19 ms·

Snowden: Why hasn’t DNI Clapper been punished for lying to Congress?

131 points by ryutin 12y ago

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- asperous 12y ago
  He asked the question broadly enough "any information at all" that it shouldn't be classified. He didn't ask for the names of specific targets, methods, etc.
noir_lord 12y ago
Because he has congress by the balls.
- jerf 12y ago
  Impossible... Congress has no balls. To make this more than mere snark, seriously, committees of the size of Congress are nearly entirely structurally incapable of taking serious stands of this nature. That's not sarcasm, it's a real structural problem with committees, and despite how we often refer to it in humor, it's a fully real thing, not a joke. This is why the US still needs an executive branch, which is structured in such a way that it can take a stand, potentially very quickly.
  - rooster8 12y ago
    I thought OP was implying that he had dirt on anyone who would try to reprimand him. Everyone hesitates in a surveillance state.
    - noir_lord 12y ago
      That is exactly what I was implying maybe it was unclear. You don't need dirt on all of congress (though I wouldn't be surprised if they had it on most of them) just key players committee leaders etc. Hell the stuff doesn't even have to be illegal to be useful, illicit affairs have brought down presidents before.
  - talmand 12y ago
    For all the size of both houses of US Congress, they are essentially run by a handful of people.
danielweber 12y ago
I'm frequently not on Snowden's side (and Clapper being wrong doesn't necessarily make Snowden right), but he's completely on point here. Clapper directly lied to Congress under oath. He needs some kind of censure.
- josho 12y ago
  Oh, great. I'm very curious. I am honestly very interested to hear what you feel Snowden has done wrong? I had always assumed that for everyone except those with something to lose (e.g. politicians, bureaucrats) that Snowden 's actions were seen in high regard.
  - eli 12y ago
    I think perhaps you've been consuming only media that mirrors your own viewpoint. Many people are upset that Snowden "violated his oath," that he took it upon himself to effectively dismantle programs he disagreed with (even if the program was indeed out of line), and that he fled from the consequences of his actions. If you believe public opinion polling, a majority of Americans don't like what he did and think he should return to face trial: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-most-think-edward-snowden-should-stand-trial-in-us/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-most-think-edward-snowden-s...
    - krapp 12y ago
      Bear in mind another point - believing Snowden needs to stand trial doesn't necessarily presume a belief that he's guilty, or should be punished, either. Americans also tend to believe the justice system works as advertised.
      - talmand 12y ago
        I for one feel he should not be punished under whistleblower laws, but I would be open to a proper trial. I would like to see that discussion in open court, not a secret tribunal where the outcome is only reported by the government doing the prosecution. Which is why I think he should not return to face trial, because I think there's no way he'll ever get a fair and open trial in the US.
geetee 12y ago
I'm surprised by the amount of anti-Snowden sentiment in the WaPo comments.
- 1337biz 12y ago
  Oh, these are just your taxpayer dollars at work...
  - scrrr 12y ago
    Yep, it's likely they have some "public opinion making" going on. After all psychology teaches us that people look to other people first to find out what to think and do. These guys spoiled the Internet.
- hadoukenio 12y ago
  See "Military's 'sock puppet' software creates fake online identities to spread pro-American propaganda": http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-ope...
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - krapp 12y ago
    Also see people actually having an opposing point of view. Not everything has to be parallel construction, false flag operations and conspiracy.
    - scrrr 12y ago
      Yeah but come on, it's happening.
      - krapp 12y ago
        There's a difference between it happening, and it happening so often that it can be taken for granted. The CIA trying to plant microphones into stray cats hoping they'd wander within earshot of Soviet dignitaries happened too. The truth is, it isn't known, the scale of these operations, and you can assume everything is full of spooks or not. But the more reasonable assumption, absent evidence to the contrary, is that it's likely not a conspiracy. Particularly when you're describing points of view which a lot of Americans actually do hold. Although then I suppose you could suggest that the reason Americans believe certain things, or even the appearance of that belief, is the result of propaganda but, again - who knows?
hadoukenio 12y ago
Answer: Because the United States is an Oligarchy.
- bsenftner 12y ago
  You are correct! Now, off to your waterboarding for leaking that truth.
- higherpurpose 12y ago
  It seems HN didn't like your comment. Maybe a citation is needed: https://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/04/14 https://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/04/14
  - eli 12y ago
    I think it's more that it is flippant and doesn't really advance the conversation in any meaningful way. You could post that comment on every story that touches on politics.
    - pessimizer 12y ago
