| The Daily Show with Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Good News! You're Not Paranoid - NSA Oversight | ||||
| ||||
"No spy should have that big a tell."
१२ जून, २०१३
Watch Clapper lie.
He's got a tell:
"No spy should have that big a tell."
"No spy should have that big a tell."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
५७ टिप्पण्या:
But I did love his explanation that he answered in the "least untruthful" manner possible, thereby admitting that he lied. That transcends even Clintonism.
Even sunglasses and a hoodie wouldn't have saved him.
I definitely trust this guy not to look too closely at my data.
Funny clip in the whistling past the graveyard style.
If Jon Stewart wasn't already an icon, his job would be in serious peril. That's some funny shit right there. Maybe the writers don't want Jon back. Of course, the actual video and facts of the subject were written by the best comedy writer of all time and stand on their own.
You know the guy is actually appealing and refreshing in that he's such a bad liar. I wish they all were like that, because the voting public is really bad at detection.
The guy hasn't got a clapper.
Clapper's days aboard the bus are numbered. He'll be the next guy to go under.
He sounds fooooreign........
The NSA has all sorts of protocols to "ensure" they don't spy on "US persons", just like they have protocols in place to guard against leaks of highly classified information.
Yeah, right. And this guy Snowdon was allowed to photocopy all sorts of documents and walk out of the building with them.
That of course was the ONLY hole in their security protocols...
I saw that yesterday and was impressed. It was a big joke when clapper did it.
It seems to me Clapper and his DC apparatchiks are only bragging what they can do and no one can stop them.
It's not exactly a lie.
He's hiding what he's supposed to be hiding against a questioner who knows better than to ask what he already knows the answer to from security-privileged access.
Somebody should have asked him how the NSA can't find 6 million illegals.
rhhardin:
I've been thinking a bit about how Mr. Clapper might have handled that better.
Part of me thinks he should have answered at the time, "Senator, you know very well I can't answer that question and you know why." There would have been an uproar because he couldn't truthfully say no, of course.
Or, he could have lied, as for practical purposes he did, then when called on it, said, "Of course I lied. I had to, under the circumstances. A senator was trying to get me to divulge classified information. It is my job to keep these things secret. Ask a stupid question, huh?"
Undocumented Democrats.
Hip low information voters laughing at the nomenklatura. That is never a good sign for the nomenkltura or the New Class.
The final line was the money.
"We're not saying that you broke any laws, but it's a little bit weird that you didn't have to."
JPS said...
rhhardin:
I've been thinking a bit about how Mr. Clapper might have handled that better.
Part of me thinks he should have answered at the time, "Senator, you know very well I can't answer that question and you know why." There would have been an uproar because he couldn't truthfully say no, of course.
That, or perhaps a more suitable answer would be to the effect, "Senator, there are things I can't discuss in an open forum but will gladly discuss with you behind closed doors. When can we get together to discuss these things?"
John Oliver is clearly racist.
Even my wife when she saw clapper testifying looked at me and said, "Look at how he is lying, his gestures, his head down, his hand scratching his head, his gaze downward when he speaks. It's all right there." And I looked at her and said, "Can you come to my next poker game and let me know who's bluffing?"
What Clapper was supposed to do it correct the record privately with the Congressman, in circumstances that won't compromise the info. He was, in fact, offered precisely this opportunity and declined.
Tough nuggies, enjoy the ride under the bus.
Remember when DHS was talking about surveilling people at train and bus stations and any kind of public event?
How do we know they aren't getting a peek at all the data?
I know, OT, but it just occurred to me.
Clapper should've just taken the 5th.
Cyanide would have been more honorable.
OK then, a 5th of cyanide.
"It's not exactly a lie."
It is e-x-a-c-t-l-y a lie.
It is as much a lie as a lie can ever be.
It is perjury, and Clapper committed a felony right before the nation's eyes.
Will he be prosecuted for it?
Of course not.
And, why don't you think he'll be prosecuted, Mr. Cook?
AllenS, I think it has something to do w/ the fact that Eric Holder is the AG.
