As a foreigner, this is probably the most astounding. After all the commotion in the 90s with Bill Clinton lying about the Monica Lewinsky affair, the double standard is striking. From the outside it seems as if Clapper is simply above the law.

Clapper was also in the unfortunate position of being legally required to lie: Refusing the respond, or deferring his response to a closed session, would have been evidence enough that such a program existed.

Anything other than a simple, direct denial would have been 'leaking' information about the possibility of such a program existing, which is expressly against the law as well.

Hmm, I think that confuses the point.

The NSA programs are either constitutional or not. Wyden was essentially asking, Is this program constitutional? Does it collect data on US persons without a warrant?

Clapper swore an oath to the Constitution, so he should always be able to answer that question truthfully. "Yes, this program is constitutional. No, it doesn't collect data on US persons."

The fact that he couldn't say that is the issue.

Secrecy is not some magic sauce that makes a program constitutional. Secrecy doesn't free a program from legal scrutiny.

> The NSA programs are either constitutional or not.

The idea that constitutionality, or any other question of legal interpretation, is a matter of objective fact which has a clear, crisp, true or false answer is, while a comforting illusion, not at all even remotely true.

Whether or not warrants were obtained for their activities, is, however, an objectively verifiable boolean fact.

Sure, but that doesn't help you either, as there are many other precedents besides NSA programs for situations where the government can compel a search without a warrant. This is permitted by that pesky little word "unreasonable" in the Fourth Amendment.

As dragonwriter points out, simply "collecting data" is not necessarily unconstitutional, so your two equivalent questions are not congruent.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. -Fourth Amendment, US Constitution

It's pretty hard to square the alleged seizure of all privately transmitted data with the Fourth Amendment.

Attempts to justify it that we've heard about so far, like the assertion that it's not a seizure until the data is "looked at" is clearly a post-hoc rationalization which, put nicely, strains credibility.

> It's pretty hard to square the alleged seizure of all privately transmitted data with the Fourth Amendment.

"Seizure" would imply the government taking custody of something away from the owner, which is not what's going on during a bitcopy.

Search is closer, but you missed noticing one of the most important words: " ...against unreasonable searches and seizures".

In other words if the search can be construed "reasonable" for any reason (which is very much a "judgment call") then it is automatically Constitutional (even if it's not automatically legal, which can be a separate consideration).

Additionally the NSA is not seizing all privately transmitted data (which is in any event physically impossible). Either they have to be selective about what metadata is retained long-term, or they have to buffer everything but only for a short term in which case they are acting very much like a "common carrier" with an exceptionally bad problem of bufferbloat.

But either way, there's another problem: The data being "searched" isn't your data, it's someone else's data (at a different ISP or host) that happens to be bit-for-bit identical to the data you transmitted, which means any 4th Amendment claim would be theirs to make, not yours. So I would be careful about how strictly you try to read into the Fourth Amendment, as only the "judicial activist" interpretations of it would possibly exclude electronic surveillance of the type now done by NSA.

So if it's perfectly constitutional and legal, why did Wyden feel the need to ask the question? And why did Clapper respond the way he did?

You're arguing that it's obviously unconstitutional, but the logical inverse of that is not that it is obviously constitutional.

There is a very wide gulf between those two positions, a gulf where the constitutionality of those programs is up for reasoned debate (e.g., with Sen. Wyden's question).

But Clapper would have responded the way he did since disclosing "methods & means" of electronic surveillance is also illegal, and given the direct nature of the questions by Sen. Wyden could hardly have been properly evaded by the standard "can't confirm or deny" excuse the government always gives. In other words Sen. Wyden employed the same logic as the "warrant canary" you guys all find so fascinating :)

He put himself in this position, likely with the intent to lie.

Both intelligence committees submit questions to intelligence agencies in advance, who can then comment on these questions and make requests for change (such as moving some to the closed session). This is done in private, so moving a question to the closed session does not reveal any information to the public.

Even if for some reason this question blindsided him, he could have refused to confirm or deny it in an open session, as others have pointed out. But he wanted to put the PR fires out, and telling Congress and the public that they didn't collect bulk metadata indiscriminately served that end at the time, but later came back to bite him (and hopefully cost him his job, if not more).

"I cannot confirm or deny" has served well enough in thousands of other cases. "Least untruthful" is a standard we should not allow to be established.

Is this true? I thought Clapper knew about the questions in advance, which means he could have easily asked committee staff to only ask those questions in closed session. Congress is usually very deferential about those sorts of issues.

Source please? I've never seen a legal opinion that declining to answer something constitutes a "leak."

Ron Wyden also gave him multiple outs and heads ups before his testimony if he wanted to get out of it.

If there really is anything that requires somebody to lie to the highest institution that is democratically legitimated, there's something wrong with that democracy.

Ok, but then my follow up question would be: why put him in front of congress to testify in the first place? Did congress not understand that he was legally required to lie to them?

> Ok, but then my follow up question would be: why put him in front of congress to testify in the first place? Did congress not understand that he was legally required to lie to them?

I think Congress would think that he is legally required to answer them truthfully, not to lie, and would be appalled at the suggestion that anyone could be legally required to testify falsely to them.

He wasn't legally required to lie to them.

Also Mr Clapper probably has the goods on just about anybody who might want to bring charges.

If this is true, it's a shame those in charge didn't learn the lesson from J. Edgar Hoover.

It's sad, but not surprising.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair

There's a second flat-out lie, the bit where Obama claimed his executive order would have protected Snowden.

There's also the part where Obama tells him that the "avenues available for somebody whose conscience was stirred and thought that they needed to question government actions[0]" are talking about it with his superiors. Problem with that is, as soon as Obama accepts that these government actions were in fact wrong or unlawful (and at least a couple of them very plainly are), he also has to accept that actions should be taken to address this situation. Then either Obama is very very stupid because he believes that talking to superiors about abuses of this scale would be met with anything but utter silence, or he is in fact playing dumb and lying through his teeth because he doesn't actually want any action to be taken.

[0] the belittling, condescending tone of this phrase makes me throw up a little. But that's been the US government's attitude during this whole episode "tut tut, don't you worry your pretty little heads about this". More like an elitist aristocracy.

Many Administration officials have been similarly caught in lies, either outright or by omission. With a complicit press and with most protest groups silenced who is to bring up charges? Let alone far too many Republicans think that in this case the NSA needs defending.

I'm glad someone has pointed this out. Perjury is considered a serious crime (remember that Martha Stewart was hounded for simply lying to a Federal agent), and there is no more serious form of perjury than lying before congress.

He also has a job, at a minimum you'd expect some kind of token punishment.

not that it has any value... ever, but if there was a whitehouse.com petition, i'd sign it.

You mean, like this one?

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/prosecute-director...

>The petition you are trying to access has expired, because it failed to meet the signature threshold.

How did this petition expire so fast?