I realize you won't change your opinion, and I respect that. I responded to a comment below addressing some of this if you'd like to read it.
It really just confuses me that a group like HN, generally very open-minded, are so willing to assume the very worst based on very limited, curated, non-refutable evidence. Non-refutable because of security concerns. Its like someone ripped every 18th page out of a book, and from that subset, created their own version of the book. They changed the ending, and flipped the protagonist and antagonist. The story is not accurate.
That's a more complicated issue than a simple 'he lied to Congress'. What he said to in front of Congress was flat out wrong - no one's disputing that. Did he lie? That would require an intent to mislead the committee, which would be a difficult thing to do since everyone on the committee had previously been briefed on it. In fact, he corrected his testimony to Sen. Wyden's staffers several days later when he realized the mistake according to the ODNI General Counsel[1]. He couldn't correct himself publicly because the information is classified.
This calls into question why Sen. Wyden asked Clapper to begin with. It's illegal for Clapper to disclose classified information publicly, but as a sitting senator, Wyden would have immunity for anything brought to the Senate floor. If Sen. Wyden thought it was an issue that should have been brought forward publicly to the constituents that he represents (which he apparently did, since he asked the question in a public forum), he should have done it himself instead of trying to get Clapper to take the fall for him.
Again, that implies that he had intent to mislead. It's easy to prove that he was wrong - it's a lot harder to prove intent. Wyden decided to ask that question to a senior intelligence official who was not part of NSA (Clapper is Director of National Intelligence - responsible primarily for collaboration between the intelligence agencies) and he asked it out of the blue during a hearing that mostly focused on tensions in the Middle East. It's within the realm of possibility that Clapper actually misinterpreted his question, or just plain did not consider a program that we later found only had 23 people working on it (out of around a hundred thousand or so people across all of the intelligence agencies). Wyden clearly knew the answer to his question and wanted the public to know it. Did Wyden lie to his constituents through omission?
>"and he asked it out of the blue during a hearing that mostly focused on tensions in the Middle East"
Are we talking about the same question? Your claim directly contradicts Wyden's statement on the matter.
Do you believe that Wyden's statement is true? And if not, what evidence do you have, and do you believe Wyden is a liar because he intended to mislead people by saying the following? Or did you accidentally make a "too cute by half" factual error or "least untruthful statement" when you claimed he "asked it out of the blue", and it was never your intent to mislead?
>"So that he would be prepared to answer, I sent the question to Director Clapper’s office a day in advance."
Yes, I would consider it out of the blue. Sen Wyden posed follow-up question to something that Gen Alexander said 8 months earlier, and he waited until the day before to pose it instead to DNI Clapper at a committee hearing that 1) was focused on developments in overseas national security threats over the past year and 2) Gen Alexander wasn't going to be present for. I don't doubt for a second that Clapper didn't see it - you don't wait until the last moment to submit a question unless you're trying to pull a political stunt. If he sent it a week or two prior, I could understand some outrage.
I have no idea what was going through Clapper's head at the time - maybe he did consider the 215 program or maybe he didn't. What he said was factually wrong and he tried to correct it but couldn't do so publicly.
This isn't trying to get the truth out - this is politics. Wyden is an elected representative - he has a duty to act in the best interests of his constituents. He was fully briefed on the program. If he felt that the information should have been public, he should have made it public - as a sitting member of the Senate he was authorized to do so. James Clapper was not. Wyden didn't correct Clapper on the spot. He didn't ask for more details. He didn't ask something like 'can you address any domestic collection programs that would fall under the Section 215 authorities?' He didn't do a damn thing publicly until the program was leaked months later, then used it as an opportunity to advance his own political career. Don't act like Clapper is some sort villain but Wyden is a hero.
I certainly am interested in talking about this intellectually, and presumably so were you when you just said "We can talk all day about politicians lying in front of congress. Would you like to?"
Yes, I would like to. Why do you think I'm not interested in talking about this intellectually? Do you not believe me when I say that? When I asked you a direct question in response to an accusation you made, and you dodged the question by trying to go meta. Did you not mean what you said when you invited me to talk about lying politicians all day?
To me, it appears that you are the one who is not interested in talking about this intellectually, so you tried to change the subject to attacks on Snowden's personality, then when that didn't work, you avoided answering a simple question by going meta, then when that didn't work, you projected your own disinterest in having an intellectual discussion onto me.
If that's the best line of argument that NSA apologists can come up with, it's no wonder they're having problems recruiting honest intelligent people.
You claimed that "They changed the ending, and flipped the protagonist and antagonist. The story is not accurate." Who do you mean, exactly? Please explain your accusations, or withdraw them if you're unwilling to support your unsubstantiated claim that the story is not accurate.
All you've offered as evidence against the story so far are your ad-hominem attacks against Snowden, right out of the US Government's playbook to demonize him and distract from the real story, just as Snowden himself predicted.
To continue having an intellectual discussion, please answer my question:
Is James Clapper a protagonist or antagonist for lying to congress?
It really just confuses me that a group like HN, generally very open-minded, are so willing to assume the very worst based on very limited, curated, non-refutable evidence. Non-refutable because of security concerns. Its like someone ripped every 18th page out of a book, and from that subset, created their own version of the book. They changed the ending, and flipped the protagonist and antagonist. The story is not accurate.