> beholden to no-one

They're beholden to congress. No US entity is beholden to no-one

That's false. If an entity is above the law then it is above Congress. This exists.

If an entity can forever dismiss Congressional inquiry through unlimited open-ended legalistic escapes that are virtually always applicable, then it is de facto above Congress. This also exists, and is different than the first example.

And when the intel director lies to congress about spying on American citizens, then what? Self signed certificate my friend..

I guess it would be nice if congress held the executive in check.. but maybe they can't bc of sinister reasons >:D

Wasn't there a report recently of the FBI illegally searching US Senators?? Something really wacky is going on.

I could see where you could get that notion from reading an org chart. However, Clapper lied to Congress, was accused of perjury, and allowed to resign. He now walks around as a free man with 0 consequences making whatever salary he's given from his consulting career.

Congress is a feckless body of government when it comes to checks and balances.

He wasn't charged because they didn't charge him. They're free to make that call. Was there any reason given? Maybe he cleared it up in closed door meetings?

Prosecutorial discretion is a form of corruption.

It can be a form of corruption.

Trouble with closed doors is that in principle he might have actually told all the same people about the secret thing before swearing under oath that he didn't do the thing, and genuinely have believed there reason he gave later (IIRC that as the session was public, the question couldn't reasonably have been about the secret thing).

But we'll never know, unless someone else does a Snowden.

What we learned from this is that you can get away with anything if you say "I made a mistake". Really, and which mistake are you owning up to with that comment? The part where you lied, or the part where you did the thing that you covered up with the lie? Feckless. I have no other word for Congress. Well, that's a lie, but not like anything is going to come of it!

You seem to be conflating a bunch of individual actors here.

Congress didn't testify to Congress, Clapper did. Clapper did so in both public and private settings.

Clapper didn't tell the truth in a public setting because it was classified. Clapper (privately & immediately) informed Congress of the need for a private meeting to correct things he said in the public setting.

This would be akin to your husband asking you were the cookies are and since you noticed your son around the corner saying you don't know. Then when you son leaves you tell him they're in the top of the cabinet. Nobody is going to actually be mad except your son (that's you in this example!).

You seem to want to write this off like we're all small children and have no ability to rational thought. You can be under questioning by congress while under oath and receive a question that would require revealing of sensitive information. At that point, you can lie like a small child, or inform the congressional panel that the conversation is approaching sensitive material and in order for questioning to continue, it would have to be done in a private session.

Please, don't treat me like I'm an imbecile. That's congress' job

Edit: also, that's such a shit parenting job. take the opportunity, and tell your significant other that it's not time for cookies and it'll spoil your dinner. there's no reason to lie about it. you have give a teachable moment, and you've chosen to teach it is okay to lie rather than something more valuable.

Clapper could not have answered that Yes/No question with "That's classified" without revealing whether the answer is Yes.

Going on TV and Clapper saying _he just made a mistake_ is really what I think you have issue with. But none of this TV statements are under oath.

> Clapper could not have answered that Yes/No question with "That's classified" without revealing whether the answer is Yes.

If the answer to a question is classified then it is classified regardless of whether it is yes or no.

But the answer to that question being classified is objectionable, because a large proportion of the public would have taken issue with not knowing, because they would have objected to the program.

Part of the reason it's illegal to lie to Congress is that you are at the same time lying to the American public, who are the people Congress answers to.

It would be like lying in a deposition in front of the board of directors and then going back in private to your friend the line manager and saying "hey, that thing I said when it really matters was a lie because I didn't want the board to find out about it."

The NSA is beholden to Congress until the NSA sends a few messages to fix it.

The NSA is beholden to the people whom it is almost certainly collecting kompromat on.

Would it be too cynical if I suggested that many of our laws (worldwide, I'm not in or of the USA) exist in order to be sure компромат can be found on almost everyone?

but is the oversight effective? Formal supervision alone is irrelevant.

The CIA hacked Congressional oversight of their illegal activity with no consequence.

I’m comfortable saying that US intel agencies are rouge and beholden to no one and no laws.

Yes, and the cops are there to help troubled black teenagers be safer, the tele-evangelist donations are to spread the word of Christ, "X" mass market food brand only uses the best ingredients, and there's a wonderful opportunity of a bridge on sale in Brooklyn...