March 12, 2014: It Is Now One Year After DNI Clapper Lied to Congress...

[xocet]

In this video, DNI Clapper lies in response to Senator Wyden's question. The exchange occurs after about 6:37 in the video.

One thing that is quite clear from this event is that President Obama condones lying to Congress.

[MADem]

1. No--one thing that is quite clear from this event is that CONGRESS didn't give a shit about it.

It's up to Congress to say "That was wrong." They haven't done that.

It's not the job of Obama to characterize testimony before a legislative body. Obama is not "the boss" of Congress. If they have an objection to the testimony they received, it is incumbent upon them to voice that objection.

It's called Separation of Powers for a reason.

[xocet]

3. DNI Clapper serves at President Obama's pleasure and may be dismissed.

Apparently, lying (Clapper's statements are objectively false.) to Congress is something that you also condone.

Wouldn't you prefer that the Administration not lie to Congress?

You were against the lies that started the Iraq war, weren't you?

Would those lies have been fine by you if it had been the Obama Administration telling them?

[Fearless]

4. +1

[cui bono]

6. +2

[MADem]

11. Show me the document where he is "charged" with lying?

Show me the formal accusation of a crime being committed? Where's the charge sheet? Where's the letter of complaint?

If no one brings charges--and no one has--then there's nothing to rail against.

Political theater, where everyone has a role to play--as "open session" often is--has very little to do with actual "fact finding."

I suspect no one's accusing anyone of anything because everyone knew the answers already and the script got away from 'em.

[xocet]

13. Clapper, though equivocating in his admission, admitted to lying.

Last edited Wed Mar 12, 2014, 11:10 PM - Edit history (1)

"So I responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or least untruthful, manner by saying 'no'."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/11/james-clapper-nsa-surveillance_n_3424620.html

[cui bono]

7. Neither gives a shit. Clapper is an Obama appointee. Obama should have reacted to this. n/t

[MADem]

10. You're playing the Every Little Sparrow card.

Obama should "react" to any protests emanating out of Congress with regard to this matter.

No protests, no reaction.

Again, it is not Obama's j-o-b to do Congress's. If they have a problem, they need to pipe up.

[cui bono]

14. I'm not playing cards.

Clapper is an Obama appointee. If he lied to Congress, Obama should ask for his resignation. Why should he abdicate his responsibility in this?

And Congress needs to act as well. They should demand his resignation.

[MADem]

15. Separation. Of. Powers.

If he lied to Congress, CONGRESS needs to say so.

They haven't.

Obama is not "the boss" of Congress. He's not the KING.

If Congress has a problem with Clapper, they need to write it down and send the complaint over to the Executive Branch, so the Executive Branch can act on it, and reply to Congress with their resolution of the issue.

Until they do that, there's just no story here.

I realize this is something that annoys you to the point where you're ignoring that BIG point noted in the subject line, but that's how it works.

[cui bono]

17. Clapper. Is. An. Obama. Appointee.

Jesus. Fucking. Christ.

It. Is. Not. That. Hard. To. Understand.

Sorry if this doesn't fit into the Obama can do no wrong narrative. Unfortunately, there are a lot of things that don't fit that narrative. That doesn't excuse you not being able to understand that someone's appointee should be asked to step down when it is publicly known that they have lied to Congress. No one is asking him to ask Congress to step down, so your point about Obama not being the boss of Congress is moot.

[MADem]

18. So?

When Congress has a problem with him, they'll TELL Obama.

We're back to

Separation.
Of.
Powers.


Yet again.

Not sure why you assume you're privy to all communications, here.

PRO TIP: You're NOT.

Either Congress didn't have a problem with his remarks or he revised them outside of your earshot. In any event, no one in Congress is sending up the Poutrage Balloon, and that is annoying you. But until they do (and I'm guessing they're not gonna do it), Obama has no business acting on a "non-problem" that happens in the Legislative branch. Why is that so "hard to understand?" I mean, really... "Jesus Fucking Christ"--to quote you.

You want to goose Obama into "doing something?" Get up off your behind, run for the Senate, get elected, get yourself a seat on the intel committee, and try to persuade the chair to send a letter over to the White House complaining about this matter.

Until then, learn the system. Or at least get a general, vague and amorphous idea of how it works.

[cui bono]

19. It's not about not knowing the system. You are completely missing the point in your overzealous

desire to absolve Obama of any responsibility for the appointments he has made.

So basically you think it's okay for any Obama appointee to lie to Congress whenever they want and Obama should not ever do anything about that?

Okay, good to know. You don't care about honesty and integrity coming from this administration.

[MADem]

20. YES, it IS. And no matter how much you carp at me, until Congress gripes, there is no issue here.

It's not about "absolving Obama." But you seem eager (talk about OVERZEALOUS) to blame him for the actions of another--what's up with THAT?

Congress is full of adults who have the ability to take action when warranted. They know what they need to do to get Obama's attention.

Clearly, they don't want to do what you want them to do. And that is making you MAD....at OBAMA!

You're just going to have to take this up with THEM, instead of berating me for knowing how the system works.