      ...that asks a question about why a powerful person wasn't prosecuted, or why the polled will of the people wasn't followed and the opinion of a few wealthy people was enshrined as law. Otherwise it wouldn't be relevant. In this thread, it's the talking around in circles about "what the American people think about Snowden" and whether the speaker lives in a tech bubble or not that's irrelevant. We already know statistically that what people outside of the top 10% think has absolutely no relevance to policy.
mgamache 12y ago
Congressional testimony is just political kabuki. No one involved wants the truth they just want the show. It reminds me of pro wrestling without the steroids.
- gcb0 12y ago
  So more reason to go to the bottom of this.
tokenadult 12y ago
There is some good reporting here by the Washington Post about the circumstances of Clapper's testimony to Congress. Readers here who know my comments know that I'm not fully happy with how Snowden chose to disclose information from inside NSA, and particularly not about his travel to China (Hong Kong) and Russia, but I think Snowden raises a fair point here. There is some genuine difference of opinion among Americans about how Clapper's statement to Congress should be characterized (whether "lie" or "erroneous statement") and plenty of us who agree with another comment here posted before mine that two wrongs don't make a right. Every national government in the civilized world needs an intelligence-gathering agency that can operate with some degree of operational secrecy. I think Congress is unsure about how to proceed on this issue because not all members of Congress are of one mind about what is best for the country in administration of NSA. I categorically reject the assertion that Congress is still moving forward slowly to change NSA oversight because "NSA has Congress by the balls." Nope. One of the most common kinds of comments here on Hacker News about issues like this is a comment that ASSUMES that if government leaders are under pervasive surveillance they are all afraid of blackmail. But I don't believe that, because some government leaders and some political candidates are essentially shameless. Even after they are caught (by old-fashioned journalism, or by a jilted lover or some unrelated criminal investigation) doing something unsavory, they are still willing to run for office, and SOME ARE REELECTED. United States Senator David Vitter was reelected in 2010 even after a scandal involving behavior that I would consider shameful,[1] and the antics of former DC mayor Marion Barry[2] are probably still notorious enough that they don't need further discussion here. In short, I call baloney on the idea that NSA can keep politicians on its leash simply by knowing their secrets. Some politicians have PUBLIC lives full of dirt, and still get elected and influence policy anyway. The other reason I don't believe this HN hivemind theory of politics is that I by no means assume that everyone in politics lacks personal integrity. Some politicians, I am quite sure, could have all their secrets revealed only to have voters think "Why is that person such a straight-arrow? Why not have some fun once in a while?" The simple fact is that there is value system diversity in the United States electorate, and there is personal conduct probity variance among United States politicians, and there isn't any universal way to unduly influence politicians merely through even the most diligent efforts to discover personal secrets. If politicians think that NSA is going too far (as evidently several politicians from more than one party do think), then they will receive plenty of support from the general public to rein in the surveillance. (Obligatory disclaimer: Yes, I am a lawyer, who as a judicial clerk for my state's Supreme Court used to review case files on attorney misconduct, and, yes, some of my law school classmates are elected officials, including one member of Congress. I am absolutely certain that there are enough politicians ready to mobilize to roll back NSA surveillance programs if they really think the programs are excessive in their scope.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Vitter#D.C._Madam_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Vitter#D.C._Madam_scanda... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Barry#1990_arrest_.26_drug_conviction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Barry#1990_arrest_.26_d...
gottasayit 12y ago
Of course Clapper isn't going to be punished. Holder was held in contempt of Congress for stonewalling on Fast and Furious, but since pursuit of his punishment would require action from an Obama political appointee, nothing will happen. No one went to jail for the Wall Street fiasco. No one was fired for being wrong about WMDs in Iraq. We still don't know anything about Benghazi while some poor sap who published a video rots in jail as a scapegoat... no one will suffer consequences. No one in this administration will cooperate in determining the origins, extent, and details of the IRS attack on conservative political groups. The list of government protecting its own goes on forever. Why is anyone surprised that things are the same for this particular scandal? Particularly with this administration that gets a lot of political cover from the press?
- SnakeDoc 12y ago
  Holder was not prosecuted further because Obama clamped down with Executive Privilege -- preventing any further inquiry (but also basically admitting something wrong was going on)
- bradleyjg 12y ago
