Did James Clapper lie under oath to the US Congress?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

Last edited Fri Jan 17, 2014, 02:12 PM - Edit history (1)

In another thread, there are a handful of people claiming that Clapper did not lie under oath to Congress. Some said he couldn't have told the truth without perjuring himself, and so he wasn't lying (EDIT: please note that the person in the other thread who said that Clapper couldn't have told the truth without perjuring himself did not, as I state above, conclude that Clapper was telling the truth. I got that wrong, as I told the other poster below, and so I need to correct it. I want to correct the record, and let you know that the poster did admit Clapper was lying, but that if he hadn't lied, he would have been subject to the death penalty, so a lie was his best option, and it was Ron Wyden's fault for asking the question in the first place. I still find the defense inexplicable, but I do value the truth, and so I wanted to edit this for all to see). Some claim that the fact that the GOP didn't start investigations or hearings proves that he didn't lie to Congress. Some claim that since Ron Wyden didn't charge Clapper with perjury, he wasn't lying. And one creative person even said that the matter is in dispute, because an NSA lawyer said Clapper wasn't lying.

When I read these excuses for Republican Booz Allen Hamilton spymaster James Clapper, I was bothered. After a time, it occurred to me why I was bothered--this reminded me very much of the Bush Gore debates of 2000. Back in 2000, I had this naive notion that, with the exception of Fox News, television news told us the truth (I know, I know, it's embarrassing to me now). When I watched these debates, it was very clear that Gore was mopping the floor with George W Bush, who came off as an imbecile. But post debate, all the news people started telling me that W gave a masterful performance. News people were telling me that what I saw with my own eyes wasn't valid. Well, if you're inclined to believe newscasters, this can lead to distressing feelings. Am I calibrated wrong? Was I not paying the right kind of attention during the debates? Do I not understand how to parse words the way I thought I did? Surely...surely these newspeople aren't lying bastards. But of course, they were lying bastards, as I came to find out over the next several months. I hate liars, and it didn't take long at all to understand that the media was not to be trusted. They lied. They continue to lie. I'm preaching to the choir here, but I'm sure many of you felt a sense of betrayal once you figured out the media was lying to you. And yes, some of you understood this all along and didn't need to go through that learning process. But learn I did, and I'll never take the word of one particular talking head or another, not without some corroboration. Anyway, it occurred to me that the thing that was bothering me about this small handful of people's claims was a close cousin to how I felt about the media lying about the debates (and about the subsequent campaign, for that matter). What's clear to almost everyone else on the planet is lustily denied by a very small handful of people, despite clear video evidence to the contrary.

There's not any question that Clapper lied to Congress, at least not in my mind. But just in case, I wanted to check that calibration again, to make sure I'm still living in the real world. What does DU GD say as a whole? Did James Clapper lie to a congressman under oath, or did he tell the truth?

[G_j]

1. a rose by any other name.. nt

[warrant46]

55. Yes, But nothing will be done about it

[Baitball Blogger]

2. "Some said he couldn't have told the truth without perjuring himself, and so he wasn't lying."

Sounds like good ole boy best practices.

[hueymahl]

3. He lied

Legally, morally, according to the military code, according to the constitution. He lied. And he should be prosecuted.

[Whiskeytide]

13. According to my kindergarten teacher...

... as well.

[randome]

4. You already know the answer.

If he wanted to simply lie, why would he not have said something more convincing? Why would he later volunteer that he didn't tell the whole truth because of national security concerns?

If you consider that to be lying, then he is clearly a bad liar, which should, in some measure, comfort you.

Think about that.
[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]

[Whiskeytide]

15. I think the appropriate answer, then, would be...

"I cannot answer that question due to NS concerns". He lied. Whether he's good at it or not is not germane, imo.

[randome]

28. That answer you propose is the same as saying 'Yes'.

He fudged, he hemmed and hawed and botched it up.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

[DisgustipatedinCA]

32. "fudged" is nothing more than a way to dress up the word "lied". nt

[Riftaxe]

108. Or...

"I cannot answer in either affirmative or negative due to NS considerations"... a completely ambiguous statement.

Instead he chose to knowingly lie, presumably because he knew he was immune from penalty because of political considerations.

