Quote:"Being called a traitor by Dick Cheney is the highest honor you can give an American, and the more panicked talk we hear from people like him ... the better off we all are," Snowden said. Cheney was instrumental in the expansion of surveillance programs after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Quote:DNI Clapper Could Be Investigated for Perjury
'Clearly erroneous' answers could land the National Intelligence director in hot water, expert says
By Paul D. Shinkman
July 3, 2013


Clapper sent the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee a letter admitting he gave "clearly erroneous" testimony.


The director of National Intelligence could be investigated for perjury, following news Tuesday that he gave false information to Congress in March.

The DNI published a letter on its website Tuesday that Director James Clapper sent to the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee. He admitted to giving "clearly erroneous" testimony before the committee in March when asked specifically whether an NSA program existed that monitored hundreds of millions of Americans. He answered "No."

One expert says these kinds of situations involve some gray area.

"If you testify under oath before Congress and lie, you're at risk for being prosecuted for perjury," says Cary Feldman, who served as a lawyer in the Office of Independent Counsel in the late 1990s. "But that doesn't happen often."

Feldman contributed to the investigation of then U.S. Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, who was suspected in 1998 of lying to Congress about reportedly receiving political donations in exchange for denying an Indian casino license. Babbitt was eventually cleared of any wrongdoing.

Clapper explained he was confused by the question posed by Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., regarding "dossiers on millions of Americans." The director said in the letter that he also did not want to release classified information about a then-classified program.

The existence of government metadata collection has since been declassified, following reported leaks from Edward Snowden regarding an NSA program known as PRISM.

"To commit perjury, you have to do it willfully, which means knowingly or intentionally," says Feldman, now an attorney with law firm Feldesman Tucker Leifer Fidell. "[Clapper] is caught between either lying to Congress or revealing directly or indirectly classified information. It's a tough spot."

Feldman points to the nuances of open sessions like the March 12 hearing. Clapper was asked whether a classified program exists. If he had followed procedure and declined to answer, opting instead to continue in a private or executive session, he all but infers the program exists and risks revealing classified information by implication.

Those with top-level security clearances also face consequences for releasing this kind of information.

Feldman says the likelihood of an investigation depends on whether enough members of Congress believe that Clapper willingly mislead them.

"It seems to me he is certainly subject to an investigation if someone wants to investigate, because he gave a material statement under oath that he admits was erroneous. That's most of the elements of perjury right there," says Feldman. "What his intentions were – since a truthful answer would have required him to reveal classified information – is the difficult part."

Quote:Traitor or Truth Teller
by Lori Wallach Boxer / on July 3, 2013 at 3:19 pm



How convenient it must be for a tyrannical government to simply stamp “classified” on any number of documents they want to keep from citizens. I understand the need for classified information, but if we allow this perjury by Clapper to go unpunished, what next? Certainly we can’t have live television broadcasting our secrets before the world, and it wouldn’t have been perjury if Clapper simply stated,” I can’t answer that question in this forum due to matters of national security.” Then the correct channels could have been utilized to assess the program’s legitimacy.

The fact that Clapper felt that lying under oath was acceptable creates a constitutional crisis, in my opinion. He should either be tried and, if found guilty, punished to the fullest extent of the law, or resign in disgrace stripped of all benefits and privileges of office. There is no middle ground. He’s either a liar, an incompetent, or a conspirator.

As for Snowden … he exposed P-E-R-J-U-R-Y by those with the power to access every keystroke, random thought, opinion, conversation, or disagreement with the government anyone has had or ever will have. Those calling him a traitor aren’t thinking broadly enough about what he exposed. He exposed a government that has now crossed a very serious red line where they LIE before Congress without hesitation (Clapper, Clinton, Holder, Shulman, Lerner, Sebelius); a government that apparently has no hesitation to do whatever it pleases and without any oversight whatsoever—an absolutely chilling prospect and the very definition of tyranny. They do not fear the Constitution nor, apparently, a rising of the citizenry. How can anyone not see the danger in this kind of behavior in a government? How can anyone miss the implications of this kind of abuse of power? Snowden couldn’t go through “regular” whistle-blower channels because he was gagged with a security clearance that prohibited it. He knew his exposition of this perjury constituted in the minds of tyrants, high treason punishable by death with or without trial. My own opinion is that with this anti-American crowd from the Chicago cesspool, Snowden wouldn’t have made it home much less to court. Snowden knew he would be charged with treason but he also knew he needed to get somewhere safe in order for the truth to get out.

Snowden knew how impenetrable the obstacles were that he and others faced in their effort to legally reveal the extent of their government’s information-gathering. In fact, a handful of Democrats and Republicans have tried for years to get the attention of the rest of Congress, the press and the public they were legally bound not to reveal the details of the intelligence excesses they knew about as overseers of those programs.

Snowden didn’t poke America in the eye at all. He stood up for We The People against an out of control secret tyrannical government. History shows that absolute power corrupts absolutely. And our nation’s government is there.