Slashdot Mirror
Congressmen Say Clapper Lied To Congress, Ask Obama To Remove Him
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."
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?
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.
-jon
Lying to congress, under oath, shouldn't require further action beyond proving the fact and placing the person in prison.
At least, I always thought that lying under oath was a crime, but perhaps this does not apply to people in certain socioeconomic circles.
>> "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.
C|N>K
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.
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.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
on fire... hoping to use the rats as fuel for the trip ---- the gargoyle chronicles
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.
The best thing about UDP jokes is I don't care if you get them or not
Power occupies a vacuum.
If you don't run government in favour of the people, i.e. pre-Reaganite social democracy, it will end up being run in favour of minority special interests, IOW the businessmen who benefit from massive data collection.
About the same as for all the fucking democrats who co-authored and supported the bill.
Stop being a useless fuck and actually learn something. Neither party is on your side here.
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.
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.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Well, Chang'e was not only made in China, but is currently about 400.000 km away and appears stuck. I doubt things are going much better for Hop'e.
PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8keZbZL2ero ... to cause epistemological problems of sufficient magnitude as to lay upon the logical and semantic resources of the English language a heavier burden than they can reasonably be expected to bear.
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.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
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...
http://www.perrspectives.com/b...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/...
His sound activated switch is a piece of crap. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
It seems to be using the Klashnikov action, but chambered for 5.56 round, and takes AR15 magazines.
Either that, or someone got AK47 and AR15 mixed up.
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]!
I don't believe any politician who voted for the Patriot Act and claims he didn't know about the domestic spying going on. Were they asleep when the AT&T whistleblower thing happened in 2006? Politician's need to strike down the unconstitutional Patriot Act if they are serious about ending the NSA spying.
When you pay someone to be sneaky and devious, it should't come as a surprise when it turns out they've been sneaky and devious.
> 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.
Clapper needs to go. Nearly everyone in the U.S. government seems to be lying to the public and it should stop now.
Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
Why is it that we vote in lefties and righties, the devoutly religious and the less religious, and yet they all do the same things when in office? We need a political system where a politician who strays to far from his/her alleged platform is automatically removed from office. We keep focusing on what this or that politician does, but it should be apparent to anybody that the system that continues to produce the same product regardless of the input is the problem.
If you impeach Obama you get President Biden. Is that what you want?
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.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
Be sure to listen to the actual conversation before jumping on headline opinion.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
When will these thick skulls realize that His Majesty, the emaculate, the all powerful and omnipotent, King Hussein Obama told Clapper to lie, therefore Obama is the root liar? Its the same as with the IRS and Benghazi scandals. Of course realizing this leads to the inevitable conclusion that to protect this country from the Obamination will require impeachment, which the feeble worthless opposition is just too wimpy for. The time for impeachment is now.
Benghazi!!!!
Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!!!!11!!
The first black President will never be impeached. It does not matter what he does.
This isn't about Clapper lying, it's about a government official under the Obama administration lying.
He lied to Congress and should no longer be in office. If this is a standard that we held all elected officials to, Capitol Hill would be depopulated tomorrow.
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.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
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.
You say that like it is a bad thing, DC should be depopulated. All the better if they take crap non-laws (Patriot Act) and bloat (Tax Code) with them.
the correct answer when they have the goods on you, but you don't want to be seen bumbling around on TV, is "We will be providing such detail as we can to the Chairman in private, so he can brief the committee under oath."
if you bullshit your way through the hearings, you are not informing Congress as required by your enabling legislation and the Constitution, and your sorry ass needs to go now, today.
that's how it works.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
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.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
the first 3 auto-completes relate to his perjury.
He hasn't done anything to be impeach for, regardless of the tone of his skin.
Don't like what he might have done does not equal impeachable offense.
In fact, at this point it looks like the vast majority of congress, regardless of aisle position, and the white house didn't really know the extent of what was going on.
The most telling is how this seems to be lessening the rift between the two major parties.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
When the police confiscate knives and so on, is this because the police have a " can have it, but you can't be trusted with it" mentality?
Or because the weapons are safer locked up than in some nutbar's hands?
Yes Minister - Morality in Government http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Yes, Prime Minister - You lied - The Tangled Web http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Yes this is going to destroy them at a time when elections are upon Republicans. Lets watch the American people dance and breath a sigh a ahhhh, as politicians use this as a spring board [at least the Republicans], to sing there there bullshit song of "were here to protect your freedom' (translation) == we could care less, but if you believe as we talk out of are ass and do everything behind closed "secret meetings" that counter what we just said then YA for us.