[Rex]

5. Of course he lied to Congress, that is what got the ball rolling.

What also should be disturbing - why does Congress read from a pre-written script? Are Congress people not allowed to ask any question that they want to or is this country so much in the control of the MIC, that Congress is just another branch?

[VanillaRhapsody]

6. If he lied to Congress....and it wasn't in dispute...

He would be up on charges of Contempt of Congress....it IS therefore in dispute...
Your disgust with that non-withstanding. Rand Paul demanded just that....he has failed...

[Proud Public Servant]

24. Only if Congress cared

It has been suggested repeatedly -- and I think accurately -- that the GOP loves the National Security Apparatus more than they hate Obama.

[VanillaRhapsody]

31. So Congress is above being spied on so that's why they don't care?

There is NOTHING the GOP hates more than Barack Obama.

Rand Paul demanded it...does he "not love the National Security Apparatus" as a Republican?

[Proud Public Servant]

64. No he doesn't

Rand Paul is actual openly hostile to the National Security Apparatus. I hate the bastard, but I'll give him props for consistency on that point.

As for the rest of it, you're just not listening. Yes, there's nothing they hate more than Obama. But there's nothing they love more than the unaccountable authoritarianism of the National Security State -- an apparatus they largely created and hope to be in charge of again soon. So the question is, do they love the National Security State more than they hate Obama? Using your own (transpositional) logic (i.e., infering antecedent from consequence), the conclusion is that yes, they do.

[VanillaRhapsody]

65. then what was just said was "erroneous"

[Proud Public Servant]

69. Well, that's cryptic

I assume you mean that teh GOP can't be in love with the NSA because Rand Paul spoke up. Which means you're assuming the GOP is a monolith without internal divisions and disagreements. Which means you haven't been paying attention.

If you meant something else, by all means feel free to explain yourself.

[VanillaRhapsody]

74. No that is also erroneous....

Saying "in love" doesn't change that fact....

this is not a black and white world is it?

[Proud Public Servant]

78. Your world certainly isn't

it seems positively psychedelic. What "fact" are you referring to?

[VanillaRhapsody]

79. Your world isn't black and white either...

there are loads of grey area....

Nothing is as cut and dried as some people wish it were...

[GeorgeGist]

7. Some said he couldn't have told the truth without perjuring himself, and so he wasn't lying.

Worthy of FreeRepublic.

[Scuba]

8. In his own words, he gave an "untruthful" answer. He lied.

[VanillaRhapsody]

33. He used the word erroneous not "untruthful"

different definition...

[bvar22]

52. Nope. Hu used the word "untruthful".

James Clapper: I Gave 'Least Untruthful' Answer Possible
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/11/james-clapper-nsa-surveillance_n_3424620.html

The qualifier does NOT change the inherent meaning of the word "untruthful".
Clapper LIED.
Clapper admitted that he LIED,
but he tried to make it OK by implying that he LIED for our own good.
It is STILL a LIE.

"You can't handle the truth" is an admission of LYING.

[VanillaRhapsody]

56. but he didn't say he was not telling the truth...

he described what he said as "erroneous"

Erroneous means....in error...not willfully withholding the truth...which in this case would be Contempt of Congress charges...

His testimony was complicated....

[bvar22]

76. Hello.... Pay Attention!

He used the exact word "untruthful" when later questioned about his testimony.
I have already given you the direct quote.

[font size=3]un·truth·ful[/font]
ˌənˈtro͞oTHfəl/
adjective
adjective: untruthful

1.
saying or consisting of something that is false or incorrect.
"companies issuing untruthful recruitment brochures"

synonyms:
false, untrue, fabricated, made up, invented, trumped up
[font size=3]lying[/font], mendacious, dishonest, deceitful, duplicitous, false, double-dealing, two-faced, untrustworthy, dishonorable;

What are you running from?
The man himself admitted in public he had LIED.

How far will you go in your failed attempt to obscure the TRUTH?

[VanillaRhapsody]

77. Hello...Erroneous is NOT the same as Lying...

er·ro·ne·ous
iˈrōnēəs/Submit
adjective
1.
wrong; incorrect.
"employers sometimes make erroneous assumptions"
synonyms: wrong, incorrect, mistaken, in error, inaccurate, untrue, false, fallacious;

If he did....and it was unquestionable...he WOULD be up on charges of Contempt of Congress...

