Or we can refer to Wikipedia in which Clapper’s excuse is (paraphrases) “I forgot” and “they weren’t supposed to ask about something classified” to which Wyden replied “he got the questions in advance so he could tell us not to ask about classified stuff.”
Wyden then asked Clapper, "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" He responded, "No, sir." Wyden asked, "It does not?" and Clapper said, "Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but not wittingly."
[…]
In Clapper's 2018 memoir, he provides a fuller explanation of the incident:
...because the NSA program under Section 215 was highly classified, Senator Wyden wouldn't or shouldn't have been asking questions that required classified answers on camera....my error had been forgetting about Section 215, but even if I had remembered it, there still would have been no acceptable, unclassified way for me to answer the question in an open hearing. Even my saying, "We'll have to wait for the closed, classified session to discuss this," would have given something away. ...I ought to have sent a classified letter to Senator Wyden explaining my thoughts when I'd answered and that I misunderstood what he was actually asking me about. Yes, I made a mistake – a big one – when I responded, but I did not lie. I answered with truth in what I understood the context of the question to be.
On June 11, U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) accused Clapper of not giving a "straight answer," noting that Clapper's office had been provided with the question a day in advance of the hearing and was given the opportunity following Clapper's testimony to amend his response.
> I answered with truth in what I understood the context of the question to be.
I love this quote. I can listen to someone ask me a question, discard what was asked and pretend I was asked another question, then reply to my own imagination.
Clapper wasn't asked a vague question and he didn't answer ambiguously. There is no room for "how incredibly different human perceptions can be". Clapper was asked a direct question in sworn testimony before Congress and brazenly lied. Repeatedly.
That Clapper faced no real consequences for his perjury and his part in violating the Constitution and the rights and privacy of all Americans simply shows how little power Congress and the American people have over the villains and criminals in the intelligence services.
Michael Flynn plead guilty to the charges. He signed the statement of offense[0] with his personal lawyer. Simply because Mr Flynn chose to write a book of fiction afterwards does not change the fact that he admitted his guilt to the courts under penalty of perjury.
"The preceding statement is a summary, made for the purpose of providing the Court with a factual basis for my guilty plea to the charge against me. It does not include all of the facts known to me regarding this offense. I make this statement knowingly and voluntarily and because I am, in fact, guilty of the crime charged. No threats have been made to me nor am I under the influence of anything that could impede my ability to understand this Statement of the Offense fully.
I have read every word of this Statement of the Offense, or have had it read to me. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, after consulting with my attorneys, I agree and stipulate to this Statement of the Offense, and declare under penalty of perjury that it is true and correct."
Most of the things you said were either things he didn't got indicted for or not even crimes to begin with. I get it that you do not like Flynn, that's fine, but the politicization of the FBI and the DOJ is something that should worry anyone that cares about rule of law and not wanting to live under a despotic regime.
The actions of the judge are also very problematic in itself. Fighting a motion to dismiss using ex parte material? Common.
He was arrested due to an informal FBI meeting, without any lawyer, based on very technical questions that he tried to answer (because the meeting appeared to be work related) the best he could without the documents the FBI was referring to.
When it comes to the Flynn case, the evil really is in the details. Click-bait titles and angry tweets are not good source of information when it comes to complicated judicial sagas.
>Most of the things you said were either things he didn't got indicted for or not even crimes to begin with.
I can't tell if you're kidding with that "defense". It's bordering on satire.
He's consistently displayed an astonishing lack of judgment, including directly by video and live on-stage. He's been consistently among compromised associates and in compromising positions, including admitted interactions with hostile regimes that he actively attempted to conceal. He was fired by a previous administration for his temperament and reckless behavior, then fired again. And, he's also confessed.
Tell me: on what planet would any nation's competent intelligence services NOT be investigating him?
Yet, you and the parent commenter want us to believe he's a perfectly reasonable guy patriot who's being unfairly targeted by "politicized" intelligence agencies. The parent then offers as "proof" a ranting YouTube video.
It's absurd.
>I get it that you do not like Flynn
Has nothing to do with how I feel about Flynn. Everything to do with his behavior.
>the politicization of the FBI and the DOJ is something that should worry anyone...
Yeah, your grand political conspiracy is the actual unproven thing here. Yet, anytime someone on that team is caught red-handed, it's a "deep state" conspiracy. It's even the deep state's fault when Flynn lies.
Under that framing our intelligence agencies should just be disbanded.
>...that cares about rule of law and not wanting to live under a despotic regime
Is that a joke? He's the former NSA and he specifically aligned himself with despotic regimes (Turkey, Russia), as well plotted in contravention of U.S. policy. He's called for a coup on American soil and he's implicated himself in a cult.
So, what team are you on? Doesn't sound like Team America.
>When it comes to the Flynn case, the evil really is in the details.
Please don't make false claims. You can argue that he should have lied (for whatever reason) under oath, but you cannot argue that he didn't lie under oath.
"No perjury was committed." is true if you believe he was bound to lie under the circumstances. Is there a law that says so, or that says such a lie does not constitute perjury?
Well what does the law says if someone under oath gets asked for classified information they aren't allowed to disclose, and saying that it's classified would itself disclose a secret? Maybe there just wasn't a clearly good answer.