Were desperate folks, we've sabotaged the country for are own childish, thoughtless egos but we will protect you by imprisoning "traitors" like Snowden who have destroyed your freedoms by trying to free your minds from our manipulative neo-communist hands. Sleep well assholes, oh yeah and vote for us as we are the party fighting for your "freedoms" [warning freedoms do not extend to "rights"]
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)
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I'm not sure why the news article got it wrong, but the letter
http://issa.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/FINAL-NSA-Reforms-Letter-01-23-2014-2.pdf
actually says "despite lying".
Make no mistake, Clapper should be fired and indicted yesterday. It's just amusingly hypocritical for a politician who keeps lying about Obamacare and Benghazi to suddenly pretend to be concerned about the truth.
Causing the death of over 200 Mexicans, and cover up (Watergate cover up was an office break in)
Using the IRS to target political groups (Nixon talked about doing that and was article 2 on his impeachment)
Now, would you like to repeat your race card statement about he hasn't done anything wrong other than being black? There are 200 Mexican families that would disagree, along with Brian Terry's family.
Contact your representatives, and sign the petition.
http://wh.gov/lNZ9T
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Thanks for that. I realized shortly after posting that troops may not have actually arrived under Kennedy.
He did authorize the use of troops with Executive Order 11111. Eisenhower, like Kennedy, had some stones.
Those two probably wouldn't agree on the time of the sunrise. The fact they both agree on this is pretty clear evidence that the Obama administration is out of control.
Do you suppose that the NSA's injection system is a derivative of Microsoft's or vice-versa?
Microsoft can remotely remove programs from people's computers.
I suppose if I were interested enough, I'd be able to "inject" code too. I always thought of security as a waste of time, since there are so many much more productive things to be done with software. It is hard to build something, easy to tear it down.
But it seems that the IT world now views "injecting code" as a primary mission. It's a sad, sad world we live in.
Monroe chose a certain interpretation of the bill _as_he_signed_it_into_law. The same is true of any Bush signing statements - they are commentary on the new law at the time the law is enacted.
With Obamacare, the law was passed, then a year later Obama declared he was going to ignore it - and then declared brand new law to replace it, just making something up unilateraly and declaring it to be the law of the land.
He was impeached for it, and it related to his social life (and of no bearing on his job, other than giving the other side a reasonable blackmail setup).
Clapper lied to Congress about national security, which matters considerably more than sexual favors.
I doubt Congress could jail the President for lying to them, impeachment is their option (and possibly jail after leaving office I would imagine, but I am not familiar with those rules).
BlameBillCosby.com
Others have gone to jail for misstatements to Congress under oath. It's perjury. If we are going to let it slide in this case, then why bother questioning people under 'penalty of perjury' at all?
Bush asked Congress for authorization and CONGRESS authorized the actions first. (As per the Constitution.)
Wilson started military action in World War I first, then later asked Congress to recognize that he'd already taken us to war.
Similarly Truman sent troops to Korea without asking for Congressional authorization.
Obama went into Libya after Congress, both parties, specifically told him not to. DEMOCRAT congressman Dennis Kucinich called this "an impeachable offense". Obama's own party leaders said:
"It's not even disputable, this isn't even a close question. Such an action -- that involves putting America's service men and women into harm's way, whether they're in the Air Force or the Navy -- is a grave decision that cannot be made by the president alone."
Are you not getting the difference between a president carrying out a law passed by congress (Bush in Afghanistan) versus disregarding Congress and doing what they please (Truman) versus declaring they will defy Congress and do precisely what law makers have said they must not do (Obama)? His own party says "it's not even close".
Clinton was convicted of perjury, and lost his law license in Arkansas with Paula Jones sexual harassment case. However, he never testified in front of Congress under oath. He did go on national TV and testify to the American people that he had no sexual relations with Monica. That was a lie to everyone, but it wasn't under oath. So yes, that one wasn't illegal.
Clapper was under oath.
A majority of people were tolerant of the lie, but seriously, you don't remember there being a "big stink" about it?!? In the end, the president got away with it, but you don't think he would have preferred to have never been caught?
Back then, a president caught in a lie was seen as an opportunity for his opposition. What's different this time, is that it's not a president, and the lie favors everyone's platform (it's not very partisan) so it's a poor opportunity. 1998 Republicans didn't have "we think there should be more sexual harrassment" on their party platform, so calling someone on a sexual harrassment lie was pretty much risk-free. Yet 2014 Republicans and Democrats do have "fuck civil liberties" as their platform, so the lie is something that no one wants to talk about. It's kind of like Congress catching someone in a lie, where the lie was "Apple pie and mom are good things." Calling an pro-apple-pier a liar, make you look anti-apple-pie. That's just how the stupid public always sees things (e.g. legalizing pot is somehow "pro-pot").