So, America has a classified program to collect electronic data on foreign terrorist and because it's really hard to know who the terrorist are, we also collect information on everyone else. We can't talk about the program, even if Congress asks. But Congress knows about the program, because, it's created by laws Congress has passed. But when Congress asks about the program Congress can't ask about, we have to lie because refusing to answer the question would reveal classified information. And then, when we lie, we suck at it.
We need this kind of mess to protect the country?
Also, why did the Bush administration have seemingly more transparency around "enhanced interogation techniques" then we do around domestic electronic spying of American Citizens? How effing big is the terrorist threat to the country?
"He's hiding what he's supposed to be hiding against a questioner who knows better than to ask what he already knows the answer to from security-privileged access."
Yes, the dope here is the senator. WTF asking a question like that in an open hearing.
So now we know the NSA director is not a skilled liar.
It's not exactly a lie.
Bill? Is that you? How's Monica these days?
He's hiding what he's supposed to be hiding against a questioner who knows better than to ask what he already knows the answer to from security-privileged access.
What steaming load of bullshit.
"I can't any questions about the specifics of NSA operations in a public forum because doing so would risk revealing classified information."
There. Now he hasn't lied, hasn't given away any information either directly or indirectly, and can fill in the Congressman (who IS legally entitled to an honest answer to that question) later.
But he didn't do that, because the NSA did not want Congress to know it was doing this. Because even though they claim Congress authorized it, a lot of the people IN Congress seem surprised to hear about it.
Yes, the dope here is the senator. WTF asking a question like that in an open hearing.
So far as the Senator knew -- indeed, so far as you and I know -- what the NSA did was illegal. He was asking the head of the NSA if the NSA was engaged in illegal activity. That's normal stuff for Senate hearings.
Now, maybe it IS technically legal. But none of us have any way of knowing that, because the legal decisions surrounding the scope of NSA work are classified.
Had the executive branch actually briefed Congress on its programs (like it is legally obligated to do), then maybe the Senator would have known not to ask. Although I like to think he would have asked anyway. :)
"He was asking the head of the NSA if the NSA was engaged in illegal activity."
That isn't the question Sen. Wyden asked.
Being a reader of body language, I almost pissed and shit my pants when I saw that on the news.
"He was asking the head of the NSA if the NSA was engaged in illegal activity."
That isn't the question Sen. Wyden asked.
Well, yes, it is. Mass gathering of Americans' phone and internet activity by the NSA is illegal, so far as we know.
If there is something that makes it legal, they didn't tell us about it. Or tell Congress either, apparently.
Or to put it another way, Sorun, he was asking "are you doing [something Congress didn't give you permission to do]".
Asking questions of that form is normal for the Senate.
Senator Numbnuts, in an open hearing, ca. 1987: "General, is the U.S. Air Force developing any "stealth" aircraft that supposedly can defeat enemy radar?"
Senator Numbnuts...
Pardon my sexism. Having lived in Washington state, the most likely questioner her is Senator Dingbat Soccermom.
Sorun said...
Senator Numbnuts, in an open hearing, ca. 1987: "General, is the U.S. Air Force developing any "stealth" aircraft that supposedly can defeat enemy radar?"
Jimmy Carter broke the stealth story during the 1980 presidental campaign. "Armed Forces Journal" had learned of the development of fighter-sized stealth prototypes (Have Blue) earlier but sat on the story at the Pentagon's request. Once Carter broke the secret, they published their article in August of 1980. I read the article many years ago and can't find it online but you can read more at this link.
The Air Force denied the existence of the F-117 up to 1988.
Sorun said...
The Air Force denied the existence of the F-117 up to 1988.
Sure they did but there were news stories from well before that. I did a presentation on stealth aircraft to my class at Officer Training School in 1985. Back in July 1986, one of the early F-117A's crashed on a night training mission. That week, one of the big 3 weekly newsmagazines (perhaps Newsweek) began their story with this sentence, "If a plane that doesn't exist crashes in a forest, does it make a sound? Not if the Air Force can help it."
The details of the F-117A were unknown but it was widely known that it was being developed. Same with the B-2A. Carter broke the existance of the stealth programs during the campaign to show that he wasn't weak on defense. At the time, it was (according to Ben Rich, head of Lockheed's Skunk Works) the most classified program in America.
