Seven House Judiciary Members Demand DOJ Investigate James Clapper For Lying To Congress
from the now-we're-getting-somewhere dept
Since the Snowden revelations first started coming out, forcing James Clapper to admit that he flat-out lied to Congress, we've been somewhat perplexed as to how Clapper could come out of the whole thing "unscathed." Congress seemed willing to look the other way, and the President didn't appear to have any interest in firing Clapper or Keith Alexander, so as not to "let Snowden win." But, it's never made much sense. Lying to Congress is a pretty serious crime -- and considering the lying was to cover up a program that just this week was found to be unconstitutional, it seems even more serious. The fact that anyone in Congress thinks that Clapper can even be remotely trusted to tell the truth going forward when he got away with lying, seems bizarre.Hopefully that will be changing now.
Back in October, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, the author of the PATRIOT Act, argued that Clapper should be fired and prosecuted, but hadn't done anything to move that forward. However, with Monday's ruling now making it pretty clear that the program that Clapper lied about (in response to a question from Senator Ron Wyden), Sensenbrenner, along with six of his colleagues on the House Judiciary Committee have sent a letter to Eric Holder, demanding an investigation into Clapper's lying to Congress. The letter is quite a read. They're pretty direct about calling out Clapper for lying, how this is against the law, how others in government have been prosecuted for the same thing, and even how allowing this to go unpunished contributes to "cynicism" about the government.
Congressional oversight depends on truthful testimony--witnesses cannot be allowed to lie to Congress. Accordingly, we request you to investigate the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper's "erroneous" statements to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence earlier this year.It seems unlikely that Holder will do anything, but this is the first official move we've seen towards actually punishing Clapper for lying to Congress. It would be nice if others in Congress supported this effort as well.
[....] 18 U.S.C. § 1001 makes it a crime to "knowingly and willfully" make any "materially false" statement in the course of any "investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee." One of the hallmarks of American democracy is that no one is above the law...
[....] Director Clapper has served his country with distinction, and we have no doubt he believed he was acting in its best interest. Nevertheless, the law is clear. He was asked a question and he was obligated to answer truthfully. He could have declined to answer. He could have offered to answer in a classified setting. He could have corrected himself immediately following the hearing. He did none of these things despite advance warning that the question was coming.
The country's interests are best served when its leaders deal truthfully with its citizens. The mutual sense of good faith it fosters permits compromise and concessions in those cases that warrant it. Director Clapper's willful lie under oath fuels the unhealthy cynicism and distrust that citizens feel toward their government and undermines Congress's ability to perform its Constitutional function.
There are differences of opinion about the propriety of the NSA's data collection programs. There can be no disagreement, however, on the basic premise that congressional witnesses must answer truthfully.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: eric holder, house judiciary committee, james clapper, jim sensenbrenner, lying to congress, nsa, nsa surveillance, ron wyden
Reader Comments
The First Word
“RE: INVESTIGATION OF CLAPPER FOR ALLEGED DISCHARGE OF UNTRUTH
The Office would like to direct the esteemed members of the House Judiciary Committee to the following Fact Sheet, which should clarify the many misconceptions surrounding James Clapper's supposed misrepresentation of his own words.
We hope these Guidance Points will help you arrive at the correct conclusion pursuant to your investigation that we won't be assisting with one bit.
Sincerely,
Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I suspect no one really wants to go after Clapper because of the old 'rocks and glass houses' thing. Once started, who knows where it will end.
It will take exactly these sort of actions to restore the public's trust in government. At this point I have little faith in that happening.
We have the finest laws money can buy and legalized corruption through political campaign financing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A healthy democracy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
These two options should not exist. The tax paying public has a right to government transparency and truthfulness. Anything less should result in this official being replaced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Believe it or not, as much as the government has exhausted the credibility of the phrase "national security", there may actually be occasions where telling Congress classified info in a public hearing would actually be damaging to the country's national security (since the hearings would be public and terrorists probably read the news like everyone else).
Loose Lips do Sink Ships.