Yet.. here six people are, willing to admit the lie is about something important, in opposition to their own parties. It could theoretically be the start of something good, if people act like they care.
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.
While different branches of government can restrain each other, their incentives are still to protect each other at the expense of the public. Since the vast majority of "crimes" these days can legally only be litigated by district attorneys (and not civilians and victims in the general public), there is plenty of discretionary power as to what gets prosecuted.
Are the DAs going to lose their jobs if they fail to pursue such blatant perjuries?
These comments are mine; I do not speak for my employer.
Clinton's lie *WAS* under oath... just not under oath to congress. Why is an oath in congress of greater importance than an oath in court?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
And then drone his family. Call it 'collateral damage', like you usually do, Obama.
Obama playing hardball? In what universe? He lets Republicans run roughshod all over then, gives them concessions without anything back, and hardly challenges their lies.
Obama is the one who needs to start playing Hardball. Or even throwing some serious pitches. You can't walk 5 batters in a row. And he didn't even bean one.
Like the debates, the first one where he just let Romney lie his ass off?
Doesn't work.
It's about degree of evil. A president with marital problems isn't that evil. Lots of people have marital problems, lots of people cheat, and I think in the eyes of the American people it wasn't that bad.
Lying to congress about making black ops moves like you see in movies real (I always thought things like Division and Treadstone were just for good drama, but now I'm a bit more suspicious)
You also forgot the "Fast and Furious" scandal, where at least Eric Holder should have lost his job/been arrested if not more people. But they didn't, and it all got brushed under the rug. "This isn't the plan to create our own evidence on why we need to bad guns that you're looking for..." move along.
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 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 federal bureaucracy that both Clapper and Congress work for. As it has always been since the beginning of our country it is the responsibility of the citizens to correct the government. Unfortunately due to the corruption of our election process accelerated by unfettered campaign finance most people do not vote for third party candidates and we end up with corporate sponsors instead of representatives. The next time you visit the ballot box remember to vote your conscious and not for who the corporate controlled media want you to believe will win. You have control over the former but not the later.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be-T J
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.
Eisenhower was before Kennedy.
I've got Mod points so I can't post as myself. I never voted for Clinton and didn't like his support of NAFTA, But the "Clinton perjured himself" crowd is absolutely ignorant and would convict the man of j-walking.
Clinton was NOT guilty of Perjury because the judge's instructions were that for the purpose of the trial "sex was fornication" -- and THAT is why we had a lot of weasel word debates. Apparently, people forgot that technical details do matter.
Also, the President was not guilty of committing the basic crime he was charged for -- which everyone seems to forget.
The "Starr Report" spent years and millions of dollars, ranging from "Travel Gate" to "some place in Arkansas gate" to "gate gate" and got nothing to show for it. The report showed that Clinton was innocent on all counts. In fact, Starr's staff sent a letter of apology and they all signed it. Ken Starr, of course, did not.
There was no perjury involved and that was not the actual accusation of the impeachment, and you'll notice that he WAS IMPEACHED, but that's the process -- he just wasn't found guilty.
Being impeached as a President means you were investigated, not that you were found guilty. The Republicans to score political points want to show evidence of all the smoke they've raised around Clinton, but they never actually point to any evidence of wrong doing. It's as if mountains of innuendo and their accusations were something credible.
Since when did anyone in congress get elected by telling the truth? Clapper is the same as the congress: people in power who never tell the truth. We can't handle the truth has always justified secrecy, and they have a lot of secrets. Americans prefer a highly skilled liar to represent the interests of corporations. Corporate espionage exposes the true conspiracy of governmental snooping and the corporations are pushing back. But this has little to do with lying to the American people - that's routine.
If you're going to complain about anything about Little Rock, complain about the closing of the public schools and the plan to lease them to private organizations so that they didn't have to desegregate.
Bush asked Congress for authorization and CONGRESS authorized the actions first.
After Bush had already stated that you're either with "us" (meaning him) or you're with the terrorists and the American public were still bleating like sheep.
Obama is not "black", besides having none of the experience of a black who grew up in the USA, he's half white.
lying about blow jobs and his not considering that "real sex", totally on the same level as violating the constitution and turning the USA into a surveillance/police state
So i can go before congress critters, and follow the political line, lie to their face in open testimony, and not get called out for lying? I know i couldn't do it, you probably couldn't do it, why should he get away with it? Oh, he's the department head, of a bunch of contractors, with no auditing agency, who gets to decide national policy, because he can.. Right..Really justified. So the Koch brothers can decide national policy, because they control the companies that run the country. Sounds like a lost cause, because of 7 people who decided companies get to talk louder then the people of the country.
