he hurt her feelings wittingly or unwittingly isn't important; he should still apologize >
http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/wittingly
MsPithy
(809 posts)2 billion dollar per year installation in Bluffdale, Utah, ... unwittingly?
think
(11,641 posts)"What ever you do don't touch the yellow button. That would be bad."
"Whoops did I say the yellow button? I meant the red button. My bad heheh!"
"Don't worry. It's all classified anyhow. No one will ever know 
"
In this whole horrible dissolution of the Fourth Amendment mess that we find ourselves in, there are two bright spots. One is Clapper saying his answer to Senator Widen was the "least untruthful," how awesome is that!
The other is my new favorite words, wittingly and unwittingly. I think they will apply to almost every situation, and I plan on using them, and "least untruthful," every day.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)People in positions of power are not required to tell the truth, and if they lie there are zero consequences.
Melinda
(5,465 posts)I haven't much hope left these days.
kenny blankenship
(15,689 posts)Lying to Congress is perjury. Perjuring yourself before Congress in response to questions about a possible conspiracy against the Constitution is about as serious a crime of state as they make, short of the Big "T" of treason.
In a democratic, constitutional republic the supreme law of the Constitution matters. Perjury before Congress matters. Cheating the people out their right to expect valid process of their democratic institutions matters. This bald faced perjury about violating the Constitutional rights of every citizen grows a zillion legs and takes off like Usain Bolt.
If it does NOT grow legs - well then you know what kind of country this is, and where you now stand.
MADem
(135,425 posts)without being sworn in...
Enrique
(27,461 posts)the Worst Congress Ever doesn't care if they get lied to.
DCKit
(18,541 posts)We keep saying that, and it keeps getting worse.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)The subject of this thread and all.
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)When the administration lies about very basic questions about the program, it can't claim that Congress was really informed. Or the public, either.
We live in a cynical world, but imagine those idealists who still believed that the government would tell them the truth, only to find out it would look them in the eye and tell them a lie.
Well, they lied about it before, and lied about it under oath, but I trust them that their secret warrants in secret courts really aren't rubber stamps because shut up, that's why.
Autumn
(45,058 posts)the man in charge is a god damn fucking liar. That gives me faith these programs will never be abused.
By the way, do any of our "leaders" and I use the term loosely give a flying fuck about it? Of course they don't but by god they are all over people who leak information the American people have the right to know.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)If he lied or perjured himself, the evidence to support that has not been given.
reusrename
(1,716 posts)The programs that do sweep up such information were revealed last week by The Guardian and The Washington Post newspapers, and Clapper has since taken the unusual step of declassifying some of the previously top-secret details to help the administration mount a public defense of the surveillance as a necessary step to protect Americans.
One of the NSA programs gathers hundreds of millions of U.S. phone records to search for possible links to known terrorist targets abroad. The other allows the government to tap into nine U.S. Internet companies and gather all communications to detect suspicious behavior that begins overseas.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/us-no-plans-end-broad-surveillance-program
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)reusrename
(1,716 posts)
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)You do understand that the instance of NSA Surveillance leaked by Snowden was from APril 25-July19, right?
reusrename
(1,716 posts)July 19 is a month away.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)The facts in evidence do not support perjury. If he testified in March and said "No surveillance..." the NSA Surveillance effort leaked by Snowden did not start until April 25 and it is due to end July 19. If he testified in March to "No blanket surveillance happening at this time" what we know in terms of being leaked does not contradict that.
reusrename
(1,716 posts)I think what you mean is that thousands of workers have been standing around for seven years waiting for some kind of job to do and then on April 25 they actually started working and they will all go back into standby mode again on July 19, just in case we might need them again for some other task seven years from now.
Is that it? 'Cause that sure is what it sounds like to me.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)are arguing about something that involves civil liberties and rights at the same time you are apparently claiming there is no difference between the two.
There are no facts in evidence that say that this person lied. If you have facts that say something different, let me know.
reusrename
(1,716 posts)Carry on.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Like they haven't already said it was a recurring program that applied to all the carriers.
He needs all the docs for every carrier over every time period as evidence.
reusrename
(1,716 posts)Intentionally obtuse, I think is the correct terminology here.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)A: To hide something much bigger than perjury.
I don't think we know the full extent of what's going on yet, and I suspect there's a lot that Congress hasn't been informed about. Otherwise, why lie?
freedom fighter jh
(1,782 posts). . . well, these aren't really your phone records; it's just a bunch of meta data not really related to you. No, I don't believe it's not really related, but I think he'll say that.
And yeah, I doubt that he cares anyway.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)Actually, the records just sort of showed up and we didn't know what to with them, so we put them into the data base.
I didn't realize you were talking about the data base.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)Sure we have millions of phone records, but we aren't actually going use most of them. We're probably only going to look at 5000 of them. Certainly not a million. I thought you meant programs where we were looking at millions of records.
dkf
(37,305 posts)He can't slip out through that hole
"Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" Wyden asked Clapper at the March 12 hearing.
freedom fighter jh
(1,782 posts)But it wasn't about them, it was just related to their phone numbers, not their names.