  Each house of Congress has inherent contempt powers and can jail people, in the Capitol if necessary. They haven't exercised that power since 1934, these days they refer contemptors to the US Attorney for the District of Columbia. The older power still remains though and is on very firm Constitutional grounds (though for a cabinet official there are issues of executive privilege). More generally it's hard to take Congressional complaints of executive overreaching seriously when Congress refuses to utilize any of the many tools at its disposal.
  - talmand 12y ago
    Any member of Congress that starts putting Administration personnel in jail will be committing political suicide.
    - fixermark 12y ago
      When you work in a body with a 13% public approval rating, you'd think there would be little effect political suicide could have. More seriously: I think it'd be a wild-card maneuver, but I honestly don't know that it would be political suicide. Some people are angry at Congress for being ineffective. Some people are angry at the administration for failing to check the powers it has been given along lines of "decency" and restraint. I don't think those people would be sad to see Congress start using its authority as a non-executive branch.
SnakeDoc 12y ago
Snowden is an All American Hero. People are quick to go down the rabbit hole and say he's a "traitor" because he fled to Russia... these are the same people who are all caught up in our Presidentially Manufactured Political-Beef with Russia in Ukraine. Snowden is in Russia because it is the only country in this world that would stand up to the USA and say "no" to deportation requests. We witnessed just how far USA is willing to strong-arm the international community -- even going so far to force-ground a Presidential Plane from Bolivia and then search his plane. -- That is outrageous. Snowden should be brought back to the USA -- after a full Presidential Pardon, and then made into the first in-house US Spy Agency Watch Dog - reporting only to the American People, and the President.
Involute 12y ago
As far as I can tell, Clapper was asked about a classified program during an open session of Congress. Confronted with a conflict between his oath to tell the truth and his obligation to preserve the secrecy of the program, he chose the latter and corrected his testimony later in private. Maybe I'm misconstruing what happened, but, if not, why is this controversial?
- talmand 12y ago
  Because he lied during testimony in front of Congress without any consequences? There were ways to answer the question without jeopardizing a classified program. It has been done before and will be done again.
- couchand 12y ago
  The legitimate response in such a situation is to officially dodge the question. It doesn't even have to be public since they're given the questions in advance and have veto power. But Clapper went before Congress explicitly allowing them to ask him about this program and knowingly lied about it. What's unfortunate is that it's not controversial. It seems Clapper has the backing of a pretty big group in Congress.
  - involute1344 12y ago
    According to the article, ODNI's attorney was given the question in advance, but it wasn't passed on to Clapper, so he improvised. Maybe the attorney's just covering for him, but that's what it says.
  - mpyne 12y ago
    > The legitimate response in such a situation is to officially dodge the question. That is absolutely, 100% not the case. Dodging the question, for this particular question is as much a leak of classified information as giving up the answer directly. This is by the same principle used by hacktivists called the "warrant canary", which they think they invented: But the same thing happened to a CIA director (Helms?) in the 1970s and he did the same thing because the same principle applied back then too.
Tloewald 12y ago
Why does it take Snowden to ask this question? Since when is blatant perjury before Congress not a punishable offense? I guess if you perjure yourself over drug use in baseball that's a lot more important.
- gknoy 12y ago
  In the article, they mention that several senators wrote a letter to the president asking for his removal on this basis, but I agree: it seems strange that there have been no charges.
mpyne 12y ago
This is the answer, whether you agree with it or not: http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/07/dishonor-in-high-places-sandbagging-the-intelligence-chief-again/ http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/07/dishonor-in-high-places-s...
anonbanker 12y ago
The short answer: because his written response, and the committee's acceptance of his written response, absolved him of any criminal wrongdoing caused by his testimony. A little known fact: under UCC and UNCITRAL, you have 72 hours to modify any contracts you make in court via private correspondence. With 3 days to receive, and 3 days to send a response (and one day for a Sunday) tacked on. If the other party goes silent afterwards (as the committee did), clapper can use that silence as tacit acquiescence to his modified statements. In this case, the senate committee accepted that "least untruthful" was considered sufficient reason to make false public statements. Clapper brought that private agreement public via the press, and now it's nicely cemented in stone, as a valid process that anyone else can use in case they're ever caught lying to congress. Someone really should be teaching Ed Snowden contract and trade law. I bet he'd pick it up rather quickly, and it'd make his current situation easier to deal with.