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
No, people are black when it fits the desired political narrative ala Obama. People can also be white when it fits the political narrative ala George Zimmerman. To the left, everything is viewed through the lens of race. The politcal value of a story is dictated by the subject. A black, poor, sexually unique person is at one side of the spectrum (the indisputibly good side), and a white, rich, male is on the other (the indisputibly evil side). Everybody falls on this scale and it is to be the primary factor used in judging someone's life story or worth to society..
The bleating seemed to me to be coming from Washington. The thousand or so most powerful people in the United States, and their assorted staff, were stampeding around, in fear for their lives. The people? Ehhh - they were edgy, maybe a little fearful, but I saw nothing like Washington's panic elsewhere in the nation.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
That means, that in the USA there's an organization (NSA) with a budget of billions, with no effective oversight, that specializes in (industrial) espionage on everyone in the world.
As a European, I feel so much safer now!
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
After Bush had already stated that you're either with "us" (meaning him) or you're with the terrorists and the American public were still bleating like sheep.
Way to take it out of context and put your own spin on it. Bush was addressing foreign nations at that point in his speech. The "us" he was referring to, was the majority of Americans who supported some sort of retaliation for 9/11. But by all means, go ahead and tout your revisionist history.
Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
And Alan Grayson's participation shows it.
Obama has lied as has his government.
However, a neoliberal lying and the entire philosophy of conservatism and libertarianism being one big lie wrapped in a web of lies is something else entirely.
If Congress gets lied to their oversight obligations are compromised which is intolerable.
+1 Insightful
Only if it's the Biden they're writing about in 'The Onion'. He sounds cool.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
When geekoid added his sig, I became convinced he's a clever troll with a gift for irony.
Troll of not, there is no point in trying to argue with him.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
After Bush had already stated that you're either with "us" (meaning him) or you're with the terrorists and the American public were still bleating like sheep.
Way to take it out of context and put your own spin on it. Bush was addressing foreign nations at that point in his speech. The "us" he was referring to, was the majority of Americans who supported some sort of retaliation for 9/11. But by all means, go ahead and tout your revisionist history.
"Revisitionist History"?
This was the era where a politician caught in public without his/her American Flag lapel pin was accused of "hating freedom". So yes, it was by no means just foreign nations that that particular leverage was being applied to.
If we'd really been looking simply for retaliation, we wouldn't have allowed ourselves to be stampeded into Iraq, where Saddam Hussein hated Al-Quaeda.
Social life? Bullshit. He lied in his testimony in a federal civil rights case. Sexual harassment is not 'social life' for anybody else and it isn't for Clinton.
That said: I'm kind of glad. It stopped much of the crazy overboard push related to 'sexual harassment' from the 90s. 'One free grope' and all, not that I'd suggest anybody try that, it exposed NOW as they hypocrites they are.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Some changes Obama unilaterally decided on include eliminating the funding source, the mandate, and declaring his union buddies don't have to comply with the law. (Equal protection clause, anyone?).
You say "you alleged". Leaders of his own party have said his overreach into writing his own law, rather than going to congress, is an impeachable offense; "no question about it, not even close", democrat congressmen have said. You like the guy, that's fine, I get that. Be honest with yourself, though, he's not perfect, not anywhere close to perfect. One of those imperfections is that he's thoroughly confused about his role vis-a-vis congress.
but it's so convenient to just clap my hands and have things turn on and off...
sadly, Eric Holder is the man Obama appointed to head the Justice Dept.
Eric Holder is a lawyer who formerly CHOSE (as opposed to being appointed) to represent terrorists.
Eric Holder lied under oath to congress about his "Fast & Furious" (shipping thousands of "assault rifles" to Mexican gun gangs) program. Any Atty Gen who himself has lied under oath to congress is NEVER going to prosecute anybody else from his own administration for doing the same thing. Of course, when congress reacted to all the lying they had to refer it for prosecution to.... Eric Holder (who's is never gonna prosecute himself). Previous presidents in this position appointed "special prosecutors" to avoid the conflict of interest, but Obama refuses to follow this precedent. Then when Holder (having previously lied to congress) proceeded to ignore a congressional subpoena for documents, the congress had to refer THAT matter for prosecution to .... Eric Holder (who's never gonna prosecute himself). Then the congress voted to pursue the documents Holder was hiding via a civil lawsuit ..... and Holder responded by getting the President to extend a claim of "executive privilege" over the entire justice department (in-effect, Obama claimed he, Obama, and the entire department were involved in Fast & Furious). This is now a waiting game as Holder and Obama try to drag it out with court delays through his remaining time in office.