He is not...

[msanthrope]

9. Again--is there a contempt charge before Congress? If he lied, then why not? Is it possible that

the issue is a tad bit more complex than "he lied?"

[DisgustipatedinCA]

11. You're going with the notion that Clapper was truthful. Thank you.

[msanthrope]

12. No. I'm not. nt

[DisgustipatedinCA]

17. OK. Then you're going with 'Clapper lied'

I guess another possibility is that you're going with 'It's complicated'. Well, no, it's not. He either told a lie or he didn't. This does bring up a fourth possibility: you want to make your voice heard without having to commit one way or another.

[msanthrope]

48. It's not complicated actually--he made a moral choice based on what he perceived to be competing

imperatives. It's facile, frankly, to simply see that as "did he lie, or didn't he?"

And thus, the more erudite question is "Was Clapper obligated to give a different answer to Congress than the one he did?" I think the answer to that is, 'no.'

Did he 'lie?' Sure. And I will bet to you a sawbuck that Ron Wyden has since apologized for his involvement in this.

[jeff47]

57. I doubt Wyden apologized.

He knew the answer to the question before he asked it due to classified briefings.

He also knew that Clapper could not answer the question in open session, yet he demanded an answer when Clapper tried to dodge.

For Wyden to apologize, he would have to have blundered into this situation. And Wyden isn't that much of an idiot.

[msanthrope]

61. Oh--I suspect he did once he realized that his clearance for SSCI might be

up for grabs. You piss off too many people in the intelligence community, and they start screwing you over.

[questionseverything]

83. you are confirming that the alphabet agencies

think they are above the law.....that it is common knowledge that they would not hesitate to "screw over" a sitting elected official?

[msanthrope]

86. No--this is in keeping with clearance. One way to lose clearance is to make public comments

that one should not make regarding the existence and nature of classified materials. That actually is the law.

Wyden knew the rules.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

59. Settled: Clapper lied. Thank you.

You may wish to start a thread on what the real question should be. I started a thread that concerns itself with why some to the left of center are willing to believe that he did not tell a lie, and it's moving right along. Thanks.

[VanillaRhapsody]

68. Not settled...if it were...he would be up on charges..

as it stands...giving "errroneous" information is not the same as lying...or Contempt Charges would be sought.

Thanks!

[msanthrope]

71. No shit. What are ya' gonna do about it, though? nt

[DisgustipatedinCA]

73. As I've mentioned a few times, I'm going to have my opinion informed.

And it has been. Did you think this was some sort of crusade that would end in 50 of us going to TP Clapper's house or something? Nope. This was a thread about DU's reactions to Clapper, and I've confirmed what I suspected: a very, very small number of DUers claim to believe Clapper was telling the truth. Another small group of DUers concede that he's a liar, but defend him on other grounds. The vast, vast majority of respondents made clear that Clapper's a liar, no ifs/ands/buts or excuse-making for the SOB. I hope that gets you headed back on the right track vis. this thread.

[randome]

81. Did Snowden lie? Ask that question the way Sen. Wyden would: "Yes or No".

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[DisgustipatedinCA]

85. No.

[randome]

92. He lied when he broke the oath he signed.

Or do oaths mean nothing to you? If Snowden justifiably lied then why is it so difficult to comprehend that perhaps Clapper had justification, also?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers. It's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[DisgustipatedinCA]

94. I'm not asking for justification. I'm asking if Clapper lied. He did.

Nothing will change that.

[randome]

98. I'd say the entire point of this OP is to look scathingly upon Clapper.

If all you want are responses that agree with you, you may as well be talking to a mirror. By posting something on DU, you are inviting opinions, which means you are, in effect, asking if justification exists. I gave you an example of why I don't think Clapper's testimony was a big deal.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Rules are made to be broken. Including this one.[/center][/font][hr]

[DisgustipatedinCA]

100. I'd say I get to decide what the point of my own OP is. And I did get what I wanted with the OP.

I found out that the vast majority of people who responded opted to see the Clapper testimony for what it was--a lie. I also found out that there a very few people for whom truth means nothing, at least if that truth causes discomfort of some sort or another. You are of course free to opine about the "true meaning" of my OP, but I wrote it, I read the responses, I drew conclusions based on those responses, and I require nothing further of you.

