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."

25 of 383 comments (clear)

  1. Get Ready by The_Star_Child · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re: Get Ready by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:Get Ready by fatphil · · Score: 5, Insightful

      +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?

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    3. Re: Get Ready by tripleevenfall · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Get Ready by drainbramage · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, the AK-15 is way more reliable than the AR-74 and has more penetration.
      Everyone knows that, just ask Louis Armstrong (the first man on the moon).

      --
      No brain, no pain.
    5. Re:Get Ready by kilfarsnar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, Snowden is at best a leaker, he could be worse.

      Which "malfeasance" are you referring to? I haven't heard of them doing anything illegal (even if some might tend to make you uncomfortable).

      Really? http://www.forbes.com/sites/je...

      Keep up, eh?

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    6. Re: Get Ready by SydShamino · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
  2. Sadly by jcrb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Sadly by Jawnn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  3. euphemism for "lie" by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 5, Funny

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

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

  4. Re:The basic rules. by i+kan+reed · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  5. Impeachment by Teancum · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Impeachment by hoyle · · Score: 5, Informative

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

  6. A positive step by SirGarlon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  7. Barry Bonds by ebonum · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Barry Bonds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

  8. The Other Five Party/Districts by Bob9113 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  9. Warrantless domestic wiretapping by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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/...

  10. Lying doesn't matter much here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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".

  11. Re:lol Bush.Lincoln, Roosevelt. Obama unilaterally by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  12. Clapper in Prison by Phoenix666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  13. Re:lol Bush.Lincoln, Roosevelt. Obama unilaterally by dcollins · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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.

    --
    We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
  14. Monroe, upon signing, chose an interpretation by raymorris · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  15. Re:lol Bush.Lincoln, Roosevelt. Obama unilaterally by operagost · · Score: 5, Informative

    Congress authorized military action in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Maybe you weren't paying attention.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  16. The Oath by jeff13 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.