Now that you know this about the man running the Justice Department, and you know that only the Justice Department can prosecute for crimes, are you surprised that nobody in government is being prosecuted for these crimes? Nobody at the IRS, even though felonies were committed there. Nobody from the executive branch, for all the lying to congress under oath. Nobody from the illegal gun running. Nobody.
Just IMAGINE where we'd be if Nixon had just ignored all the laws, and HIS justice department had refused to prosecute anybody in his administration, and if the senate had been run by a loyal Nixon ally (a Nixon equivalent of Obama's Harry Reid) who would block any legislation he did not like and would prevent any attemp to de-fund his activities or to impeach him. You have just imagined an American government without checks-and-balances..... which is the America Barack Obama has "fundamentally transformed" us into.
I've been thinking about it, and I think even more punishment needs to be dealt out:
The senators or whatever on the security services oversight committee have done the American public a great disservice by increasing Clapper's budget instead of starting an impeachment against him; therefore, they're clearly not up to their task, and their seats at the oversight committee should be given to different senators (probably replace each senator by another one from the same political party is easiest).
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
Get ready for the dirt to be spilled on Darrell Issa...
What dirt? He's an asshole. He's the guy who was all about having a panel of old white guys deciding on women's reproductive issues and not letting Sandra Fluke testify--in short, he is responsible for a good chunk of the whole "war on women" rhetoric that came out against the Republicans. No matter which party someone supports, it's a stupid move to support him.
I really don't think there's much the NSA could dish out on him that's worse than his record.
Eisenhower was before Kennedy.
But Balder.
For the entire history of the United States, the courts have used not just the plain text of congressional laws when ruling on tough cases, but they have also looked to what members of congress said while debating and passing those laws for clues about the INTENT of those laws (particularly when a case was in some "gray area" where the plain text of the law was unclear).
Recently (I Think Reagan started this in recent times) the Presidents have added "signing statements" in effect saying: "As I sign this bill into law, HERE is what I believe it intends to do and how I interpret it". The intention was to say to the courts: "when you get into a gray area and are looking for hints of intent the congress should not have more say than its co-equal branch, the executive". There's nothing unconstitutional about a President appending such a statement (which has no force-of-law and is just informational)
Under Bush43, this started to become a scam. I dislike him rather intensely, so this is not intended as a defense of him, but we must face how and why we got here. Bush43 would sign a bill he knew his base voters might not like and would then say in his signing statement (in effect) "I hate this law and will only enforce it because I must" or "I hate this law and should have vetoed it, but I lack the guts so here's how I will interpret and enforce it". His people would then use this stuff as evidence to his base voters that Bush43 had not flip-flopped. During the Bush Admin, Democrats in congress who truly understood the REAL point of signing statements (giving input from the President who signed a bill input along side the congressional input when cases arrive in courts over the years) went from being annoyed (as they'd been for 20+yrs) to being OUTRAGED by the the way Bush enhanced his use of them for two-faced political purposes which helped him hold his base through re-election; They started using these "signing statements" as a campaign issue, implying that Bush had become lawless (and this was persuasive to low-information voters already inclined to dislike Bush). There is not a long list of legal cases in which Democrats demonstrated in court that Bush43 actually violated any of the laws he signed.... this was mostly a political fight (and having those signing statements (by various presidents) in the records could influence court interpretations for decades)
Obama has ratcheted this up: First, he ran for office campainging againsts signing statements (claiming they were unconstitutional, and saying he'd never use them) and second, he does not just presume the courts will rule his way on cases because of additional input from him in a signing statement.... he just picks and chooses what laws to enforce (a violation of his oath of office) AND chooses to change the explicit details of laws on a whim, at a teleprompter (like when he decided that the Obamacare employer mandate would kick in over a year after the law plainly states it will). Only Kings and Emporers and other banana republic tin-pot dictators have that power.
So was it suggested that he be removed for what he did, or was it suggested that he be removed because he lied about it?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
NPR is funded by the government and is a fave of progressives (of both the Democrat and Republican stripe) who themselves favor huge powerful central government. Let's examine the source documents, shall we?
Article 2 (The President), Section 1
Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:—“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Article 2 (The President), Section 3
He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers: he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.
Yes, many Presidents have sought "wiggle room"; trying to say "if you view this particular law's wording THIS way, then I can do {insert action here} while still upholding my oath of faithfully upholding the law" but that's still FAR short of the new Obama Precedent of saying "I KNOW tha law explicitly says 'January 1st, 2014' but I have a pen and a telephone and I declare that the law now says 'right after the November 2014 elections'". Obama has similarly said, "sure, the law SAYS everybody is subject to this clause of the ACA, but my union friends would be hurt by that and I have a pen and a telephone so now my union friends are exempt" and "the ACA says certain subsidies are only available in states that setup their own exchanges, but those Republican governers faithfully followed the plain text of the law and did not obey me when I bullied them. They did not setup state exchanges and now I cannot use those bribes/subsidies in those states to buy support but I have a pen and a phone and so SHAZAM now those subsidies ARE in those states..."