131 points by ryutin 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

asperous 12y ago
He asked the question broadly enough "any information at all" that it shouldn't be classified. He didn't ask for the names of specific targets, methods, etc.

noir_lord 12y ago

Because he has congress by the balls.

jerf 12y ago
Impossible... Congress has no balls. To make this more than mere snark, seriously, committees of the size of Congress are nearly entirely structurally incapable of taking serious stands of this nature. That's not sarcasm, it's a real structural problem with committees, and despite how we often refer to it in humor, it's a fully real thing, not a joke. This is why the US still needs an executive branch, which is structured in such a way that it can take a stand, potentially very quickly.
- rooster8 12y ago
  I thought OP was implying that he had dirt on anyone who would try to reprimand him. Everyone hesitates in a surveillance state.
  - noir_lord 12y ago
    That is exactly what I was implying maybe it was unclear. You don't need dirt on all of congress (though I wouldn't be surprised if they had it on most of them) just key players committee leaders etc. Hell the stuff doesn't even have to be illegal to be useful, illicit affairs have brought down presidents before.
- talmand 12y ago
  For all the size of both houses of US Congress, they are essentially run by a handful of people.

danielweber 12y ago

I'm frequently not on Snowden's side (and Clapper being wrong doesn't necessarily make Snowden right), but he's completely on point here. Clapper directly lied to Congress under oath. He needs some kind of censure.

josho 12y ago
Oh, great. I'm very curious. I am honestly very interested to hear what you feel Snowden has done wrong? I had always assumed that for everyone except those with something to lose (e.g. politicians, bureaucrats) that Snowden 's actions were seen in high regard.
- eli 12y ago
  I think perhaps you've been consuming only media that mirrors your own viewpoint. Many people are upset that Snowden "violated his oath," that he took it upon himself to effectively dismantle programs he disagreed with (even if the program was indeed out of line), and that he fled from the consequences of his actions. If you believe public opinion polling, a majority of Americans don't like what he did and think he should return to face trial: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-most-think-edward-snowden-should-stand-trial-in-us/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-most-think-edward-snowden-s...
  - krapp 12y ago
    Bear in mind another point - believing Snowden needs to stand trial doesn't necessarily presume a belief that he's guilty, or should be punished, either. Americans also tend to believe the justice system works as advertised.
    - talmand 12y ago
      I for one feel he should not be punished under whistleblower laws, but I would be open to a proper trial. I would like to see that discussion in open court, not a secret tribunal where the outcome is only reported by the government doing the prosecution. Which is why I think he should not return to face trial, because I think there's no way he'll ever get a fair and open trial in the US.

geetee 12y ago

I'm surprised by the amount of anti-Snowden sentiment in the WaPo comments.

1337biz 12y ago
Oh, these are just your taxpayer dollars at work...
- scrrr 12y ago
  Yep, it's likely they have some "public opinion making" going on. After all psychology teaches us that people look to other people first to find out what to think and do. These guys spoiled the Internet.
hadoukenio 12y ago
See "Military's 'sock puppet' software creates fake online identities to spread pro-American propaganda": http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-ope...
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- krapp 12y ago
  Also see people actually having an opposing point of view. Not everything has to be parallel construction, false flag operations and conspiracy.
  - scrrr 12y ago
    Yeah but come on, it's happening.
    - krapp 12y ago
      There's a difference between it happening, and it happening so often that it can be taken for granted. The CIA trying to plant microphones into stray cats hoping they'd wander within earshot of Soviet dignitaries happened too. The truth is, it isn't known, the scale of these operations, and you can assume everything is full of spooks or not. But the more reasonable assumption, absent evidence to the contrary, is that it's likely not a conspiracy. Particularly when you're describing points of view which a lot of Americans actually do hold. Although then I suppose you could suggest that the reason Americans believe certain things, or even the appearance of that belief, is the result of propaganda but, again - who knows?

hadoukenio 12y ago

Answer: Because the United States is an Oligarchy.