[VanillaRhapsody]

102. Nope not true....lying would be willful...he didn't "willfully" do that and you know it...

because if he did...he would be in contempt and he would be up on charges..THAT is the difference. Being wrong is not a prosecutable offense.

[riderinthestorm]

105. The oath to protect and defend the Constitution? Then Snowden upheld that oath

by exposing the NSA overreach.

Clapper just out right lied.

[randome]

106. Clapper took an oath to not reveal classified information.

I'd say he took his oath more seriously than Snowden.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[VanillaRhapsody]

84. Then where are the Contempt of Congress charges?

yep it seems to be a "crusade" to me...

[jeff47]

10. That's a very impressive misreading of the other thread.

I really have to take my hat off to you for misreading the other thread that badly.

Though I suppose that would be the point of starting this new one - don't have the actual posts for people to see just how wrong you are.

Some said he couldn't have told the truth without perjuring himself, and so he wasn't lying.

Not even close.

Clapper's options were to break the law by lying, or break the law by revealing classified. He chose to break the law by lying.

It means he won't be prosecuted for lying. But that doesn't mean he was not lying.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

16. Please use this space to correct anything I've gotten wrong

I just checked the other thread, and it's true that I don't see you making the claim that Clapper didn't lie. You did make the claim that he had no choice, but you didn't say that he wasn't lying, as others asserted. So please do feel free to reiterate here what you stated in the other thread. I don't want to misconstrue your words, and I'd like you to have the opportunity to say what you want on the matter.

Here's the link for the other thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024344123

[jeff47]

23. Already did. You mixed perjury, national security and lying

into a giant pile of bullshit and spread it here.

You'd think that someone so incensed by lying wouldn't lie themselves.....

[DisgustipatedinCA]

34. Better back the fuck up if you're accusing me of lying

Post my lie right here, right now.

[jeff47]

41. K:

Some said he couldn't have told the truth without perjuring himself, and so he wasn't lying.

I'm the only one who mentioned the word "perjury", but that was by equating the situation to a perjury trap. Not actual perjury. So it was not "told the truth without perjuring himself".

Which as its own phrase makes no sense whatsoever.

In addition, I never said Clapper was not lying. I said he wouldn't be prosecuted for it, because telling the truth was also illegal (reveals classified).

[DisgustipatedinCA]

58. post 16 should answer your question

As I stated once, you didn't say he was lying. You said he didn't have a choice. You're wrong about that, of course, but you did not make the claim that he was truthful to the Congress, and I freely admitted that in a post ABOVE yours after looking at the other thread, and then inviting you to correct misperceptions. You didn't correct misperceptions. You instead called me a liar. That's fairly bold for someone who's spending a lot of time defending this professional liar. You should stop that.

[jeff47]

60. Your OP is still there, and still not corrected.

Your OP is still there. You also can't point to anyone else discussing the word "perjury". You also lied about how the word "perjury" was used in your OP.

You also claimed in your OP that the people talking about "perjury" (only me) claimed Clapper wasn't lying. Now you are saying I did not claim he wasn't lying.

On a different subject, why do you think Wyden asked the question? He already knew the answer from classified briefings. He also already knew Clapper couldn't answer truthfully without revealing classified. So why did Wyden ask, and then demand a "Yes or No" when Clapper tried to dodge?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

63. Maybe it's time for you to stop accusing me of lying.

You're one of the very few individuals trying to defend this liar. You're doing so with very weak arguments. I've tried to extend some courtesy to you, but you keep calling me a liar. I'm not the one in bed with a right wing liar, so knock it off, sport.

[Whiskeytide]

18. Can he not decline to answer?

On NS grounds? That would have been the appropriate response. Then we wouldn't be having this conversation at all. Of course, that response would have implied the information - I'll give you that. But NS grounds is not a license to mislead via false testimony under oath.

[jeff47]

20. He tried to deflect, and Wyden demanded a "Yes" or "No".

"No" is a lie, "Yes" reveals classified.