A president cannot do what Obama is doing in a "Constitutional Republic with checks-and-balances". A dictator CAN re-write laws on-the-fly without any legislative branch. If you support this while "your guy" is doing it, you'd better be prepared to accept it on the day when somebody you hate is in power. You want Sarah Palin to have that power? Would you have given that power to Romney or McCain? If not, you'd better look in the mirror and do some soul-searching.
he's a zionish who eats Israeli shit for breakfast
If there's one thing that can bring Congress together, it's a nice big CIA fuckup. This happens to be the NSA, but it's basically the same deal. See:
The Church Committee
Iran Contra
9/11 Commission
The destruction of the videotapes of "enhanced interrogation"
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.
Esoteric reference.
You said: " The problem as I see it is that Congress demands that every appointee be removed if they make any mistake..."
That's because [a] the executive branch (run by the president) is responsible for faithfully executing the laws and "responsibility" certainly implies that SOMEBODY is responsible (both for screw-ups and for broken laws) and [b] the congress has noticed that in the Obama admin, EVERY person identified as "responsible" for something bad has either paid no price, been promoted, or taken a "golden parachute" to a happy and well-paid voluntary retirement. At this point, there are people in congress with the attitude "here's another thing the executive branch screwed-up....let's see if THIS will be the point where SOMEBODY is actually going to be held accountable"
Oh, and Obama could EASILY get people appointed to fill posts (just as any President can) by simply picking middle-of-the-road people who both sides agree will be inoffensive (how many times have you seen congress fight over the head of the National Parks?) or Senators with friends on both sides of the aisle who get bi-partisan courtesy (John Kerry is a very far left Democrat who is DETESTED by the Republican party base...but he sailed-through to the important and powerful post of Sec State because Republican Senators upheld the customary comety (NOT "comedy")
Obama is immune to being removed. Harry Reid would block the action in the Senate, as he has blocked ALL voting on hundreds of bills on jobs, healthcare, the economy, the military, NASA, etc that the house passed and sent to the senate. Harry Reid will, in fact, never even need to exercise the block because the house will not impeach Obama; House Republicans, knowing Reid will block, will not take the political hit (Republicans are always called "racists" whenever they oppose Obama on ANYTHING, and that rhetoric would go white-hot on the left if the GOP tried to impeach the "first black president" .... Obama could literally murder somebody on live TV and his A.G. Eric Holder would not enforce the laws against Obama, and the house GOP would be too chicken to do anything about it.)
Being impeached means you've been indicted. The Democrats in the Senate wouldn't vote to convict and remove him from office - my party, right or wrong.
Most likely the reason this was "tolerated" is because large numbers of citizens think that questions about a president's sex life, like questions about yours, are beyond the pale -- and that Clinton was the wronged party here, while congress was clearly wasting everyone's time and money.
When the NSA director lies about surveillance of the public, we're into actual, solid misbehavior that is actually relevant to the job in question, the oath taken, etc.
Don't forget The Dixie Chicks. Their music was basically pulled from the air overnight after they expressed their unfavorable opinion of Bush.
The arson thing? REALLY? A business location he owned burned, and the insurance company was suspicious (EVERY insurer is "suspicious" of every business fire...it's a good way to get out of paying on a policy) and Issa was never legally accused of anything. By your reasoning, President Obama and Eric Holder should be in prison as accessories to multiple murders from the Fast&Furious scandal where people were murdered using guns Holder illegally transferred to Mexican drug gangs (documented legal FACTS, not just allegations) and Obama asserted his personal involvement by extending his personal presidential "executive privilege" claim over the mess. Obama and Holder are NOT currently in prison because in the US we actually require a legal proceeding to declare a man guilty of a felony
The Car thing? Really? At age 27 Issa's brother steals Issa's car and sells it... the brothers fight about it and the police (unable to divine the truth between two arguing brothers) charge theft on both (to force a resolution, as many police depts have done). Issa ends-up buying his own car back and the charges on both brothers are dropped ... and at AGE 60+ you lefties are calling the guy a FELON CAR THIEF???? Ok, then Obama must go to prison immediately! He's a self-admitted felon cocaine posessor and user and pot trafficker! President Obama, BY YOUR STANDARDS, is not even eligible for a security clearance... not eligible to know details about the military hardware he commands, much less order it to be used
Perspectives? You cite a FOIL-HAT site? that cite is about as in-context with its edited quotes as Alex Jones....sheesh!