The problem is the government seems to want to define EVERYTHING as a sinkable ship these days, no matter how harmless the information actually is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But good for Sensenbrenner and the rest for bringing this up. There can be no meaningful oversight by Congress if they are merely lied to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's very simple
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's very simple
In his position of Attorney General, Eric Holder engaged in illegal arms trafficking (separation of powers, anybody?) and provably lied several times under oath to congress about it. He got reprimanded for it and had to initiate an inspection into his felonies and let himself off with a high-five on his wrist.
If the Attorney General is allowed to pull off those antics, it's on obvious free-for-all for any politician. It's on the House.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is there a record? Will he be the [Record] Holder?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: INVESTIGATION OF CLAPPER FOR ALLEGED DISCHARGE OF UNTRUTH
The Office would like to direct the esteemed members of the House Judiciary Committee to the following Fact Sheet, which should clarify the many misconceptions surrounding James Clapper's supposed misrepresentation of his own words.
We hope these Guidance Points will help you arrive at the correct conclusion pursuant to your investigation that we won't be assisting with one bit.
Sincerely,
Office of the Director of National Intelligence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What if we....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clapper did the only thing he could do in response to the question consistent with maintaining classified information in confidence. Wyden already knew the answer because he held a security clearance enabling him to learn the answer in the course of briefings to him and other similarly cleared persons.
The letter is nice political "theater", and nothing more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And how can you have meaningful oversight if he can't tell the rest of Congress about their abuses?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You missed a few words
Now you might say, 'at the time the program wasn't considered unconstitutional', and while technically true, that would only be because those running it always lied when asked about what the program(s) involved.
It was only when independent, outside investigation of the program was conducted(thanks to Snowden's actions) that the program was able to be challenged, something that would be impossible if people just had to take the word of liars like that at face value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That is not true. Same thing as a lie. Telling a lie is simply stating something that is untrue. So, yes, you can lie to people even if they know it's a lie. You, for example, are lying. You have said something that is blatantly untrue, making you a liar.
Clapper did the only thing he could do in response to the question consistent with maintaining classified information in confidence. Wyden already knew the answer because he held a security clearance enabling him to learn the answer in the course of briefings to him and other similarly cleared persons.
This has been explained to you multiple times, and your insistence on repeating this lie increasingly makes you look desperate to stand up for the surveillance state, who paid your salary for so many years. As Sensenbrenner rightly noted, there were multiple ways that Clapper could have truthfully answered the question without revealing any confidential information. Merely saying that he would provide details in a classified setting -- exactly as Clapper did in an earlier letter -- does not, in fact, reveal anything sensitive. It might make people ask what he meant, and might make some people take some guesses, but it would not reveal anything confidential.
And you know that. So I don't understand why you are lying, other than this sick desire to protect a confessed Congressional liar.
The letter is nice political "theater", and nothing more.
I would argue that was much more true of your buddy Jimmy Clapper's performance in which he lied to Congress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Let me summarize my position as follows. I express no opinion on what the NSA has been doing. I express no opinion on the legality of what it has been doing. I express no opinion on whether or not what is has been doing was even useful or necessary. I express only that Wyden acted cowardly and deserves scorn for throwing Clapper under the bus rather that sticking his own neck out to do what he considered right and just. Snowden stuck his out and has been prepared to pay the price for his actions...whatever that price may prove to be. Snowden puts Wyden to shame when it comes to the courage of one's convictions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No - it's just easier to get caught, which is exactly what happened.
It's stupid when a 5-year old does it to his parents.
It's MONUMENTALLY stupid when a high ranking official does it under oath and on record.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Of course he "lied", but any other answer in a public forum would have compromised classified subject matter. It has been suggested by some, and with justification, that by asking the question Wyden may have violated the obligations he assumed when he was granted a security clearance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You keep saying that even though this has been 100% debunked, as proved by the way Clapper has answered similar questions in the past by noting that he could only provide a full answer in a classified setting.
It has been suggested by some, and with justification, that by asking the question Wyden may have violated the obligations he assumed when he was granted a security clearance.
This is the most insane comment I've seen from you yet. You're saying that a Senator asking a basic question, and having the head of the intelligence services commit out and out perjury, should be blamed more for asking the question?
