James Clapper is still lying to America
A smoking gun shows Director of National Intelligence James Clapper is a big liar -- and it's not the first time
Topics:
James Clapper,
NSA,
Edward Snowden,
National Intelligence Council,
perjury,
Lies,
Congress,
Media Criticism,
Barack Obama,
fourth amendment,
Editor's Picks, Politics News
James Clapper (Credit: Reuters/Kevin Lamarque)Clapper, you may recall, unequivocally said “no, sir” in response to Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., asking him: “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?” Clapper’s response was shown to be a lie by Snowden’s disclosures, as well as by reports from the Guardian, the Washington Post, the Associated Press and Bloomberg News (among others). This is particularly significant, considering lying before Congress prevents the legislative branch from performing oversight and is therefore a felony.
Upon Snowden’s disclosures, Clapper initially explained his lie by insisting that his answer was carefully and deliberately calculated to be the “least untruthful” response to a question about classified information. Left unmentioned was the fact that he could have simply given the same truthful answer that Alberto Gonzales gave the committee in 2006.
Now, though, Clapper is wholly changing his story, insisting that his answer wasn’t a deliberate, carefully calibrated “least most untruthful” response; it was instead just a spur-of-the-moment accident based on an innocent misunderstanding. Indeed, as the Post reports, “Clapper sent a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee on June 21 saying that he had misunderstood the question he had been asked” and adding that “he thought Wyden was referring to NSA surveillance of e-mail traffic involving overseas targets, not the separate program in which the agency is authorized to collect records of Americans’ phone calls.” In his letter, Clapper says, “My response was clearly erroneous — for which I apologize,” and added that “mistakes will happen, and when I make one, I correct it.”
So Clapper first says it was a calculated move, and now he’s saying it was just an innocuous misunderstanding and an inadvertent error. With that, the public — and the Obama administration prosecutors who aggressively pursue perjurers — are all supposed to now breathe a sigh of relief and chalk it all up to a forgivable screw-up. It’s all just an innocent mistake, right?
Wrong, because in this crime, as Clapper’s changing story suggests, there remains a smoking gun.
Why is this man still employed by the federal government? Why hasn't the President fired him for clearly committing perjury? The most galling aspect of this charade is that Sen. Wyden told Clapper a day in advance the question that would be asked precisely so that he could give a clear answer. Seriously, people, how much of this nonsense do we have to put up with? Does it matter whether it's Bush or Obama? It's unacceptable under any circumstances.
No comments:
Post a Comment