Perjury By Permission: Clapper Apologizes For False Testimony And The Congress Remains Silent

220px-James_R._Clapper_official_portraitAF cover 4I previously wrote a column how our country seems to have developed separate rules for the ruling elite and the rest of us. There is no better example than the lack of response of the Senate to the admitted perjury of Director of National Intelligence James Clapper before Congress. While the Justice Department has prosecuted people for the smallest departure from the truth, including testimony before Congress, no one in the Senate is calling for an investigation, let alone a prosecution, of Clapper. For his part, Attorney General Eric Holder is continuing his political approach to enforcing the law and declining to even acknowledge the admitted perjury of Clapper. Now, in a truly bizarre moment, Clapper has written a letter of apology like an errant schoolboy to excuse his commission of a felony crime . . . and it appears to have been accepted. What is curious is that we do not have letters from senators like Dianne Feinstein apologizing to doing nothing when they were all aware that Clapper was lying in his public testimony. Welcome to America’s Animal Farm.

When National Intelligence Director James Clapper appeared before the Senate, he was asked directly, “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?” Clapper responded, “No, sir. … Not wittingly.”

We now know that was a lie. Moreover, many of the senators who heard that testimony knew it was a lie because they admitted later to knowing about the NSA program to gather data on every citizen. Later, Clapper said that his testimony was “the least untruthful” statement he could make. Yet, of course, that would still make it an untrue statement — which most people call a lie and lawyers call perjury. Indeed, when Roger Clemens was prosecuted for untrue statements before Congress, he was not told of the option to tell the least untrue statement on steroid use.

Now, he has added an “oops, my bad” letter addressed to Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein. She was an obvious choice. Feinstein has led the move to erode privacy protections for citizens and was fully aware that his testimony was false. If he were to be prosecuted, it would be embarrassing for her. She has been in this position before. Feinstein and other Democratic leaders were aware of the torture program under Bush and did nothing. They then worked to block any moves to investigate and prosecute torture under our treaty obligations — cases that would have exposed Democratic members like Feinstein who knew and did nothing.

That was the same approach to Clapper’s perjury. Clapper struggles in the letter to suggest that he was confused — though he earlier said that it was a calculated answer. Since the question was given to him in advance (something the public is never informed of in these highly choreographed hearings), it is rather implausible. He now says that “simply didn’t think of” the pertinent section of the Patriot Act under which that information can be collected. It seems an effort to get Feinstein and other off the hook in suggesting that it was not premeditated, though the Justice Department routinely rejects that argument in other cases. Clapper simply wrote “Thus my response was clearly erroneous — for which I apologize.” That’s it.

By the way, that means that the answer to the following question is “yes”: Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans? Feinstein and other members have insisted that they are not collecting such data on citizens.

For its part, the media is cooperating. Few are addressing the obvious perjury or past cases prosecuted on far less. After all, Clapper is one of the ruling elite and not the great unwashed public. The result is perjury by permission, a new exception to criminal acts for the governing elite.

73 thoughts on “Perjury By Permission: Clapper Apologizes For False Testimony And The Congress Remains Silent”

  1. Michael Beaton is correct.

    “One of the “unintended consequences” of this sort of corruption is the corruption of the system itself. I think this was well understood by the Constitution and so the underlying principle that no one is above the law was part of our founding fabric.
    As that fabric gets loosed by any systemic corruption, like this one, eventually it will not hold up under other stresses that once we could assimilate.”
    We’ve already had an election theft.

    And now we have a government which refuses to do anything about high unemployment, or university students caught in enormous debts which aren’t dischargeable in bankruptcy…. and which is cutting food stamps.

    The people are not going to tolerate that for very long.

    “We are slowly loosing our robustness and resiliency.”

    Already lost it.

    “After that a brief anarchy and then totalitarian systems come in to save the day. We are not immune from this principle.”

    This is why, although I would like to avoid it, I really expect the violent overthrow of the government within the next couple of decades. It will not necessarily be overthrown by a totalitarian, but unfortunately a military strongman is most likely. The remote possibility of a democratic revolution would be superior but unlikely.

    “I used to wonder why the Russian people, or more currently the N.Koreans wouldnt just rise up and challenge their governments. And it occurs that when all the news/information you get tells you a single thing you have no footing from which to mount a response.
    While our media is not yet so completely co-opted, in the main it is. ”

    Yes. But remember…. the Russian people did eventually overthrow the government, when it just became too much (after the coup against Gorbachev). They did so in a disorganized and *centripetal* way, with the country breaking up into bits. The way it happened was that suddenly the people who had *some* power but were lower down on the totem pole saw an opportunity, and they took it.

    This is most likely what will happen here. The people in “second rank” positions — like Governor — have no reason to maintain the bloated, nonfunctioning system which props up the surveillance state, and if they see the chance to break it, they’ll take it.

  2. James Clapper wasn’t lying; he was simply being less than candid, an expression with which all lawyers are thoroughly familiar.

    As in, “That false affidavit presented by the prosecutor is a bald-faced instance of being less than candid, your Honor.”

  3. Clapper apologizes for lying and all is well.

    Will they leave him alone if Snowden apologizes for telling the truth?

Comments are closed.