You need SERIOUS help. Please go seek it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Im getting conflicting reports here *proverbial weighing of the scales*?.....so do i follow the law, or dont !???????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Dude, based on your comments, maybe you really need to cut back on whatever it is you are putting into your body.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NO THEY BLOODY WELL CANT
No more fucking secrets
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That clappertrap is what I get to read on forums where the issue comes up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, he could have said all of that and more, but to fully understand what was before Clapper one would do well to reflect upon what each of the answers advocated here would/could have communicated to persons who could not care less about US national security.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Banned from the USA
This guy pissed on the American flag and wiped his ass with it.
As an ex-military person, his sole duty was not only to protect our country, but to also protect our Constitution. He has failed and deliberately has attempted to dismantle the Constitution while lying to everyone while doing it.
He is the worst of the worst. He is the perfect example of what treason is, he is an enemy of the people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sympathy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The usual two sets of rules.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As I have said before and it bears repeating, I am expressing no opinion about what the information comprised. My point is simply that no matter what the information comprised, disclosure to others lacking a security clearance by law must follow a specific procedural path. If one decides "screw the path" then they do so at their legal peril. Wyden was clearly unwilling to pursue the requirements of law to have some or all of the information declassified, choosing instead to try and force someone else to unwillingly do so. To me this is an example of throwing someone else under the bus to avoid what would otherwise be the personal consequences, legal and otherwise, of disclosing the information himself. Love Wyden all you want, converse with him on matters of personal interest all you want, feel free to put him on your Christmas card list, but in my view you are associating yourself with one who in this instance has acted cowardly and without honor.
As for those, including me, who believe that Wyden may have strayed into unchartered legal territory with his question, to ascribe some form of "insanity" is to deliberately decline to learn anything about why this was so. Persons who have expressed this concern have generally dealt with classified information procedures and law up close and personal for a very long time, which in my case is well prior to your date of birth. This is not an appeal to moral authority as you quite regularly proclaim. It is no more and no less than the opinion of one holding intimate knowledge of the process and the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you or others who promote with absolute conviction of their "rightness" were intimately familiar with the requirements imposed on those given a security clearance, each of you would immediately realize that things are not always as easy as they might otherwise seem.
I know multiple people, including close family members, who have the necessary security clearance. They think you need serious help.
Obviously, he did not like what he learned, and perhaps with good reason, but he was duty bound to preserve the information in the strictest of confidence from disclosure to others not having a clearance and a need to know.
Nothing Wyden did revealed any classified info. Try again.
So, what did he do? He insinuated an answer at the hearing by his question, and then tried to "force" someone else, also having the same obligation, to breach his obligation in a public forum by confirming Wyden's insinuation.
Again, the question that Wyden asked revealed no classified info. A truthful answer would reveal no classified information.
My point is simply that no matter what the information comprised, disclosure to others lacking a security clearance by law must follow a specific procedural path.
Right. But we're not talkng about classified info being disclosed.
That's part of the mental block on your part and why I think you need to see a doctor. You simply don't seem attached to reality. Wyden was not trying to reveal classified information.
If one decides "screw the path" then they do so at their legal peril. Wyden was clearly unwilling to pursue the requirements of law to have some or all of the information declassified, choosing instead to try and force someone else to unwillingly do so.
Same comment as above. Your entire point is based on a false premise.
you are associating yourself with one who in this instance has acted cowardly and without honor.
You're insane. Wyden helped to call attention to an UNCONSTITUTIONAL program and a SECRET interpretation of the law that allowed the government to spy on Americans in violation fo the 4th Amendment.
He's cowardly and without honor? You may be the most despicable person alive.
As for those, including me, who believe that Wyden may have strayed into unchartered legal territory with his question
Anyone who thinks that is insane. Certifiably.
No one other than extreme fascists seem to think that. Are you really in that category?
Wyden asked a straightforward question that revealed no classified info. It could have been answered truthfully in a manner that still revealed no classified info. Instead, Clapper lied to Congress, which IS against the law.
You a sick human being.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re Wyden's action, one of many examples is linked below:
http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/07/dishonor-in-high-places-sandbagging-the-intelligence-chief- again/
You can disagree with what is said in this article and the many others that mirror its sentiments, but it cannot be denied that a substantial number of others do not share your view. What convinces you that you right and they are wrong I attribute to your unfamiliarity with the relevant process and law. For example, Wyden did have other avenues, and perhaps even constitutional immunity, for bringing the information to the attention of the public. He chose to pursue none of them, deciding instead to score in a very public way political points at the expense of someone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You keep harping "But Wyden did nothing wrong because his question did not disclose any classified information!"