Dail Kos? Seriously??? Citing Kos as a source for ANYTHING disqualifies your whole post... it's a bit like citing a Bugs Bunny cartoon for physics
Nice try lefty-troll. Next time try getting your news from somebody other than a late-night comic....
The Republicans are already called "racists" any time they oppose or criticise Obama (just tune-in ABC,CBS,NBC,PBS,MSNBC etc) so there would be a massive PR hit for even filing charges against the nation's first black president.
And there is no point, anyway. Harry Reid runs the Senate and he blocks everything the House Republicans do. Finally, even if Harry died and through some miracle the Democrat who took over the Senate seat was willing to let the impeachment succeed.... it would fall to Atty Gen Eric Holder to remove Obama from the White House.... yup....THAT Eric Holder.... the one who lied under oath to congress and who's been held in contempt of congress for hiding documents.
The reason Nixon left office is that the Republicans (his party) told him THEY would uphold the rule-of-law rather than their political ally, AND Republicans in Nixon's Justice Department were not going to cover his butt, AND finally Nixon had more honor than Clinton (who when faced with impeachment, dragged tha country through it while orchestrating a successful political war to tar the prosecution) and Obama (who appointed an A.G. who would defend his administration no matter what). I dislike Nixon (he was a progressive Republican who gave us the overly-powerful-EPA, wage-and-price controls, and lots of other decidedly not-conservative garbage) but the truth is he played politics no dirtier than Johnson or others of his generation and he did not order nor take part in the Watergate break-in. Nixon just tried to use his executive branch power to cover-up the illegal acts of his underlings (illegal to be sure, but hardly unprecedented and indeed it's becoming the "new normal"). Confronted with impeachment, Nixon decided (and it's recorded on the tapes) to not put the nation through an impeachment; he left office without a fight. No modern "progressive" ("the ends justify the means" has been a core belief of progressive ideology for over a century) politician would EVER relinquish power that way. Confronted with impeachment, the Obama admin would probably first attempt to use NSA material to blackmail congress, then, who knows? declare martial law "for the children"? Kill a few members of congress (who were obstructing Obama's VERY reasonable policies...) ? This would all be insane BUT the simple fact is that once you remove the checks-and-balances from the U.S. government, there is NOTHING but the conscience of the president that prevents him from turning into a dictator.
BUT he has a brain. Grayson is probably thinking long-term and becoming TERRIFIED of all the precedents Obama is setting and which will be there for every future Republican (or even TEA Partier) to use. If president Obama can have his people go up to capitol hill and lie under oath to the representatives of the people, and can re-write any law he chooses and ignore any law he chooses and refuse to negotiate on any bills or budgets with any party he disagrees with, then so can a future president Palin, or Paul, or Cruz, or Walker, etc.
Intelligent left-leaners should be absolutely freaked-out by all the precedents Obama is setting, but they are too fixated on the current small-balls of things like pot, immigration, and gay marriage.
I'm just saying that the fact that Clinton lied about it didn't seem to matter in the least with regards to his overall popuarlity with the American public (notwithstanding a few very hard-core and perhaps somewhat vocal zealots, but they were a minority), so why should the fact that this guy in congress told another fib, albeit about a matter considerably more important, that it should be judged any more harshly just because of what was being lied about? If you're not going to condemn a man for lying about something trivial, it makes no sense to do so to another for lying about something else, even it was more important... in fact, dragging the whole notion of "he lied" is immaterial and irrelevant. If what he did was bad, it shouldn't matter that he lied about it or not, unless one is prepared to consider lying as being particularly wrong in the first place, which in my observation, most people do not.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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. President Jackson was a bystander.
> Personally, my humble opinion is that the Executive Branch does have the authority to not enforce a law.
In my opinion, the executive has limited discretion is decide that a law is intended to apply in one case, and is not intended to apply in another case. An example would be speeding to emergency room vs. speeding to a football game. In such an instance, the executive isn't denying the law itself, merely realizing the common sense fact that laws have intent behind them, a reason for being. The LEGISLATURE who wrote the speed limit law did not intend for it to hamper a rescuer in a life-and-death emergency, and the executive can recognize the legislative intent.
On the other hand, consider this law:
ISPs are protected from being sued because their customers send phishing spam or other unlawful material through the ISP, if the ISP handles complaints in the proper way as specified by the law.
In my opinion, the executive cannot, as policy, delete the second half of the law. If they do, you end up with:
ISPs are protected from being sued because their customers send phishing spam or other unlawful material through the ISP.