bsenftner 12y ago
You are correct! Now, off to your waterboarding for leaking that truth.
higherpurpose 12y ago
It seems HN didn't like your comment. Maybe a citation is needed: https://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/04/14 https://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/04/14
- eli 12y ago
  I think it's more that it is flippant and doesn't really advance the conversation in any meaningful way. You could post that comment on every story that touches on politics.
  - pessimizer 12y ago
    ...that asks a question about why a powerful person wasn't prosecuted, or why the polled will of the people wasn't followed and the opinion of a few wealthy people was enshrined as law. Otherwise it wouldn't be relevant. In this thread, it's the talking around in circles about "what the American people think about Snowden" and whether the speaker lives in a tech bubble or not that's irrelevant. We already know statistically that what people outside of the top 10% think has absolutely no relevance to policy.

mgamache 12y ago

Congressional testimony is just political kabuki. No one involved wants the truth they just want the show. It reminds me of pro wrestling without the steroids.

gcb0 12y ago
So more reason to go to the bottom of this.

tokenadult 12y ago

There is some good reporting here by the Washington Post about the circumstances of Clapper's testimony to Congress. Readers here who know my comments know that I'm not fully happy with how Snowden chose to disclose information from inside NSA, and particularly not about his travel to China (Hong Kong) and Russia, but I think Snowden raises a fair point here. There is some genuine difference of opinion among Americans about how Clapper's statement to Congress should be characterized (whether "lie" or "erroneous statement") and plenty of us who agree with another comment here posted before mine that two wrongs don't make a right. Every national government in the civilized world needs an intelligence-gathering agency that can operate with some degree of operational secrecy. I think Congress is unsure about how to proceed on this issue because not all members of Congress are of one mind about what is best for the country in administration of NSA. I categorically reject the assertion that Congress is still moving forward slowly to change NSA oversight because "NSA has Congress by the balls." Nope. One of the most common kinds of comments here on Hacker News about issues like this is a comment that ASSUMES that if government leaders are under pervasive surveillance they are all afraid of blackmail. But I don't believe that, because some government leaders and some political candidates are essentially shameless. Even after they are caught (by old-fashioned journalism, or by a jilted lover or some unrelated criminal investigation) doing something unsavory, they are still willing to run for office, and SOME ARE REELECTED. United States Senator David Vitter was reelected in 2010 even after a scandal involving behavior that I would consider shameful,[1] and the antics of former DC mayor Marion Barry[2] are probably still notorious enough that they don't need further discussion here. In short, I call baloney on the idea that NSA can keep politicians on its leash simply by knowing their secrets. Some politicians have PUBLIC lives full of dirt, and still get elected and influence policy anyway. The other reason I don't believe this HN hivemind theory of politics is that I by no means assume that everyone in politics lacks personal integrity. Some politicians, I am quite sure, could have all their secrets revealed only to have voters think "Why is that person such a straight-arrow? Why not have some fun once in a while?" The simple fact is that there is value system diversity in the United States electorate, and there is personal conduct probity variance among United States politicians, and there isn't any universal way to unduly influence politicians merely through even the most diligent efforts to discover personal secrets. If politicians think that NSA is going too far (as evidently several politicians from more than one party do think), then they will receive plenty of support from the general public to rein in the surveillance. (Obligatory disclaimer: Yes, I am a lawyer, who as a judicial clerk for my state's Supreme Court used to review case files on attorney misconduct, and, yes, some of my law school classmates are elected officials, including one member of Congress. I am absolutely certain that there are enough politicians ready to mobilize to roll back NSA surveillance programs if they really think the programs are excessive in their scope.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Vitter#D.C._Madam_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Vitter#D.C._Madam_scanda... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Barry#1990_arrest_.26_drug_conviction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Barry#1990_arrest_.26_d...

gottasayit 12y ago

Of course Clapper isn't going to be punished. Holder was held in contempt of Congress for stonewalling on Fast and Furious, but since pursuit of his punishment would require action from an Obama political appointee, nothing will happen. No one went to jail for the Wall Street fiasco. No one was fired for being wrong about WMDs in Iraq. We still don't know anything about Benghazi while some poor sap who published a video rots in jail as a scapegoat... no one will suffer consequences. No one in this administration will cooperate in determining the origins, extent, and details of the IRS attack on conservative political groups. The list of government protecting its own goes on forever. Why is anyone surprised that things are the same for this particular scandal? Particularly with this administration that gets a lot of political cover from the press?