There is no reason "No" would reveal classified - the non-existence of a program isn't secret. As a result, any attempt to call for a closed session is equivalent to "Yes".

But NS grounds is not a license to mislead via false testimony under oath.

No, but the lack of alternatives mean he won't be prosecuted for it. That's what the original thread was asking - why isn't Clapper being prosecuted.

Clapper did later "correct" his answer in a classified session.

[Comrade Grumpy]

22. He could have refused to answer or gone into executive session.

This is a real contortion.

[jeff47]

25. Already covered in the other thread.

There's no reason to ask for a classified session if the answer was "No". Therefore asking for a session is the same as saying "Yes".

Clapper tried to avoid answering, and Wyden demanded a "Yes" or "No". That left no room for Clapper to get a closed session.

[jeff47]

30. Is it too much to ask people to bother reading the other replies?

Your answer is the equivalent of "Yes". There is no reason to give that answer if the real answer is "No". Therefore, your answer reveals classified.

The proper way to handle this would be for Team Clapper to talk to Wyden before the hearing, and let him know Clapper can't answer that question in an open hearing. Team Clapper claims the question Wyden sent before the hearing wasn't as specific, or was on a different program.

ETA: It should also be noted that Wyden knew the answer to the question beforehand, because of classified briefings. Wyden also knew that Clapper could not answer the question truthfully in an open hearing.

Either way, they fucked up and Clapper lied. But Clapper won't be prosecuted because his other option was to also break the law.

[Proud Public Servant]

66. You're right - I misread.

Mea culpa.

[riderinthestorm]

14. He lied. nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

35. being mistaken is not the same as lying...

[riderinthestorm]

101. Lied nt

[Comrade Grumpy]

19. He lied. Everybody knows it. The backflips in that thread are amazing.

[VanillaRhapsody]

36. No they don't if "everybody did"

He would be up on Contempt of Congress charges...he isn't....so no not so cut and dried.

[Rex]

43. Not amazing, so predictable by the Usual Suspects that it is boring.

If they said anything else BUT CYA for the MIC, I would fall out of my chair.

[2banon]

21. Facts are facts. Clapper LIED to Congress. That FACT has been established vis a vis his actual

and specific testimony and responses to specific queries vs information contained in documents and other testimony released to the public (press) and to Congress, proving Clapper LIED.

I completely agree with your take on the Bush vs Gore debates. In that scenario, it's our pov vs the M&M's professed pov on who "won" the debate.

It isn't the same thing.

The outcome of one scenario is based on our shared and educated perspective and the other finding is based fact based evidence.

[VanillaRhapsody]

37. No it hasn't ....he used the term "erroneous"...

erroneous (ɪˈrəʊnɪəs)
adj
1. based on or containing error; mistaken; incorrect


NOT quite the same is it?

[Comrade Grumpy]

42. How positively Nixonian. I guess his statement is now "inoperative."

[VanillaRhapsody]

51. not if you actually use dictionaries and believe actual quotes should be used...

[2banon]

47. Depends on what your definition of "IS" is.

EOM/EOD

[VanillaRhapsody]

53. I rely on dictionaries....I believe I know what the word "IS" means...

I also no not to make a "quote" and claiming it a quote...when it is clearly not.

[2banon]

26. I missed the other thread, cannot believe how many Clapper defenders are weighing in on this.

It would seem we have a population of freepers on board.

[TheKentuckian]

90. Freepers while more stupid, ignorant, delusional, hateful, and meanspirited

tend not to be as Orwellian and Borg like.. Their slime ball pols? Absolutely, but the slackjaws are stuck on such things as birth certificates, BENGHAZI! , ACORN, and regurgitating Rush and whatever Faux is blasting.

Freepers are stupid, greedy, and mean these folks are getting creepy and Borg like, relentlessly bent on assimilation and falling that, silence and disrupt.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

93. They're predictable idiots. We expect this sort of thing from Freepers and 'baggers

Having those on your own side attempt to shank you feels like a larger betrayal.

By the way, the ACORN army is real. Hide your family.

[JoePhilly]

38. He lied. Now what do you want to do?

There is a group here who pretends to care about whether he lied or not. Apparently they think his lying creates some kind of "gotcha" moment.

