HARPER: WHY ISN'T JAMES CLAPPER BEHIND BARS?

One of the biggest failures of the United States Congress, IMHO, has been the refusal to hold Executive Branch officials accountable when they lie to Congress on vital matters of national security.  And no case angers me more than that of James Clapper, the former Director of National Intelligence under President Barack Obama, who held a series of high-level intelligence positions during his long career as an Air Force officer.  

Clapper, during his tenure as DNI, lied to Congress when directly asked if the intelligence community was spying on millions of innocent American citizens.  His lies were exposed with the release of the Edward Snowden documents.  While several individual Members of Congress called for his resignation and a few even dared to demand his prosecution for contempt of Congress, nothing happened.

More recently, Clapper again lied to Congress, in claiming that the intelligence community findings about Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential elections were compiled by all 17 member agencies.  In later testimony in May 2017, he belatedly admitted that the report was compiled by the FBI, the CIA and the NSA, and that the authors had been hand-picked to conduct the study.  According to Robert Parry in Consortium News, one of the FBI agents who participated in the study was Peter Strzok, a Trump-hater and Hillary Clinton partisan who was fired by Robert Mueller last July after an investigation by the Department of Justice Inspector General revealed his biases.

I recall comments over the years by Col. Lang about his personal experiences with Clapper while at the DIA in the early 1990s.  I am interested in Col. Lang's and others' comments and observations.

 

Comments

[turcopolier]

Porkchop
British cop show talk. Means "a record" in americanspeak. pl

[The Porkchop Express]

Duly noted, thanks.

[robt willmann]

The problem of lying before Congress points up the two parts of the issue: 1) the law, and 2) the process, procedure, people, and organizations (PPPO) through which the law is applied and enforced.

Unfortunately, even if "the law" is carefully and precisely worded, the PPPO can make it meaningless and worthless.

Since a Congressional hearing is a federal proceeding and is on federal property, the federal criminal law applies. As far as perjury and its sister -- obstruction of justice -- are concerned, here are two papers from the Congressional Research Service you can read to get a good understanding of the federal law in this area.

The first one is "Perjury Under Federal Law: A Brief Overview", from 2014, and is 21 pages--

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/98-808.pdf

The second one basically includes the article on perjury. It is entitled "Obstruction of Justice: An Overview of Some of the Federal Statutes That Prohibit Interference with Judicial, Executive, or Legislative Activities", and is also from 2014 by the same author. It covers areas in addition to perjury, is comprehensive, and is 89 pages--

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34303.pdf

https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc287910/?q=RL34303

Who is responsible to investigate, file charges, and prosecute perjury, obstruction of justice, and other legal violations before Congress? The short and slightly general answer is the Department that Calls Itself Justice.

In any consideration of people who hold themselves out as being from the "intelligence" community who may be observed tap dancing before Congress, names such as former NSA and CIA director Michael Hayden, former NSA director Keith Alexander, and John O. Brennan could well be in the mix.

For example, here is a little video of U.S. Representative Henry "Hank" Johnson (Dem. Georgia) back in 2012 asking Keith Alexander a few basic questions. This bit of testimony could be a funny parody and comedy sketch, were it not so real and outrageous--

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYNXVgYhPOc

https://www.congress.gov/member/henry-johnson/J000288

[Robert]

If you are getting your information from ZeroHedge you should take the time to learn more about its history and who owns the domain and site.
Here http://nymag.com/guides/money/2009/59457/
And here http://streetwiseprofessor.com/?p=5728

[Richardstevenhack]

I slogged through the seven pages of the NY Mag piece and find it to be the standard "he said, she said" hit piece which slaps mocking statements in between alleged facts to basically declare the whole subject unworthy of anyone's time because it's all "conspiracy theory".

In short, it's crap. Don't bother reading it.

[J]

Congressional Christmas present to the American people:

The Spy Coalition In Congress Rushes Through Plan To Keep The NSA Spying On Americans | Techdirt
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20171220/07043138854/spy-coalition-congress-rushes-through-plan-to-keep-nsa-spying-americans.shtml

[blue peacock]

Who is going to win this tug of war between Congressional investigators and the FBI, DoJ and the IC "putschists"?

After Eight Hours Of Testimony And More Scheduled For Thursday, Congressional investigators tell Fox News that Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe dodged questions on the "Trump-Russia" dossier, and his testimony "contained numerous conflicts with the testimony of previous witnesses" so much that the House Intelligence Committee is planning to issue new subpoenas next week to Justice Department and FBI Personnel....

...“It’s hard to know who’s telling us the truth,” said one House investigator after McCabe’s questioning - which was reportedly spearheaded by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC).

There's a lot of stonewalling going on. Are the loyalties of Sessions and Wray with the coup plotters or the rule of law? Why are Strzok and Ohr still on the taxpayer payroll?

[LeaNder]

standard "he said, she said" hit piece

puzzling paradigm, Rsh, at least in combination with hit piece. But yes, why not? ... Those standards in the by now obviously unmasked MSM always covers up the one and only truth? If it surfaces at all it does according to this standard: the truth, if given a chance to surface anywhere at all, is mostly buried somewhere along the way most frequently at the very, very end?

mocking statements in between alleged facts to basically declare the whole subject unworthy of anyone's time because it's all "conspiracy theory".

Well, yes, different perspectives, or a more thorough look at clashing perspectives*, may hinder the 'prototypical' American, if I may, no harm meant, who acts instead of moving to close into the reflective 'Hamletian' mindset? A true American is unwilling to waste time pondering about being or not being? He acts. He'll do his very, very best to drain the swamp.

* there is no doubt some influence groups are a lot more powerful than others, to pick one aspect only. But will that ever change?