No, I don't think it's valid. And I hope you're right that he can't slip out through that hole.
SCVDem
(5,103 posts)How about thousands show up with the small American flags......
And burn them!
Nothing else seems to get the governments attention.
Maybe building a giant guillotine......
ProSense
(116,464 posts)...does not support the "perjury" claim.
More:
"Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" Wyden asked Clapper at the March 12 hearing.
"No, sir," Clapper answered.
"It does not?" Wyden pressed.
Clapper quickly and haltingly softened his answer. "Not wittingly," he said. "There are cases where they could, inadvertently perhaps, collect — but not wittingly."
Wyden said he also gave Clapper a chance to amend his answer.
Wyden wants a straight answer. He is not accusing Clapper of perjury. Even Wyden has acknowledged that he can't discuss certain classified information. This hearing was before the leak.
A report from four days ago:
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said Thursday that he stood by what he told Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., in March when he said that the National Security Agency does not "wittingly" collect data on millions of Americans.
"What I said was, the NSA does not voyeuristically pore through U.S. citizens' e-mails. I stand by that," Clapper told National Journal in a telephone interview.
On March 12, at a hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Wyden asked Clapper: "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" Clapper responded: "No, sir." When Wyden followed up by asking, "It does not?" Clapper said: "Not wittingly. There are cases where they could, inadvertently perhaps, collect—but not wittingly." Clapper did not specify at the time that he was referring to e-mail.
The exchange came more than a month before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court granted a secret order to the FBI on April 25, giving the government unlimited authority for three months to amass the telephone records of millions of U.S. customers of Verizon, according a report in The Guardian. Although the court order was signed 10 days after the Boston Marathon bombings, on Thursday the two senior senators on the Intelligence Committee described the order as a regular renewal of an ongoing program. "As far as I know, this is the exact three-month renewal of what has been in place for the past seven years," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the committee chairwoman, told reporters. The ranking member, Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., also said the program was "nothing new. This has been going on for seven years." He added: "Every member of the United States Senate has been advised of this. To my knowledge there has not been any citizen who has registered a complaint. It has proved meritorious because we have collected significant information on bad guys, but only on bad guys, over the years."
- more -
http://www.nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/james-clapper-clarifies-remarks-over-nsa-snooping-20130606
suffragette
(12,232 posts)His answer at the hearing is on video:
Clapper responded: "No, sir." When Wyden followed up by asking, "It does not?" Clapper said: "Not wittingly. There are cases where they could, inadvertently perhaps, collect—but not wittingly."
In his interview with the National Journal, he attempts to revise that to:
"What I said was, the NSA does not voyeuristically pore through U.S. citizens' e-mails. I stand by that," Clapper told National Journal in a telephone interview.
As the article from the National Journal notes:
Clapper did not specify at the time that he was referring to e-mail.
Just a tad ironic that Clapper tried to say he gave a different answer (even using "what I said," rather than 'what I meant') when he said this at a recorded hearing and the video is available for review by the public (unlike say one of the secret hearings they hold).
ProSense
(116,464 posts)His answer at the hearing is on video:
Clapper responded: "No, sir." When Wyden followed up by asking, "It does not?" Clapper said: "Not wittingly. There are cases where they could, inadvertently perhaps, collect—but not wittingly."
In his interview with the National Journal, he attempts to revise that to:
"What I said was, the NSA does not voyeuristically pore through U.S. citizens' e-mails. I stand by that," Clapper told National Journal in a telephone interview.
...not perjury. His statements to the press are opinions, not sworn testimony. The comments from the video are not perjurious. He was deliberately evasive, but he did clarify that the actions were not "wittingly."
Also, this is before the leak. People are now debating the scope of the records collected, and even those were after the hearing, but Americans are not the target.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)When your best defense includes an admission of deliberate evasion of questions by US Senators under freaking oath, this is a moment to take note of, sad, but noteworthy.
suffragette
(12,232 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"When your best defense includes an admission of deliberate evasion of questions by US Senators under freaking oath, this is a moment to take note of, sad, but noteworthy."
...no different from Wyden claiming he couldn't talk about certain things outside the Intelligence Committee.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)be dishonest or evasive while under oath in the Senate as it is to follow the rules of that body, which include being truthful when under oath?
You admit he was 'evasive' under oath to my Senator while the President claims Congress is happily informed and can get questions answered.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)It's the same, because I say so-Pro 2013
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)We have the elected officials.
And then we have the real government, which consists of the FBI, CIA, NSA and the Federal Reserve Bank -- none of them actually accountable to anybody.
What are the consequences when the real government lies to the elected officials? You're kidding, right?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)and his own profit. Like Cheney and Halliburton, only with funnier names like Clapper and Booz.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)DevonRex
(22,541 posts)Switzerland, France, Germany. Then there's Britain. Oh, and all those Scandinavian countries. Of course we all know what Russia does.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)See, he didn't lie. He just didn't tell the thuth.