The problem is ... it doesn't.

The reason he lied is already known. If he says "yes", he's divulged confidential information. If he says "no", he lied to congress. If he says "I can't answer", he's basically said "yes" because, of the 2 possible answers, "yes" is the only one that would be classified.

Now ... let's consider something everyone on DU either forgets or ignores. Congress already knew the answer to that question. That aspect of the programs had been disclosed to other committees in congress.

The question asked in open session was intended to make Clapper squirm, and put some pressure on the administration, not to make him divulge confidential info. But as worded, the question gave Clapper had two bad choices, so he choice the least painful.

This is why congress did not go crazy and demand he be charged with lying to congress. They already knew the answer.

So now, we have folks running around DU very upset that Clapper lied to congress, way back when, about a program that congress all ready knew all about.

As I've said before ... its a way to gin up manufactured outrage, and little else.

[randome]

44. Nice summary and encapsulation of the outrage.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[DisgustipatedinCA]

54. Now what do I want to do? I want to take mental note of those who claim he's not lying.

You're a fan of the spy state, and even you just clearly stated that he was lying. I'm not so much concerned with Clapper's character--he's a lying piece of shit, and has been for a long time, and most of us are aware of that. If you'll re-read the OP, you'll see that it mostly has to do with a very small group of people here who are invested in the idea that he didn't lie. I'm wondering if there's any lie they won't sign onto should the occasion arise. When a liar is exposed, its' foolhardy to ever take that person at their word again. That applies to James Clapper, and it applies to anyone who lies in order to deceive, to try to make people believe something one knows not to be true. Once you've been lied to by an individual, that individual has lost the right to ever be taken at their word again.

[JoePhilly]

62. You crack me up.

I'm not a "fan" of the "spy state" (did you mean "police state"?). Regardless, I'm not a fan of the "spy state".

I am, however, a fan of intentional, logical, reality-based thinking, particularly when it comes to politics.

Clapper was not giving a speech today.

So I'm trying to understand why anyone should care if you are never going to take his word on anything ever again.

He's no longer involved in any of this.

So again ... now what?

Oh wait ... Clapper lied, which makes Obama a liar, ergo ... Obama was lying today, and probably lying about everything else he says. Or so that other OP you mention goes.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

67. I never was going to take Clapper's word for anything.

There are other liars involved, and I'll not be taking their word at face value again.

I meant spy state.

I'm aware Clapper wasn't giving a speech today. Are you aware that Glen Campbell used to sing backup for the Beach Boys? Now we're both on record saying something completely irrelevant to the matter at hand.

[JoePhilly]

70. So who are these other liars?

Be candid now.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

72. I'm not quite that slow, but I applaud the attempt at getting me to shoot myself in the foot.

Did I mention I hate liars, and consider them to be pretty much useless in society, even detrimental?

[JoePhilly]

80. I simply created for you, a dilemma similar to the one Clapper faced.

Ironic isn't it.

You could tell the explicitly truth, lie, or allow the truth to be surmised implicitly, by taking the 5th.

I'll point out that I'm pretty sure you could call the President a liar here on DU explicitly and not shoot yourself in the foot.

I'm pretty sure it happens regularly.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

88. And look. I refused to answer the question, and my post wasn't locked.

James Clapper did answer the question. And he lied. And he'd be subject to perjury charges if congress had the gumption to bring those charges. Your point bolsters my case, and I thank you for making it.

[JoePhilly]

95. And if he refused to answer ...

that would have been taken as a yes.

The difference is that you did not have the fortitude to actually name names, even though there was no real danger in doing so.

The chances of such a post being hidden are about 0.

First, I would not alert (I never alert on anything). And I doubt anyone would read your response in our little sub thread anyway. And even then, the chance that that person would alert, again, about 0.

And then hell, around here, I'd bet you'd probably get a 6-0 LEAVE IT, and the alerter would get a smack.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

96. Again, thank you for bolstering my point while weakening your own.

You came up with this nifty parallel--actually, that wasn't your original purpose, but you saw a chance and took it. You just happened to get it 180 degrees off. I guess there's no real need for me and my lack of fortitude to go hide in a corner, since you're helping me out here. I may prevail yet. Thanks!