There was some bonehead in Congress who held up a copy of that Revell F-19 model and asked an Air Force general about it. The general truthfully told him that no such plane existed. When the F-117A was finally revealed, it was something of a letdown.
"'He was asking the head of the NSA if the NSA was engaged in illegal activity.'
"That isn't the question Sen. Wyden asked."
Yes, it is.
"The Air Force denied the existence of the F-117 up to 1988."
So? The Air Force also continues to deny to this day the existence of UFOs that are explainable only as extraterrestrial craft, when we all have known since at least 1947 the greys are here.
"It is perjury, and Clapper committed a felony right before the nation's eyes.
Will he be prosecuted for it?
Of course not."
well... no, i agree.
...but, if he played professional baseball, maybe.
One problem here is that Senator Wyden obviously knew what the NAS was doing. He knew the answer to the question he was asking, and he knew that Clapper could not answer truthfully. It was his job to keep classified information classified. So what was Wyden's game?
rh had it right away -- also unknown right above.
He's hiding what he's supposed to be hiding against a questioner who knows better than to ask what he already knows the answer to from security-privileged access.
Wrong venue for that question. And some here have said the Senator knew [Should have known?] that.
The fourth amendment is clear. The big guys ain't allowed to issue warrants on everything we do.
Is this too hard to understand for your average Congressional idiot?
The point of all this is not that the Administration is doing outrageous acts. The point is that because the Administration knows the GOP are such female sex organs nothing will happen if they are caught doing outrageous acts.
All the Administration must be careful about is avoid saying "yes, we are routinely engaging in illegal and unconstitutional activity for which any other President would be impeached." As long as any liberal anywhere can imagine any implausible explanation not one penalty will be paid.
All the talking in the world isn't going to change anything in the world. Because we have tolerated weak and worthless RINOs we now have weak and worthless RINOs unable to DO anything except throw open the southern border.
People deserve the government they get. What does anyone propose we do about any of this? If your answer is wait for Congress, you are the problem. Waiting for Congress is how this country has been bankrupted, weakened, and enslaved.
"least untruthful" means "not the biggest lie I thought of in the moment, but something a bit more nuanced".
Robert Cook said...
"The Air Force denied the existence of the F-117 up to 1988."
So? The Air Force also continues to deny to this day the existence of UFOs that are explainable only as extraterrestrial craft, when we all have known since at least 1947 the greys are here.
That. That explains a lot.
Editcherr wrote:
Somebody should have asked him how the NSA can't find 6 million illegals.
there are a few easy answers for this. One, that's not what the NSA program is being used for. Is supposed to target terrorists not illegals. If it were targeting illegals it would be being used innapropriately (unless of course it was determined that the NSA program should be expanded that way to include that.
Two, and more importantly, Obama isn't looking for illegals. Its not that the NSA can't find them. Its that the administration won't look.
And finally, its a monitoring program using emails and phone nu,bees.,do some of these illegals even have Internet access and/or cell phone plans?
Edutcher wrote:
Remember when DHS was talking about surveilling people at train and bus stations and any kind of public event?
why are you expecting privacy at a public event? Lets not forget thrat anyone with a cell phone has a camera on it which is already surveilling private events.
Revenant wrote:
Revenant wrote:
"But he didn't do that, because the NSA did not want Congress to know it was doing this. Because even though they claim Congress authorized it, a lot of the people IN Congress seem surprised to hear about it."
are those clueless congressmen not members of the Intelligence committee? Maybe they're not supposed to know.
Seriously, Lindsay Graham was on Greta the other night talking about the program and its various perameters.. For example, did you know that when the NSA does its search it doesn't actually tie names to the numbers initially? How does he know that if congress isn't aware of this program? Is Lindsay Graham not a member of congress?
If Rand Paul doesn't know, maybe he should try to get on the intelligence committee where he would know.
Did Wyden know when he asked the question?
Of course he knew. Why is he trying to force Clapper to reveal classified info in public?
They know. You don't know. Because its classified. When they walk into the intelligence committee and get info it too is classified and YOU DON'T GET TO KNOW IT.
Clap on.
Clap off.
Clap on, clap off. The clapper.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा