Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Privacy United States Politics

Congressmen Say Clapper Lied To Congress, Ask Obama To Remove Him 383

Posted by timothy
from the put-your-hands-together dept.
Trailrunner7 writes "A group of six Congressmen have asked President Barack Obama to remove James Clapper as director of national intelligence as a result of his misstatements to Congress about the NSA's dragnet data-collection programs. The group, led by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), said that Clapper's role as DNI 'is incompatible with the goal of restoring trust in our security programs.' Clapper is the former head of the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency and has been DNI since 2010. In their letter to Obama, the group of Congressmen calling for his ouster said that he lied to Congress and should no longer be in office. 'The continued role of James Clapper as Director of National Intelligence is incompatible with the goal of restoring trust in our security programs and ensuring the highest level of transparency. Director Clapper continues to hold his position despite lying to Congress, under oath, about the existence of bulk data collection programs in March 2013. Asking Director Clapper, and other federal intelligence officials who misrepresented programs to Congress and the courts, to report to you on needed reforms and the future role of government surveillance is not a credible solution,' the letter from Issa, Ted Poe, Paul Broun, Doug Collins, Walter Jones and Alan Grayson says." "Misstatement," of course, being the favorite euphemism for "lie."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Congressmen Say Clapper Lied To Congress, Ask Obama To Remove Him

Comments Filter:
  • Get Ready (Score:5, Insightful)

    by The_Star_Child (2660919) on Tuesday January 28, 2014 @10:31AM (#46090407)
    Get ready for the dirt to be spilled on Darrell Issa, Ted Poe, Paul Broun, Doug Collins, Walter Jones and Alan Grayson. What's the over/under on child porn?
    • Re: Get Ready (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 28, 2014 @10:51AM (#46090549)

      This will just be another example of how de-fanged Congress has become. By all rights clapper should be removed. He lied under oath. Period. But the imperial presidency (which started under Bush and has only grown stronger under Obama) can and will ignore this.

      • Re: Get Ready (Score:5, Insightful)

        by tripleevenfall (1990004) on Tuesday January 28, 2014 @11:04AM (#46090643)

        if Holder still has his job after all the scandal and corruption, the chances a crony holding a key office and overseeing the surveillance program is canned for doing exactly what the emperor says? Zero point zero.

      • by raymorris (2726007) on Tuesday January 28, 2014 @11:24AM (#46090787)

        > But the imperial presidency (which started under Bush and has only grown stronger under Obama)

        ROTFL. Bush Jr was a slightly weaker than average president. If you want to see an imperial presidency, look at Roosevelt, Lincoln or Kennedy. Congress didn't authorize the civil war, Lincoln sent the army to destroy the south by his own executive order. Kennedy too sent the armed forces into the south to enforce desegregation, on his own initiative. Bush sought (and received) congressional approval for what his predecessors would have called "routine military exercises".

        One thing is new - presidents in the past have left Congress out of the decision making, but the didn't tend to flatly defy Congress, declaring that they have chosen to ignore the law and write their own. Obama's unilateral changes to Obamacare such as delaying the employer mandate for a year is a new kind of imperial presidency. Congress passed the mandate and Obama immediately said "nope, I'm going to ignore the law and declare my own law instead." I don't think even Roosevelt had done that.

        • by CrimsonAvenger (580665) on Tuesday January 28, 2014 @11:40AM (#46090921)

          Congress passed the mandate and Obama immediately said "nope, I'm going to ignore the law and declare my own law instead." I don't think even Roosevelt had done that.

          Right after Pearl Harbor, Congress passed declarations of war against Germany and Japan (in response to their declarations of war against us). At that point Roosevelt told Congress that they should go into Recess until the War was over.

          Luckily for all of us, they told him to pound sand.

        • by dcollins (135727) on Tuesday January 28, 2014 @12:09PM (#46091165) Homepage

          "Bush Jr was a slightly weaker than average president. If you want to see an imperial presidency, look at Roosevelt, Lincoln or Kennedy. Congress didn't authorize the civil war, Lincoln sent the army to destroy the south by his own executive order. Kennedy too sent the armed forces into the south to enforce desegregation, on his own initiative. Bush sought (and received) congressional approval for what his predecessors would have called "routine military exercises"."

          That's insanely ludicrous. Bush started at least two major wars with no declaration of war. One against an entirely unrelated country on totally fallacious charges. Were you paying attention for like 10 years when the armed forces were complaining about how thin they were stretched and couldn't meet recruiting goals? Soldiers being called back after retirement for 3, 4, 5, 6 tours of duty? Bush ripping up the nuclear SALT treaty unilaterally? There's whole books written about how Cheney alone was the most powerful vice-president in history.

          • by operagost (62405) on Tuesday January 28, 2014 @12:51PM (#46091623) Homepage Journal
            Congress authorized military action in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Maybe you weren't paying attention.
          • by Jason Levine (196982) on Tuesday January 28, 2014 @01:07PM (#46091769)

            There's whole books written about how Cheney alone was the most powerful vice-president in history.

            I think this was the key. Bush Jr, by himself, was a weaker than average President. However, he had an administration that pushed the limits of Executive Branch power. Cheney et all wanted the President to be the supreme ruler unanswerable to anyone so that the Democrats couldn't stop them from doing what they wanted to do. Of course, the danger with this is that - if you get it - it is only a matter of time before "that other party" gains control of this seat of power and you are faced with the receiving end of the power*. Because, no matter what they say while campaigning, no politician is going to roll back Presidential powers. At best, they'll just expand them at a slower pace or in different areas than the other guy would.

            * Thus my constant rule of determining whether a certain government official should have a certain power: How would you like it if the person occupying that position had the exact opposite political views that you do and used that power? If you'd oppose that, then you can't support the official (presumably from "your party") having that power at all.

            • Awesome post. And, I love your * addon. Partisan politics allows people to approve of increased power while their own fair haired child occupies the Oval Office. None of the nitwits gives a thought to eight years down the road, when some redheaded stepchild occupies that same office.

        • by fahrbot-bot (874524) on Tuesday January 28, 2014 @01:04PM (#46091743)

          Congress passed the mandate and Obama immediately said "nope, I'm going to ignore the law and declare my own law instead."

          Enforcement of the Law - even selective enforcement - is the purview of the President. There was an entire segment on NPR yesterday about the Executive Power of the President and how presidents have been using Executive Orders for doing this kind of thing throughout US history - back to George Washington (who issued 8).

          According to that segment, and this page on Executive Orders [ucsb.edu], Obama (168) has issued fewer than Bush-II (291), Clinton (364), Bush-I (166), and Regan (381) -- even by term. FDR issued the most at 3,522.

          • by Karzz1 (306015) on Tuesday January 28, 2014 @02:20PM (#46092485) Homepage
            Comparing the number of EOs to arrive at any sort of conclusion is much like measuring productivity by lines of code written/comitted. The raw numbers tell very little.
            • I wasn't drawing any conclusions, simply stating facts. With his/her comment "I'm going to ignore the law and declare my own law instead" the previous poster seemed to think that Obama was doing something new, unusual and/or unlawful. which is untrue.

              The NPR segment on Executive Orders was rather interesting, discussing the types of things the President can and cannot do. He cannot make laws, but in many cases can stipulate how laws will be enforced. The President can also use EO to establish requiremen

        • by swillden (191260)

          If you want to see an imperial presidency, look at Roosevelt, Lincoln or Kennedy.

          Don't forget Andrew Jackson. He defied a Supreme Court ruling in order to forcibly relocate tens of thousands of Native Americans, murdering thousands in the process.

        • One thing is new - presidents in the past have left Congress out of the decision making, but the didn't tend to flatly defy Congress, declaring that they have chosen to ignore the law and write their own.

          I don't think ignoring Congress is new. This quote [wikipedia.org] may be apocryphal but Jackson's actions, or lack of, aren't. "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!". An easy recent target is this [washingtonpost.com]. Personally, my humble opinion is that the Executive Branch does have the authority to not enforce a law. However, I do not believe the Executive Branch has the authority to enforce a law that doesn't exist. I say this with trepidation but I think the Executive Branch should only act under approval fr

          • I thought of that non-quote as I wrote it, too. The subject does remind you of the saying.
            However, Jackson was supporting the exclusive power of Congress over Indian affairs, not snubbing Congress.
            Jackson also was not changing or refusing to enforce any law. He only observed that the officials in Georgia would likely disregard a court decision. If the court had ordered Jackson to do something, then it might be in some way comparable. However, the court ordered Georgia officials to release the men. Presi

      • by pepty (1976012)
        Defanged? This was just the shot over the bow. If Issa wants him out Congress will investigate Clapper right through the 2016 elections, whether or not he resigns before then.
      • Re: Get Ready (Score:5, Insightful)

        by SydShamino (547793) on Tuesday January 28, 2014 @01:09PM (#46091793)

        To be fair, I think the guy should be removed from office. The problem as I see it is that Congress demands that every appointee be removed if they make any mistake, no matter how minor or (as in this case) serious. Meanwhile, some appointees can never get approved under any circumstances.

        Given that environment, I can see why Obama won't fire the guy. There's a chance Obama would not get a replacement confirmed by the end of his term.

        The whole process, and most everyone involved in it, sucks all around.

      • by morgauxo (974071)

        Maybe.

        I figure they are just looking for a fall guy. Why shouldn't Obama let him go (with a nice severance no doubt) and just bring in his next yes-man? How hard can that be? Even if he can ignore congress, why play that card here?

        This is obviously all BS anyway. These programs have been over the top since well before 2010! Either Congress has been complicit all along or they are very naive and he was hardly the first or only person to lie to them. In that case why single him out as opposed to cleaning hous

      • Imperial Presidency? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 28, 2014 @02:31PM (#46092597)

        Dear Anonymous Coward,

            You are obviously fairly young. Go back a bit in time, say 1971 or so. Check out Nixon's Marine Guards. From high plumes on their hats to gold braid everywhere else. That's what an imperial presidency looked like. In the background AT&T (the one and only national telephone company at the time) and IT&T (all of your international phone lines) basically worked for Nixon. Targeting Tea Partiers at the IRS? A little innocent fun. Back then the IRS worked for the White House and Nixon's enemies' (there was an actual list) were routinely raked over the IRS coals.

            Ahh, simpler times...

        Kind regards,

        An older Anonymous Coward

      • Re: Get Ready (Score:4, Interesting)

        by davester666 (731373) on Tuesday January 28, 2014 @02:41PM (#46092709) Journal

        Please ignore the fact that the people he spoke to under oath ALREADY KNEW THE TRUTH prior to asking the question, and did NOT call him on it.

      • by sribe (304414)

        By all rights clapper should be removed.

        By all rights he should be in jail. We can argue all day about the trade-offs between privacy and security, but one thing is simply not arguable--it is the responsibility of Congress to debate this issues and decide on policies and limits in our name. What he did was to try to subvert that.

      • by NoKaOi (1415755)

        This will just be another example of how de-fanged Congress has become. By all rights clapper should be convicted of perjury and thrown in prison. He lied under oath. Period.

        FTFY

      • by anagama (611277)

        By all rights clapper should be removed. He lied under oath.

        You are actually part of the problem, at least in the sense that you've been duped into this idea that losing his job is punishment enough.

        It's a fucking felony. A Federal crime punishable by up to 5 years in prison. Probably for each offense. Preferably in a PMITA Federal prison.

        http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc... [cornell.edu]

    • Dunno about CP but Paul Broun is my congress critter and he's currently giving away an AK-15 to promote gun rights. I entered the drawing. Not that I particularly want it, but I'd rather I have it where I know I can stick it in a gun safe than have someone else in my neighborhood have it.
    • Re:Get Ready (Score:5, Insightful)

      by fatphil (181876) on Tuesday January 28, 2014 @10:59AM (#46090617) Homepage
      +1 Insightful (got'em, but prefer to reply...)

      I think with what we know about the NSA being able to inject malware onto targets' systems, there's always plausible deniability about anything found on home machines. "The NSA put it there" is now unfalsifiable, and always can be used to plant reasonable doubt. Means, motive, what else do you need?
    • Re:Get Ready (Score:5, Interesting)

      by cold fjord (826450) on Tuesday January 28, 2014 @11:01AM (#46090635)

      Get ready for the dirt to be spilled on Darrell Issa, Ted Poe, Paul Broun, Doug Collins, Walter Jones and Alan Grayson. What's the over/under on child porn?

      No, it won't be them. The "dirt," for anyone paying attention, belongs to Wyden. [commentarymagazine.com]

      • But did Wyden actually know about PRISM?

        http://www.popsci.com/technolo... [popsci.com]

      • I'm pretty sure that Clapper could have answered "I cannot answer that question in a public session, as it would violate the National Security Act of 1945."

        In previous Congressional hearings regarding CIA malfeasance (Church hearings in the 1970s, Iran / Contra in the 1980s, 9/11 Commission, etc.) they have had closed sessions where the disclosure of classified information or the identity of covert operatives may be necessary. The transcripts are then redacted before release.

        This was a straight up, under o

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 28, 2014 @11:15AM (#46090705)

      Isn't Darrel Issa the arsonist Car theif who suppressed congressional testimony on Warrantless domestic wiretapping and dismissed the Bush admins erasure of E-mails on PlameGate as a simple software glitch? Why yes, yes he is.

      While I have my doubts about Clapper, it really doesn't help the cause when you put a non-credible person at the front. Issa will say or do anything that benefits him, and that's not invective, it's documented fact.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D... [wikipedia.org]

      http://www.perrspectives.com/b... [perrspectives.com]

      http://www.dailykos.com/story/... [dailykos.com]

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      There must be something wrong with this letter. I mean, Wyden, Paul and Amash aren't signatories - that should tell you something.

  • Sadly (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jcrb (187104) <{jcrb} {at} {yahoo.com}> on Tuesday January 28, 2014 @10:32AM (#46090411) Homepage

    It's not a "lie" if they aren't convicted, and even then for most people it will still be a "misstatement".

    The win at all costs nature that American politics have turned into as of late have made seeing just how blatant a lie you can get away with part of the game rather than something to be avoided.

    Asking nicely for his removal will accomplish nothing at all. Either go for conviction or don't bother. Saying "he's not nice and we don't like him anymore" is not going do anything other than cause the administration to chuckle.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      It's not a "lie" if they aren't convicted, and even then for most people it will still be a "misstatement".

      Great, perhaps his language usage will improve if we start calling "decapitation" for "physical encouragement".

    • Re:Sadly (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Jawnn (445279) on Tuesday January 28, 2014 @10:43AM (#46090481)
      Yep. That our Congress has lacked the will to call this man on the crimes he has plainly committed is a sign that our government is beginning to fail. We could debate about when that failure really began, but when the head of a rogue agency is allowed to metaphorically extend his middle finger to the body of elected officials charged with the oversight of him and his agency, that failure is well established.
      • by v1 (525388)

        I thought lying to congress was a felony or something? Maybe that's why they're avoiding the L-word?

      • by 0123456 (636235)

        Yep. That our Congress has lacked the will to call this man on the crimes he has plainly committed is a sign that our government is beginning to fail.

        BEGINNING to fail?

        Haven't you been watching the news for the last century or so?

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Bartles (1198017)
        They haven't lacked the will. Are you saying that Issa wouldn't do it tomorrow if he could? It's that Democrats and the media, so far are unwilling to cast blame for any of the various scandals including this one because the blame lies on their side. They are willing to say how bad it is, and then they shrug their shoulders and do it again with the next one. Contrast with the Bush era when they were too willing to cast blame, even when it was unwarranted.
    • by poetmatt (793785)

      This is wrong. Considering Issa is one of the people actually pushing back against the NSA, suing without a solid foundation/way to prove it's solidly outside of the realm of law as only that information is starting to trickle out now (initial leaks did not do this), the POTUS will tear him apart if he does some bullshit/shaky lawsuit that even the judges will be compelled to dismiss.

      It sucks, but both laws need to reformed AND people need to be held accountable. You can't do one without the other.

  • by xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) on Tuesday January 28, 2014 @10:36AM (#46090439)

    >> "Misstatement," of course, being the favorite euphemism for "lie."

    I though it was, "If you like your X, you can keep your X." :)

  • Clapper's in the crapper.
  • *Congress* is worried about liars???? Who the hell do they think they are? Pot, meet kettle. Congressmen themselves like like dogs as a matter of course, but they will be all upset if anyone lies to them??? Yeah, right.

    • by fatphil (181876)
      Maybe it's time for a witch-hunt again?

      However, maybe this time it's shouldn't be one that is patently embarassing in retrospect 60 years later.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Anticommunist_Literature_1950s.png

      UNESCO? Education, science and culture - those infamous enemies of the US!
  • Impeachment (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Teancum (67324) <robert_horning.netzero@net> on Tuesday January 28, 2014 @10:39AM (#46090455) Homepage Journal

    Congress has the authority to remove people from positions in the federal government on their own. Why don't they use it?

    And no, it doesn't need to be an impeachment of the President, it can be any officer or person holding a position of trust in the U.S. government. Dozens of impeachment bills are presented every year in Congress, where they seldom get any sort of attention even when they pass as it is usually for obscure offices or minor judges. if these congressmen were serious, they would just start the process and hold that over the head of President Obama to act before they do.

    It just seems that in this case talk is cheap, as if filing a bill is something not in their authority.

    • Re:Impeachment (Score:5, Informative)

      by hoyle (89469) on Tuesday January 28, 2014 @10:41AM (#46090467)

      Not only that, isn't lying under oath to congress a criminal offense? If he lied, why don't they charge him?

    • Re:Impeachment (Score:4, Insightful)

      by CanHasDIY (1672858) on Tuesday January 28, 2014 @10:45AM (#46090499) Homepage Journal

      Congress has the authority to remove people from positions in the federal government on their own. Why don't they use it?

      Because the way they see it, if they lay it on the President's shoulders, come election time they can tell their constituents "Hey, we tried to do something, see? Obama obviously hates America."

    • Probably because bi-partisanship in Congress is non-existent... and whenever one party proposes a bill/amendment/impeachment/takeout menu, it's immediately rejected by the other party. So the only way for anyone to do anything is to put it on the shoulders of the *others* in a big PR stunt-type action that makes the 24 hour news cycle giddy.

      • Re:Impeachment (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Teancum (67324) <robert_horning.netzero@net> on Tuesday January 28, 2014 @12:05PM (#46091131) Homepage Journal

        Boldly lying to Congress is usually a good way to get bipartisan support.... to get you slapped in some official manner. There is also the ability to "censure" somebody in the federal government or to offer a "contempt of Congress" resolution as well. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.

        Your statement would be correct if it wasn't for the fact that there were Democrats who signed this letter and that people of both parties are trying to run for cover to get on the popular side of this issue (which also cuts across both parties except for diehard fanatics). Besides, submitting a bill for consideration doesn't require the support of half of the members of any chamber, it only needs a single member of congress to submit the legislation for consideration... and the other co-signers of the letter could simply be co-signers of the legislation instead. If they submitted the legislation and it was held up in committee.... that is something they could similarly use to take back to their constituents and say "I did everything I could to remove this asshat, but the logjam in Washington kept me from getting it done."

        I'm saying that the entire notion of begging the President to fire the guy when you have this kind of authority seems stupid and even ignorant on the part of these Congressmen. Sending a letter to the President that you have already submitted such legislation and would like him to preempt such action before it gets to the full House for consideration is IMHO a much stronger message. It is almost as if these guys simply don't want to act at all.

    • Not only that, isn't lying under oath to congress a criminal offense? If he lied, why don't they charge him?

      James Clapper and Congress to a lesser extent are behaving exactly as predicted by the Iron Law of Bureaucracy [wikipedia.org] which states:

      "In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely."

      If there is any merit to the adage "Knowledge is Power" then the usurpation by the NSA in totalitarian total access certainly empowers the

  • A positive step (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SirGarlon (845873) on Tuesday January 28, 2014 @10:39AM (#46090457)

    People have been complaining forever about Congress doing nothing about the NSA's egregious overreach. This is just a gesture, but it's a gesture in the right direction.

    Best case, Obama ignores the letter, then Congress gets royally pissed off and does something with more teeth.

  • by TheNastyInThePasty (2382648) on Tuesday January 28, 2014 @10:40AM (#46090461)

    It's a good start, although I'd like "Removed from his position" to be replaced with "Prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."

    More people need to be shitcanned over this but, really, the fact that these programs are event "arguably" legal is the major issue here. The laws that allow the NSA to snoop on all of us need to be repealed first and foremost.

    • More people need to be shitcanned over this but, really, the fact that these programs are event "arguably" legal is the major issue here. The laws that allow the NSA to snoop on all of us need to be repealed first and foremost.

      Our country needs a 'legal audit' - basically, sit two (non-politically-affiliated, but well versed in Constitutional law) people down with red pens, have them go over every single statute in the USC, and determine if it's Constitutional or not.

      There will be obvious "this is OK" and "this is unconstitutional" stuff, and anything that seems like a grey area can be bookmarked for further scrutiny and discussion.

  • Barry Bonds (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ebonum (830686) on Tuesday January 28, 2014 @10:46AM (#46090509)

    I will remind you that Barry Bonds went to jail for lying to Congress. They didn't hesitate to throw him in jail.

    Either throw Clapper in jail or rewrite the laws to reflect reality: If you are powerful enough and have the full support of the current administration, you are immune from prosecution.

    And while you are at it, take that stupid blindfold off that statute of justice. That is from another world and another time. It has no relevance today.

    • Re:Barry Bonds (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 28, 2014 @11:13AM (#46090691)

      I will remind you that Barry Bonds went to jail for lying to Congress.

      Wait, what? Barry Bonds was convicted of obstruction of justice in relation to his grand jury testimony in 2003 and was sentenced to house arrest & probation.
      No lying (perjury), no Congress, and no jail. You managed to get just about every fact wrong.

  • by sl4shd0rk (755837) on Tuesday January 28, 2014 @10:50AM (#46090539)

    If a regular joe lied to congress, under oath, they'd send his ass up the river on a multitude of charges running the gamut from conspiracy to perjury to treason. Clapper should be judged by the same laws. Let a jury decide.

  • by Bob9113 (14996) on Tuesday January 28, 2014 @11:10AM (#46090673) Homepage

    Ted Poe (R - TX), Paul Broun (R - GA), Doug Collins (R - GA), Walter Jones (R - NC), Alan Grayson (D - FL)

    Good to see they got a Democrat on board. Here's hoping more of all stripe sign on.

    • Most of the elected represenititives need a bit of encouragement. Let your member of the US house [house.gov] know you would like them to support theses efforts. Also do the same for your senators [senate.gov].
  • His sound activated switch is a piece of crap. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... [wikipedia.org]
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 28, 2014 @11:19AM (#46090745)

    Reading the questions that were asked and the responses he gave, it's pretty hard to believe Clapper didn't understand what was being asked. Personally, I think the concepts of "data" versus "metadata" and "known-to-be US citizens" versus "unknown/haven't checked" were so muddied in his head (and the CIA/NSA generally) that he might have thought he was answering honestly. It reminds me of the days when people emphatically said "Of course the US doesn't torture prisoners"... "for a very special and legally-dubious definition of what constitutes 'torture'". Twist words and definitions long enough and you start believing the new definitions yourself, but that makes it hard to communicate with others. "Oh! By 'any data on US citizens' you meant the normal, English, everyday meaning of the word 'data', not the twisted, something-other-than-metadata meaning we use at the CIA/NSA? And we'll just casually pretend that we don't know if the people we're sweeping up are US citizens or not, even though they probably are given the vast scope of collection."

    So, with what we know about the program now, either: 1) the guy was lying intentionally, or 2) he's innocent but incompetent because he didn't understand the nature of the programs that were underway and/or 3) he couldn't correctly communicate with the legislators asking him to explain what was going on in plain language. That's a failure of his duty any way you look at it. Malicious intent or incompetent. Take your pick.

    At that kind of level on an important issue, those are grounds for firing regardless of whether he was "lying".

  • I am a United States [Senator | Representative]. I have far, far too much integrity to be at all influenced by the [countless | untold | several] millions of dollars contributed to my campaign by that [lobbyist | special interest | one percenter | lying pond scum]!
  • Clapper in Prison (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Phoenix666 (184391) on Tuesday January 28, 2014 @11:45AM (#46090957)

    He belongs in prison, along with his deputies that obeyed his orders to violate the Constitution thousands of times. Same goes for Keith Alexander. Obama, too, must be impeached for signing off on all of it. We are at a 200-year break point. Either the American citizenry reasserts its primacy in the democracy and teaches all and sundry again that the law is for everybody, we will lose it all for the next century or two. I would prefer we take those steps now when we still have means to attack the corruption rather than several generations deep into the police state when we will have nothing.

  • by GodfatherofSoul (174979) on Tuesday January 28, 2014 @11:56AM (#46091045)

    Alberto Gonzalez flat out lied to Congress and got a week to "correct" his testimony and I was tearing my hair out. Clapper did the same and it's hardly registered in public discourse. If Congress gets lied to their oversight obligations are compromised which is intolerable.

  • by erroneus (253617) on Tuesday January 28, 2014 @11:59AM (#46091075) Homepage

    This softball approach to politics is annoying especially when the Obama regime plays anything but hard ball. He is currently using his office to go after critics and opponents at a rate and in ways unheard of before. It's almost as if he's working against a clock. I fear for what's next.

  • by wonkey_monkey (2592601) on Tuesday January 28, 2014 @12:12PM (#46091189) Homepage

    Congressmen Say Clapper Lied To Congress, Ask Obama To Remove Him

    What is it about headlines that makes people unwilling to use the word "and"? I can understand it in ye olde days of printe when you might need to claw baxk whatever space you could (did it then just become a convention?), but it's not like you'll break teh internets with a few extra characters.

  • by mark-t (151149) <markt@PARISlynx.bc.ca minus city> on Tuesday January 28, 2014 @12:29PM (#46091371) Journal

    Clinton blatantly led bout his relationship with Lewinski, for instance... Didn't really do him any harm. The American people have already shown they can tolerate lying from people in office, so what's the problem?

    (doubtless about to be modded to -infinity for trolling)

  • The Oath (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jeff13 (255285) on Tuesday January 28, 2014 @01:12PM (#46091815) Homepage

    Point of fact, please pay attention.

    Director Clapper did NOT lie under oath at a Congressional hearing. He was never sworn in.

    It is common practice *cough* these days *cough* on Capital Hill for high ranking officials to refuse to be sworn in at any hearing. I know, sounds crazy but it happens. Why, you ask? They say it's because, and I shit you not, it would be an insult to their integrity.

    I say again, I shit you not.

    This is why Clapper is not in contempt of Congress. And that's a fact Jack.

  • by kilodelta (843627) on Tuesday January 28, 2014 @01:56PM (#46092207) Homepage
    When I'm in agreement with a Republican but it's pretty clear that Clapper did nothing but lie. And I find it amusing that congressmen in general are getting their underwear in a bunch because they found out the NSA is spying on them too. Oh well.
  • by potpie (706881) on Tuesday January 28, 2014 @04:58PM (#46094335) Journal
    It seems to me that Congress needs to act on this if our children are to have a republic. We've already heard that the Supreme Court, the highest institution of an entire branch of government, "lacks jurisdiction" to review the NSA's secret court decisions, which technically makes their secret court the highest in the land. If the NSA cannot be held accountable to Congress, there goes another branch. This looks like a coup.

Prototype designs always work. -- Don Vonada

Working...