SnakeDoc 12y ago
Holder was not prosecuted further because Obama clamped down with Executive Privilege -- preventing any further inquiry (but also basically admitting something wrong was going on)
bradleyjg 12y ago
Each house of Congress has inherent contempt powers and can jail people, in the Capitol if necessary. They haven't exercised that power since 1934, these days they refer contemptors to the US Attorney for the District of Columbia. The older power still remains though and is on very firm Constitutional grounds (though for a cabinet official there are issues of executive privilege). More generally it's hard to take Congressional complaints of executive overreaching seriously when Congress refuses to utilize any of the many tools at its disposal.
- talmand 12y ago
  Any member of Congress that starts putting Administration personnel in jail will be committing political suicide.
  - fixermark 12y ago
    When you work in a body with a 13% public approval rating, you'd think there would be little effect political suicide could have. More seriously: I think it'd be a wild-card maneuver, but I honestly don't know that it would be political suicide. Some people are angry at Congress for being ineffective. Some people are angry at the administration for failing to check the powers it has been given along lines of "decency" and restraint. I don't think those people would be sad to see Congress start using its authority as a non-executive branch.

SnakeDoc 12y ago

Snowden is an All American Hero. People are quick to go down the rabbit hole and say he's a "traitor" because he fled to Russia... these are the same people who are all caught up in our Presidentially Manufactured Political-Beef with Russia in Ukraine. Snowden is in Russia because it is the only country in this world that would stand up to the USA and say "no" to deportation requests. We witnessed just how far USA is willing to strong-arm the international community -- even going so far to force-ground a Presidential Plane from Bolivia and then search his plane. -- That is outrageous. Snowden should be brought back to the USA -- after a full Presidential Pardon, and then made into the first in-house US Spy Agency Watch Dog - reporting only to the American People, and the President.

Involute 12y ago

As far as I can tell, Clapper was asked about a classified program during an open session of Congress. Confronted with a conflict between his oath to tell the truth and his obligation to preserve the secrecy of the program, he chose the latter and corrected his testimony later in private. Maybe I'm misconstruing what happened, but, if not, why is this controversial?

talmand 12y ago
Because he lied during testimony in front of Congress without any consequences? There were ways to answer the question without jeopardizing a classified program. It has been done before and will be done again.
couchand 12y ago
The legitimate response in such a situation is to officially dodge the question. It doesn't even have to be public since they're given the questions in advance and have veto power. But Clapper went before Congress explicitly allowing them to ask him about this program and knowingly lied about it. What's unfortunate is that it's not controversial. It seems Clapper has the backing of a pretty big group in Congress.
- involute1344 12y ago
  According to the article, ODNI's attorney was given the question in advance, but it wasn't passed on to Clapper, so he improvised. Maybe the attorney's just covering for him, but that's what it says.
- mpyne 12y ago
  > The legitimate response in such a situation is to officially dodge the question. That is absolutely, 100% not the case. Dodging the question, for this particular question is as much a leak of classified information as giving up the answer directly. This is by the same principle used by hacktivists called the "warrant canary", which they think they invented: But the same thing happened to a CIA director (Helms?) in the 1970s and he did the same thing because the same principle applied back then too.

Tloewald 12y ago

Why does it take Snowden to ask this question? Since when is blatant perjury before Congress not a punishable offense? I guess if you perjure yourself over drug use in baseball that's a lot more important.

gknoy 12y ago
In the article, they mention that several senators wrote a letter to the president asking for his removal on this basis, but I agree: it seems strange that there have been no charges.

mpyne 12y ago

This is the answer, whether you agree with it or not: http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/07/dishonor-in-high-places-sandbagging-the-intelligence-chief-again/ http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/07/dishonor-in-high-places-s...

anonbanker 12y ago

The short answer: because his written response, and the committee's acceptance of his written response, absolved him of any criminal wrongdoing caused by his testimony. A little known fact: under UCC and UNCITRAL, you have 72 hours to modify any contracts you make in court via private correspondence. With 3 days to receive, and 3 days to send a response (and one day for a Sunday) tacked on. If the other party goes silent afterwards (as the committee did), clapper can use that silence as tacit acquiescence to his modified statements. In this case, the senate committee accepted that "least untruthful" was considered sufficient reason to make false public statements. Clapper brought that private agreement public via the press, and now it's nicely cemented in stone, as a valid process that anyone else can use in case they're ever caught lying to congress. Someone really should be teaching Ed Snowden contract and trade law. I bet he'd pick it up rather quickly, and it'd make his current situation easier to deal with.