[JoePhilly]

97. Not sure how.

I've said Clapper lied. I've also asked who cares and what do you want to do about it ... and you have basically said "do nothing".

You then said there were other liars. I asked you who you meant. That was an honest question directly to you.

You were unwilling to provide an explicit answer simply because you assumed some danger ... one that did not exist.

I simply found it funny. You are demanding truth, but yet you we're not willing to answer explicitly.

As for me "helping you out" ... not sure how so ... you don't really have a point, other than lying is bad (gasp), and clearly you don't have some action in mind regarding Clapper.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

99. Was it an honest question as you claim now, or was it a device you were using to show a parallel

...as you claimed before? Thanks, but once again, I didn't sign up last week. If by now you don't understand that the thread is about DU, and not about the established liar Clapper, I'm not going to be able to do anything to help. You helped me out by trying to create an analogy that says Clapper wouldn't have been in trouble had he told the truth. Not to be indelicate, but it wouldn't have been possible for you to discredit your own point any more than you did with that analogy. Again, if that's something you don't perceive, nothing I say is going to clear things up for you.

[JoePhilly]

103. It was an honest question that happened to cause you to have a dilemma.

Honestly, I assumed that you would (as I had earlier), answer my question directly. My response to you is one that some might alert on.

Is it not?

As I said ... I can't imagine a post calling the President a liar getting hidden on DU. Dozen's of recs, absolutely. Hidden, not likely.

You thought of that risk, and that's what caused your dilemma.

Earlier, I imagined a risk of having my response to you hidden, and told you the explicit truth anyway.

You chose not to do that when responding to my question here.

[Savannahmann]

39. Yes.

Because the Government doesn't hold him responsible does not mean he did not lie. The Government did not allow Italy to hold Robert Lady responsible, but that doesn't mean that the kidnapping and torture did not happen.

The US laws don't apply to everyone, just the peasants.

[questionseverything]

89. exactly....as pointed out up thread

congress can not reign in the spy agencies or they will "screw with" them

this thread reminds me of the bush admin taking about warrantless wiretaping...i believe that was the first time i heard....illegal but not criminal....classic double speak

[ProSense]

40. Anyone

interested in reform:

Udall, Wyden, Heinrich Statement Reacting to President's Speech on NSA, Surveillance Reform
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024347077

[JoePhilly]

45. Ohhh NO!!!! The NSA got to Wyden!!!

[Autumn]

46. Yes he did. The least untruthful answer is a LIE.

No matter how you spin it, it's a LIE.

[Poll_Blind]

49. Clapper lied. nt

PB

[WillowTree]

50. The simple answer is yes, he lied.

[randome]

75. If everything is as simple as you portray, then answer this: did Snowden lie?

Yes or No, please.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[DisgustipatedinCA]

82. Not so far as I know. I do recall that his salary wasn't what he claimed it was.

That salary was from a previous job. By the way, everything is precisely as simple as I claimed. This thread is not so much about Clapper as it is about those who claim he didn't lie, while everyone else saw with their own eyes that he did, in fact, lie. That's about as simple as it gets.

[randome]

91. He lied when he broke the oath he signed.

If you think there was justification for that 'lie', then it's not a stretch to see justification in Clapper's 'lie', also.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers. It's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[riderinthestorm]

104. The oath where he says he'll protect and defend the Constitution? Oh yeah, that's what he did

when he revealed the NSA's overreach.. he was upholding his oath.

Besides, this thread isn't about Snowden (who took his oath seriously enough to do the right thing), its about Clapper who surely lied.

[randome]

107. I'm not even sure that the word 'Constitution' is in a contractor's oath.

Can anyone verify that for me?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[bvar22]

87. THis thread is about Clapper, not Snowden.

If you would like to start a thread about Snowden,
Please Proceed.
Otherwise, your attempt to divert is noted.

Clapper LIED.
Period.

[Festivito]

109. Iladept at testimony, I hope he does not have a high position.

Sir, this Congress allows rules of secrecy that COULD break your rules either way I answer your question.

Instead, he lied.

[TroglodyteScholar]

110. Yes, he lied.

And it should be obvious to anyone.