You're last sentence is both obtuse and childish. I care about rule of law, and separation of powers. You care about public excoriation without any or all of the facts. YOUR perceptions and biases are the ONLY things that count!

Now have the last word and a nice day, too, while you're at it.

[cui bono]

21. How did I blame Obama for Clapper lying?

Quote please.

Also, this is absolutely NOT about separation of powers. It's about an appointee of Obama who serves at the pleasure of the president. Nothing to do with Congress other than that's the body Clapper lied to, although that does make it a more egregious offense. It's about how he represents Obama since he is an Obama appointee. Not sure why you think it's got anything to do with separation of powers.

[xocet]

8. Just so this is clear - you are in favor of any Administration lying to Congress, correct? n/t

[MADem]

9. I think it's the responsibility of CONGRESS--not you--to determine if they've actually been LIED to,

or if a classified question to which the enquirer already knew the answer was asked in open, rather than closed, session.

So, "just so this is clear"--I don't know if that was the case--and neither do you.

So let's not pretend otherwise, shall we?

[xocet]

12. So, do you or do you not support any Administration lying to Congress? You fail to answer. n/t

[MADem]

16. You haven't shown me where Congress has said they've been lied to.

Until you do that, I can't respond.

"You look very dapper today, Senator" might be a lie, but should someone go to jail over it?

"I'm fine, Madame Chairman," might be a lie, too.

You haven't established that Congress has ACKNOWLEDGED that they've been lied to--and as I have said, over and over, for all we know, Clapper may have corrected the record (as people ARE permitted to do--it's called "revising and extending one's remarks" virtually immediately, which would make his remarks "Not a lie" even if you want to insist otherwise ) to change his response to "Let me send you a letter," and for all we know, he did--and that letter was CLASSIFIED -- so neither you nor I would see it. Or maybe he changed his response to "Can we do this in Closed Session?" Or maybe he just wrote them a note--classified of course--which would explain why they didn't come after him.

This kind of thing is rather childishly obvious, you know. You're acting, quite naively, like everything that happens in Congress happens in full view of you, when in actuality, we don't even see much more than the very tip of the iceberg. You've been participating on this board long enough--surely this isn't news to you.

[xocet]

22. So, you do believe that an Administration lying to Congress is fine.

DNI Clapper admits the lie:

"So I responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or least untruthful, manner by saying 'no'."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/11/james-clapper-nsa-surveillance_n_3424620.html

Enough said.

[MADem]

23. Stop whining. It's unbecoming. And stop trying in a childish, "gotcha" way to put words in my

mouth.

Clapper's explanation--whatever you might think of it--was accepted by Congress. Your own link demonstrates that--so stop working so damn hard, all you're doing is proving MY point for me!

I don't know for a fact, but I'd not be surprised if the answer to the question was already known, and the interrogator knew that it was wrong to try to extract classified material in open session; hence, the "No harm/no foul" treatment of the incident.

So yeah--enough said, by CONGRESS, apparently. They aren't going after the guy. And that infuriates you, and you want to "blame" Obama for it.

The only one who keeps going on and on about this, and who, apparently, will never say enough on the topic, is....YOU.

You're not gonna get your way--get over it.

[xocet]

24. I have said relatively little. You have to post verbose tirades to try to make points you cannot.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Have a good night.

[MADem]

25. You've said plenty--you keep trying to put words in my mouth. No sale. nt

[xocet]

27. Not really. You just refuse to concede the point, because you know you lose by doing so.

That is why you have to run your game of ad hominem attacks and deflection - the evidence thereof is contained aplenty in this thread.

That is ok - since you have nothing, you have to do something to defend the cause, right?

What is remarkable is that you accept the Administration's behavior so fundamentally that you cannot even call a lie a lie.

[MADem]

28. Keep dreaming. You just aren't making your case, so you goad, bait, and pout at me.

I'm not running a game of ad hominem attacks (look in your mirror, now)--but you're sure playing a bridge game, here.

You have one of those real nice ones, skippy. Your attitude is coming across in such a way that I suspect those are in short supply for you.

[xocet]

29. Thanks for the continued replies. n/t

[MADem]

30. Oh, you're more than welcome.

I think sunlight is the best disinfectant, and there's plenty to do here.

[xocet]

31. !

[null body]
[Will the troll reply to this? I will not say anything, but I bet that there will be some attack or snark forthcoming.]

[Ichingcarpenter]

5. Congressional oversight now means

overlooking things and not doing their job.


Funny how oversight means two different things


oversight
ˈəʊvəsʌɪt/Submit
noun
1.
an unintentional failure to notice or do something.
"he had simply missed Parsons out by an oversight"
synonyms: mistake, error, fault, failure, omission, lapse, inaccuracy, slip, blunder, faux pas, miscalculation; More
carelessness, inattention, neglect, negligence, forgetfulness, inadvertence, laxity, dereliction, neglectfulness


2.
the action of overseeing something.
"effective oversight of the financial reporting process"
synonyms: supervision, surveillance, superintendence, inspection, charge, care, administration, management, government, direction, control, command,




I'm going with number 1 Alex

[jsr]

26. Great word for doublespeak.