PrismmmMMMMmmmm, good! NOT!

Why James Clapper Should Be Impeached For Lying To Congress | Techdirt (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130610/16295123396/why-james-clapper-should-be-impeached-lying-to-congress.shtml)


Roger Clemens lies to Congress and they go after him relentlessly. The head of NSA lies to Congress and I imagine nothing will happen.

Why isn't he being charged? Why isn't he being impeached?


You want me to have faith in these guys to properly brief the President? **** no. Absolutely not.


LOL , and you want to know why people laugh at you? You just compared the Head of NSA to Roger Clemens .

There is no security brief I could ever attend that would make me change my mind about spying on our own people with legal warrants. None.

Says the person who has never been to a security brief.

LOL , and you want to know why people laugh at you? You just compared the Head of NSA to Roger Clemens .

Well, I think his point is you would rather have Congress worry more if the Head of the NSA is covering up activities, then if a baseball player used ped's.

I know I certainly would.

I'm torn on this issue. Where do you draw the line? If they are truly just tracking questionable contacts from outside the country then that might not be so bad. If I'm receiving the contacts I would think they would also start tracking me. We just had this administration abusing its power (IRS scandle) so why should we believe them on this issue.

Well thank God you are not in charge.

Why? I'd get rid of big money lobbying and changed campaign finance all together. I would then get rid of the god awful Patriot Act and do away with the Homeland Security waste.


I'd be a much better President than the one we currently have or the one previous to him as well.

LOL , and you want to know why people laugh at you? You just compared the Head of NSA to Roger Clemens .


I haven't asked why people are laughing at me, mainly because they are not. Are you so dense that you don't realize that lying to congress is a crime? The fact that you think government officials should be above the law is mind boggling to say the least.


18 USC § 1001 - Statements or entries generally | Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001)

Regarding testimony given while NOT under oath:


(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation;

or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.

(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.

(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to—

(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or

(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.

Says the person who has never been to a security brief.

There is absolutely nothing that a security brief could tell me that would make me change my mind about the Fourth Amendment. Also, Obama had those briefs prior to his administration and yet he still said he didn't support any of it.


The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution restrict government searches and seizures. The amendment reads:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Ron Paul has been in those meetings and he's saying the same thing.


I guess some of you are OK with doing away with the Fourth Amendment completely. We might as well. The whole "if you don't have anything to hide, you shouldn't care" mentality should also apply to your home. Well ****, let the cops and government come search your house at will because....after all, if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't care. But..but ...that's different. No, no it's not, which is exactly why our founding fathers put that in place.


Also, to think that the government wouldn't use this against political enemies is laughable to say the least. Surely they wouldn't use the IRS to target peo.....oh wait. I'm sure many other agencies have been used to target political enemies as well, and now you want to give them access to your person life. God damn this country and its people have gone to shit. They've bought into this warped mentality that the government is doing what's right for the people and you should sit back and let them go unquestioned and unchecked.

I'm torn on this issue. Where do you draw the line? If they are truly just tracking questionable contacts from outside the country then that might not be so bad. If I'm receiving the contacts I would think they would also start tracking me. We just had this administration abusing its power (IRS scandle) so why should we believe them on this issue.

I have no problem with them tracking a particular citizen if they obtained a warrant and went about it the legal way. Just collecting ALL information from citizens is well beyond criminal.

If they have this much awesome technical firepower, how do things like Boston happen? Particularly given that they were also warned by the Russians and the Saudis.

ZDNet Article (http://www.zdnet.com/prism-heres-how-the-nsa-wiretapped-the-internet-7000016565/)

Editor's note: The following article should be treated as strictly hypothetical. It has been editorialized to simplify the content in certain areas, while maintaining as much technical detail as we can offer. Companies named in this article have been publicly disclosed, or used in example only. This piece should not be taken necessarily as fact but as a working theory that portrays only one possible implementation of the U.S. National Security Agency's PRISM program as it may exist today. Several ZDNet writers contributed to this report.