Should the Director of National Intelligence Be Impeached for Lying to Congress About PRISM?

[grahamhgreen]

Wyden: And this is for you, Director Clapper, again on the surveillance front. And I hope we can do this in just a yes or no answer because I know Senator Feinstein wants to move on. Last summer the NSA director was at a conference and he was asked a question about the NSA surveillance of Americans. He replied, and I quote here, '...the story that we have millions or hundreds of millions of dossiers on people is completely false.' The reason I'm asking the question is, having served on the committee now for a dozen years, I don't really know what a dossier is in this context. So what I wanted to see is if you could give me a yes or no answer to the question: Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?"

Clapper: "No, sir."

Wyden: "It does not."

Clapper: "Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently perhaps collect, but not wittingly."

Wyden: "All right. Thank you. I'll have additional questions to give you in writing on that point, but I thank you for the answer."

Clapper's statement appears to be untrue; however, legal experts may able to parse it in a different way. If it wasn't a lie it appears to be clearly misleading.

Lying to Congress is an extremely serious offense, although few have been found guilty. Roger Clemens was indicted for lying to Congress (but ultimately found innocent of perjury). Many of the cases of individuals convicted of lying to Congress arose from Watergate, including President Nixon's Attorney General, John Mitchell, and Nixon's Chief of staff, H.R Haldeman.

Executive officials can be impeached for "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors." As a non-criminal matter, there are serious grounds to argue that lying to Congress is among the most severe potential "high crimes and misdemeanors."
Lying to a Grand Jury was the grounds for President Clinton's impeachment; and that was lying to a grand jury, not lying to Congress when Congress is the relevant oversight branch.

http://politix.topix.com/homepage/6485-should-director-of-national-intelligence-james-clapper-be-impeached-for-lying-to-congress-about-prism

[brooklynite]

1. No, considering the position isn't subject to Impeachment

He serves at the pleasure of the President. Only elected officials and Judges are subject to Impeachment.

[WovenGems]

2. Not even perjury

Only some in congress have the needed clearance. There are no rules for what questions may be asked but there are rules about what questions may be answered and when they may be.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. Can't be impeached

But should go pend more time with family and face federal prosecution for perjury in front of Congress. He is one of the chosen ones, won't happen. The law is for little people, not the well connected.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

4. No. He should be prosecuted under 18 USC 1001 (the False Statements Accountability Act of 1996)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001

The The False Statements Accountability Act of 1996 is briefly explained here:
http://congressionalresearch.com/98-456/document.php?study=LYING+TO+CONGRESS+THE+FALSE+STATEMENTS+ACCOUNTABILITY+ACT+OF+1996

[morningfog]

5. Obama should at least fire him.

[tritsofme]

6. I have seen some commentary arguing Clapper had no real good options in that exchange.

He could break the law by misleading Congress, or he could break the law by disclosing classified information publicly.

I haven't followed the issue all that closely, but it doesn't seem like a good choice.

[PoliticAverse]

7. He could have said he couldn't discuss the issue in open session. n/t

[tritsofme]

13. Good point, that should have been the answer.

[jeff47]

14. Nope. That's the same as disclosing classified information

There would be no reason to say that unless the answer was "yes". Which would be revealing classified information.

[PoliticAverse]

16. Sure there would for precisly the reason you give.

I've seen many times the 'can't discuss in open session' answer given by people to specific
questions.

[jeff47]

17. Only when the question is asking for details. This was a "yes or no" question.

The cases you describe are ones where a Congressman was asking for details, or otherwise a narrative answer.

That wasn't the case here. It was a "yes or no" question. And anything other than "no" would reveal classified information.

[Bluenorthwest]

9. That was another lie, Senator Wyden provided the questions days in advance

as he is very much used to the constraints and particular issues surrounding classified security information as he sits on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. This is part of his job, his duty as a duly elected US Senator under the Constitution. Clapper lied because he feels he has impunity to do so, directly to the United States Senator. He is not an elected official, he answers to them not the other way around. No one voted for Clapper, he represents himself and his superiors, all of whom should be held accountable for lying to Congress.

[jeff47]

15. And what does days of advance warning do?

Wyden demanded a "yes or no" answer. "Yes" reveals classified information. "No" is not true. "I can't answer that now" is the same as saying "Yes".

Clapper's only options were to choose which crime to commit.

[HooptieWagon]

8. If Bonds and Clemments can be charged with perjury over steroid use....

Then certainly a WH official who lies about a program overwhich congress has oversight should be.

[Bluenorthwest]

10. As I recall Bill Clinton had some issues about perjury about blowjobs...

Clapper thinks he is above the law.

[1-Old-Man]

11. Agency Heads are not impeachable offices

The guy can be fired and he can be prosecuted if he broke laws while acting outside of his authority, but not impeached.

[Rex]

12. Can't be impeached, but can be fired.

I would say YES, but lying seems to be all that goes on in Congress.