Nat'l Intel Director May Have Lied To Congress About NSA Data Collection

Nat'l Intel Director May Have Lied To Congress About NSA Data Collection

www.breitbart.com

The Director of National Intelligence James Clapper may have lied to Congress when he told the Senate Intelligence Committee on March 12 that the National Security Agency does not collect data on millions of Americans.
On Thursday, Breitbart News broke the story about Clapper's previous testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee by unearthing video of his exchange with Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR). Wyden asked Clapper if the NSA collects "any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" Clapper responded, "No, sir."

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.forbes.com
nymag.com
hotair.com
www.wired.com

Not only did Nat'l Intel Dir. Clapper blatantly lie under oath to congress (perjury?), so too did NSA Director Alexander lie...as detailed in this quote from Wired magazine (below).

THIS is the latest in a parade of Obama administration high officials lying directly to the American people and driving home the fact that in this administration, accountability and credibility has simply ceased to exist.

Quote from 2012 Wired article:
"In a congressional hearing in March of last year, for instance, NSA Director Keith Alexander was questioned about a Wired magazine cover story that included on-the-record interviews with multiple ex-NSA officials describing the agency’s collection of Americans’ voice and digital information.

Speaking to Representative Hank Johnson, Alexander responded 14 times that the agency doesn’t collect the kind of domestic data Bamford had alleged.

Here’s a sample of that questioning:

Rep. Johnson: Does the NSA intercept Americans’ cell phone conversations?

Director Alexander: No.

Google searches?

No.

Text messages?

No.

Amazon.com orders?

No.

Bank records?

No.
www.wired.com...

www.breitbart.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Another "news" article from Breitbart that "may" have happened? Time to go fishing.

Originally posted by Kernel Korn
Another "news" article from Breitbart that "may" have happened? Time to go fishing.

Let me make sure what you are saying in this post.

Are you saying that the government officials did not testify in front of Congress? Or, are you saying that what the record says about their testimony is wrong?

Or, are you saying that since Breitbart reported on it, it no longer matters that they lied to Congress?

reply to post by Kernel Korn

You may want to take a moment...before condemning the OP and thread for source..and open Drudge Report.

I know many don't like Matt Drudge's site either, but it's not a news site. They write nothing. They aggregate headlines, and nothing more. The OP's story is being related and talked about by sources, literally, all over the world right now and virtually non-stop. I've never seen anything quite like this for exposure of highly classified programs. Even Able Danger had absolutely nothing like this for the explosion.

The NSA stepped WAYYYY too far this time..and so has everyone connected to approving it, supporting it or excusing it, in my opinion. The whole world seems pissed off right now. BB was late to the party on this one, not leading the parade by any stretch.

Originally posted by Kernel Korn
Another "news" article from Breitbart that "may" have happened? Time to go fishing.

THAT'S all you've got?
If you don't like Breitbart...choose any of the OTHER listed sources...
Clapper and Alexander's own words (under oath) are there in video and black and white for all the world to see!

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Thank you.
And the OP has four other sources including Forbes.com for those who don't like Breitbart.

MAY have lied? MAY? I would venture to say with less certainty the sun MAY rise tomorrow.

I think it's pretty clear that the guy lied, he was explicitly asked the question and he said "no". The opposite is true, therefore he lied.

reply to post by Rocker2013


I think it depends on what the clear definition of Clear is.

Was it National Security clear? Politically clear? Clear to a public school standard? Clear, perhaps, to our thinking? Or..maybe...it's just as clear as a mirror, reflecting a mirror image of a mirrored surface of water on a dead calm day?

Oh, welcome to the world of National Intelligence, where No Such Agency really WAS their nickname back before even saying their name in public was permitted.

Originally posted by Kernel Korn
Another "news" article from Breitbart that "may" have happened? Time to go fishing.

I'm good at fishing so let me help.


Would appear that Breitbart was absolutely accurate in their transcript of NSA Director Alexander's answers to Rep. Hank Johnson. Now that's a youtube link, I know but that is from the Rep. Hank Johnson's own youtube account so yeah... 3:36 is where the specific line of query that is in the OP' starts. Not a fan of Breitbart but they definitely nailed that part.

Well, they sorta' been playing the actual video all over the MSM today. I would say it happened since I watched the damn words come from his lips.



Anyhow, again, guess who benefits here?
Believe it or not it is Obama.
People need to refocus back to the IRS. There is your real scandal.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Rocker2013

 

I think it depends on what the clear definition of Clear is.

And that "... depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." - Bill Clinton.

Originally posted by abecedarian

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Rocker2013

 

I think it depends on what the clear definition of Clear is.

And that "... depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." - Bill Clinton.

So, Clinton supporters can't come to the rescue either?

I swear these people could get away with murder,
oh wait they already have, first we lose our rights
to a trial by jury via drone strikes on US citizens,
now we are becoming aware that privacy was just
a farce anyway, yeah nothing to fear so long as you
do nothing wrong, think about where we are, should
"they" decide we are a threat, any of us, they could
have a hit put out on us, via the use of technology we
paid for mind you and no one else would ever know
if we even actually did anything wrong, all they would
have to do is backdoor or hack into say facebook or
even a site like this and post under your username
that indeed you do desire to carry out some terrorist
plot and since you don't get a trial bam that's it.

A corpse cannot argue for his or her rights.

VIDEO Director of National Intelligence Lying about NSA Data Collection
www.economicpolicyjournal.com... conomicpolicyjournal%2FYZSb+%28EconomicPolicyJournal.com%29

I saw this video last week and hunted for it, wanting you to be able to take the word "May" out of your subject line. Glad to find the story with video.