Are you really so naïve you actually believe that the mere asking of such a question conveys no useful information to others? How about the fact it can be construed to reveal that there exists a classified matter? After all, if no such matter exists (which Wyden knew was not the case from the classified material to which he was made privy), then why even ask the question in the first place? Things like this do not go unnoticed by those who could not care less about our country's national security interests, and especially matters before groups that regularly receive briefings involving national security matters in closed session.
Since you keep trying to marginalize comments with which you disagree with comments like "insane", "you need help", etc., then clearly you have absolutely no interest in learning how our classified information system actually works and why this is so. Opinions formed upon an incomplete set of facts are faith based, hardly the basis upon which to begin a meaningful discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, it is. But you were the one who first suggested that it mattered. I was pointing out that you were wrong. As per usual. I'm just saying that a lot of people who have security clearance that I know agree that Wyden's question was perfectly fine. You keep insisting that you possess some magical level of knowledge given your history. You don't.
Are you really so naïve you actually believe that the mere asking of such a question conveys no useful information to others?
I did not say that. What I said was that the question was asked and an answer could be provided that revealed no classified information. Pretty much everyone except the extreme fascist surveillance state supporters have acknowledged this. In fact, as noted, Clapper has answered nearly identical questions in the past, such as in letters in which he noted that the full answer was provided in a separate classified letter -- which revealed no classified info on their own. As such, he clearly could have done the same thing here.
While it may be true that some of us who follow these things would then speculate on the nature of what he was talking about, the general idea that *maybe* the NSA was collecting a lot of information of an *unknown type* on *many* Americans reveals FUCK ALL about a classified program.
After all, if no such matter exists (which Wyden knew was not the case from the classified material to which he was made privy), then why even ask the question in the first place?
Again, the question was so general, and could be answered in such a general way that it revealed no classified information. Even Feinstein admitted that she was shocked by his answer. She's said nothing about the question. When you're more supportive of insane theories than Feinstein, you need help.
Things like this do not go unnoticed by those who could not care less about our country's national security interests, and especially matters before groups that regularly receive briefings involving national security matters in closed session.
Again, the most that would have been revealed is very general information. The fact that the US collect some information on lots of people doesn't reveal anything.
clearly you have absolutely no interest in learning how our classified information system actually works and why this is so.
As noted, I understand how it works and converse frequently with many people who have tremendous experience with it. The reason I'm calling your insane theory insane, is because it is.
Opinions formed upon an incomplete set of facts are faith based, hardly the basis upon which to begin a meaningful discussion.
My opinion is not based on an incomplete set of facts.
I will note that not a single serious person has agreed with your theory. I've yet to see any attempt by even the nuttiest nutballs in Congress to sanction Wyden. Yet, there is such an effort under way to go after Clapper.
Only extreme conspiracy theorists like yourself seem to think Wyden did something wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I did not notice this until after I posted my above comment.
Personal attacks reduced to this disgustingly low level obviously give you much pleasure. Unfortunately, they also reflect negatively on you as an individual who seeks to be taken as a serious, reliable source of accurate and objective analysis on a wide range of issues.
This said...Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I take it that Stewart Baker is not serious enough to your liking. The same is obviously true of Marc Thiessen. What about Joel Brenner? Senator Feinstein? She tried when opening the meeting to prevent Wyden from presenting the question to Clapper. What about Representative King?
Feel free to hate their opinions for whatever reason strikes your fancy (Baker, Brenner...they worked at one time within the intelligence community and are biased beyond redemption. Thiessen...he is not a serious journalist. Feinstein...she has been brainwashed and has gone over to the dark side. King...he is a pompous, bombastic fool, and persons like him can never express opinions on issues that should ever be taken seriously.)
If you reject out of hand the point I and others have made, then obviously you do not understand the issue we are addressing and why we believe Wyden was wrong to proceed as he did, and why Clapper was left with no reasonable alternative under the circumstances to answer as he did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Can you name anyone outside of the extreme lunatic fringe? Do you really wish to associate yourself with people who have so consistently been proven to be completely idiotically clueless?
