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
>> "Misstatement," of course, being the favorite euphemism for "lie."
I though it was, "If you like your X, you can keep your X." :)
Unfortunately, "lying to congress" has some protection from that kind of punishment to prevent congress from using congressional inquiry as a lazy version of a bill of attainder.
*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.
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
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.
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/...
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".
> 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.
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.
The first black President will never be impeached. It does not matter what he does.
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.
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.
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'
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.
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.
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.
What exactly are you talking about? Contempt of Congress is a crime. They don't even need the executive or judicial branches. The Congressional Sergeant at Arms has the power to arrest someone, bring them to trial in Congress, and imprison them in the Capitol jail. This power was upheld by the Supreme Court in Anderson vs. Dunn (1821).
But IANAL, so maybe you know something that I don't. To what limitation on this power do you refer?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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.
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..
Not socioeconomic circles. Clapper is a cop. Cops never get charged with perjury. Never.
As DA aren't doing their job, defense attorneys should setup a web site and collect transcripts of cops testilying. Searchable by cop name and department. Court reporters own the copyright to transcripts. So it will have to be overseas.
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.
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.
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.
A president cannot do what Obama is doing in a "Constitutional Republic with checks-and-balances".
Selective enforcement of law IS the checks and balances.
An executive who fails to faithfully live by/uphold the laws might give Congress the motivation to remove him from office.
This is the ultimate check and balance upon the executive. I'm pretty sure that every president has failed to uphold the laws of the land--but Congress has to-date failed to see sufficient cause to carry through with it.