from Hacker News

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

by ryutin on 5/2/14, 12:04 PM with 113 comments

  • by gottasayit on 5/2/14, 2:40 PM

    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?

  • by danielweber on 5/2/14, 1:36 PM

    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.
  • by Involute on 5/2/14, 3:10 PM

    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?
  • by mgamache on 5/2/14, 1:45 PM

    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.
  • by Tloewald on 5/2/14, 3:35 PM

    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.
  • by anonbanker on 5/2/14, 4:55 PM

    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.

  • by tokenadult on 5/2/14, 2:36 PM

    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_scanda...

    [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Barry#1990_arrest_.26_d...

  • by mpyne on 5/2/14, 4:52 PM

    This is the answer, whether you agree with it or not: http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/07/dishonor-in-high-places-s...
  • by geetee on 5/2/14, 1:27 PM

    I'm surprised by the amount of anti-Snowden sentiment in the WaPo comments.
  • by noir_lord on 5/2/14, 1:00 PM

    Because he has congress by the balls.
  • by hadoukenio on 5/2/14, 1:42 PM

    Answer: Because the United States is an Oligarchy.