When I said "serious people" I meant: someone who is actually doing something about it. There has not been a single move to even complain about Wyden's question by anyone in a role to do anything. Because, as you either don't understand or are too clueless to comprehend -- his question revealed no classified information.
It could not have. A very general question about whether or not such data was collected would not and could not reveal classified information.
hen obviously you do not understand the issue we are addressing and why we believe Wyden was wrong to proceed as he did
Or, we understand it, and realize that it's the dumbest concept ever.
why Clapper was left with no reasonable alternative under the circumstances to answer as he did.
Again, you look really really stupid (I mean monumentally so) making this argument given that (1) Clapper himself answered similar questions in exactly the manner we suggested he could have responded honestly, and it did not reveal any classified info or set off any great national security crisis. (2) Clapper himself has not sunk so stupendously low to make the argument you're now making.
When you're lower than James Clapper... you're beneath contempt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As for saying the question did not disclose any classified information, bear in mind that in this instance the mere existence of a data collection effort of the magnitude and scope posited was deemed classified. The actual program itself and what it actually did was likewise classified. It was the former that came into play when the question was posed to Mr. Clapper, and no matter how he answered he was exposed to criminal liability because he was subject to two separate laws that under the circumstances presented at the public meeting were in conflict and irreconcilable. Wyden has at least two ways to address the matter, one via proposed legislation and the other by Congressional immunity conferred by the Constitution. He used neither for reasons he has never attempted to explain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The program was classified. The fact that the NSA collected data on Americans was not classified. Nor could it be. Furthermore, Clapper saying -- as he did when previously asked a similar question -- that full details would be provided in a classified setting, would not and did not reveal any classified information. As you have been told, and as has been explained by multiple people who have a lot longer history with understanding this stuff than you.
It was the former that came into play when the question was posed to Mr. Clapper, and no matter how he answered he was exposed to criminal liability because he was subject to two separate laws that under the circumstances presented at the public meeting were in conflict and irreconcilable.
You keep saying that and look worse each time. Once again, it has been explained to you multiple times the myriad ways in which he could -- and in fact did -- answer that question legally when asked. This time he chose not to use one of those ways, but rather chose to lie to Congress and the American public. The claim that he faced criminal liability no matter what he did is absolutely false.
Wyden has at least two ways to address the matter, one via proposed legislation and the other by Congressional immunity conferred by the Constitution. He used neither for reasons he has never attempted to explain.
You leave out the much more obvious other answer: Wyden has nothing at all "to address" because he did not force Clapper into an untenable position, and no one outside of the lunatic fringe seems to think so. Considering that not a single effort has been made to even bring this issue up to Wyden suggests that this is the truth, and your lunatic conspiracy theory is... well, only of interest to folks like yourself who can't bring yourself to realize the basic truth that James Clapper broke the law, and Wyden did not.
The facts are the facts. Clapper broke the law. He has admitted to breaking the law. Wyden did not. No one has actually accused him of doing so in any official capacity. Clapper, on the other hand...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gonna give yerself an anurism....
I don't really wanna come between you and your attempt to show the world how silly the Anon Cow is, but the Anon Cow is doing a damn fine job of misdirecting the forum's debate away from Clapper and onto Wyden and - don't mean to be snarky here Mike, but you're just giving him/her fuel to fulfill his/her task.
And in truth, you have already blown every word he/she has posted, clean out of the water, and he/she is just poking a pointy stick through the bars of your cage right now cuz yer all pissed and such. He's got you repeating yourself.... repeatedly.
The best paid shills are those who can cause just enough ire and frustration in other posters to get them to keep responding to the detour topic, and keep them away from the actual subject matter that their masters want detoured.
Bonuses accrue when such shills can actually redirect all of the participants onto the new detour path and away from the actual subject matter of the article.
Double bonuses accrue when the false arguments prevent the entire forum from returning to the original topic long enough for the topic to die.
This critter is gonna get over-time and triple bonuses if ye don't just let him/her fade away back into the void.
Go punch a pillow instead. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]