Disregarding the second half of the law would give phishing-spam-r-us.net magical legal protection, saying you can intentionally set up a datacenter devoted to defrauding people and you have an absolute defense against being sued for it. Those decisions of law are for Congress to make, not the president, in my opinion.
Similarly, imagine this law:
The government must pay each parent of schoolchild $10,000 per year, and the parents must pay $10,000 tuition to a school of their choice.
The president deletes the first half:
parents must pay $10,000 tuition to a school.
The law as passed gives parents choice of where their child goes to school, without actually changing funding since the funding is coming from tax money. If the president deletes the first half, it becomes a $10,000 tax on parents. The president does not have the authority to unilaterally create a tax like that.
Obama effectively did the last, creating a huge new tax. The law was:
Everybody has to pay the health insurance companies. The insurance companies have to pay for people who waited until after they got sick to buy insurance.
Obama changed it to:
The insurance companies have to pay for people who waited until after they got sick to buy insurance.
That's effectively a multi-billion dollar tax on those companies. It's not the president's job, and not within his power, to create new taxes. That's the job of Congress.
Don't forget The Dixie Chicks. Their music was basically pulled from the air overnight after they expressed their unfavorable opinion of Bush.
No, it was pulled because they talked a LOT of trash about a person who was basically worshiped by their entire target Demographic. The fact that it was Bush or that he was President had nothing to do with it.
Alan Grayson's a loudmouth Democrat from Florida, and if either the Obama or Bush administrations had anything on him, they'd have used it long ago. I think he's wrong about a lot of things, but it's sure fun to watch him.
Grayson was the Congresscritter who proposed a "War Makes You Poor" Act, which would have required the Bush Administration to do an actual accounting of the costs for the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, and pay for them either by raising taxes or naming specific programs they were going to cut, not just silently running up debt while pretending to be fiscally responsible. Yeah, sure, it got about as far as you'd expect (:-), but it was entirely appropriate. I'm surprised he's been able to stay in Congress, since part of his mission there has been to piss off people who richly deserve it.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
And if your girlfriend asks how she looks in her dress do you ever respond "Like a fat cow?" because it's the truth and you want to be righteous?
Most people understand that, when it comes to lying, there are grey areas (i.e. "white lies").
I'm not seeing the particular detail I requested, you're going to need to offer more substance than that.
When did he eliminate the mandate, and how? Which unions were told they did not have to comply with the law? And why are you bringing the equal protection clause into it? Do you think that all people and organizations must be treated completely equally under the law? If that were the case, then the blind, children and pastors would be in trouble. Or parents. Damn them for getting tax breaks!
And yes, I say you have alleged, because you said something, and now you're claiming the authority of unnamed party leaders, without providing any individuals to back your quotes. I can tell you this, there has been no impeachment proceeding begun against President Obama. I can also say that with my experience with say, Nancy Pelosi's quote on the Affordable Care Act being misrepresented, I do not trust your particular representations as being accurate.
Be honest with yourself, your allegations lack substance and detail, and do not rise to the particular level of hyperbole you chose to express. All I'm seeing is barely controlled sputtering, which persuades me that you don't like the guy, and that's why you are opposing him. That's not fine. Yeah, the rest of us know he's not perfect. He lets Republicans get away with all kinds of lying nonsense. He let the PPACA be gutted in numerous ways. But the way you react is totally fabricated hysteria.
It's the same thing I just heard in the state of the union response by Republicans. It just attacked Obama with standard rhetoric, but failed to persuade because of that reason.
I wouldn't tell my wife that a dress made her look like a fat cow, because no dress ever really could... A dress isn't really going to change how my wife actually looks at all... at most it will be the case that it may be a dress itself that is unattractive, and I would make that distinction by saying that I didn't like the dress.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Good thing he isn't a baseball player, lying about his performance enhancing drug use. Then this would be serious.
Clapper only lied about violating the basic constitutional rights of millions of people. Nothing to do with the integrity of "our national sport".
Of course lying to Congress is bad, and it makes me feel bad about how poorly these people are behaving. But not only are politicians lying openly, it just makes me crazy when they leave the country to avoid testifying before Congress, then are allowed back into the country like nothing happened.
Your entire argument is conjecture and vitriol. If there is a basis a fact get the lazy ass do nothing majority to stand up and impeach him for his vile and treasonous acts against the country. Why don't they? Because they would look like bigger asses than they already are. Hell, if it was an option they would be considering a lynching.
Historical flash back: Day one: Our role is to make him a one term president... All republican objections are void with that single statement as there exists no basis of good faith between the administration and the majority.
There were numerous provisions of the ACA that allowed the president to delay components. The flexibility needed to implement the law well were built into it on purpose, you dolt. Why would this not be worth consideration, oh, learned pile of turds?