>> Least untruthful manner? In other words, it was a lie, but I could have told bigger lies. But he’s still admitting that it was a lie.

Did he lie? Did he admit to lying? I don’t think either. [Ie, we can argue the opposite is true.]

Q1: Did he lie to Congress?

First, you left important info out.

Wyden: So, what I wanted to see is if you could give me a yes or no answer to the question…

To this Clapper said “no sir”

It seems Clapper could not answer yes or no and be truthful if the question was loaded (assume he believed the question was loaded). It would be truthful for Clapper to answer “no sir” to that question, to the question on whether he could answer yes or no to a second question.

Now, while he might have meant, no sir, I can’t give you a yes or no truthful answer.. he was probably trying to pick one of the 2 options that he felt was most accurate and closest to the truth to answer the embedded question. [Note, that if he was addressing the primary Wyden question, then he is being truthful if he felt the embedded question was not answerable truthfully by “yes” or “no”.]

In trying to pick the best answer to the embedded question, “yes” or “no”, he necessarily would have to lie or at least temporarily withhold the full truthful response.

However, he did follow up with a brief explanation, “not wittingly”.

So he answered “no” to the loaded question (or perhaps even to whether he could give yes/no) and then followed up with a bit of explanation to clarify.

So where is the lie?

To have a lie, he has to believe he was hiding information or saying an untruth. Assuming he thought he was being asked about the collection of ordinary data, his full response of “no, sir, not wittingly,” is then likely not a lie to Wyden.

Q2: Could Clapper possibly have thought that “any type of data at all on” Americans was not referring to meta-data but only to emails and the like?

Possibility 1: This is not an attempt to deceive if he believed “any type of data at all on” refers to data created by a person and which the intelligence agency then collects. In this case, metadata would not count but email data created by the person would.

I think Clapper would be wrong in that interpretation because of what I interpret the phrase “information on” to mean, but it’s conceivable Clapper would have interpreted “information from”.

Possibility 2: Alternatively, he might consider that the NSA is harvesting data not linked to any person until the point at which an effort is made to look at and interpret specific data. Eg, I might consider not to be collecting information on Mike if I have a random super-server and simply store everything that passes through it and make no effort to discern the data, some of the data which might be related to Mike. Another example is that I might keep a video on all the time, aimed at the front of my store, and saved, but I would not consider to be keeping info on Mike (or on anyone) just because Mike (or someone else) may have passed through there until I make an effort to identify data and categorize it under “Mike”. Until that last point, I have no idea if I have anything on Mike or on anyone in particular. I have no bits of value associated with any person.

So, potential meta-data that has not been analyzed to actually belong to someone specific would not be data found inside any traditional dossier. Only when an effort is made to gather and order, can a dossier exist. Clapper could reasonably be ignoring unprocessed meta-data banks to not yet be data on any American.

I agree the first possibility sounds fishy and he may have been dishonest if that was his claim, but it could be difficult to “ascertain” he was lying. You would have to be in his mind, and, in the end, his story is consistent if he simply misunderstood the question from Wyden a little bit. However, the second possibility sounds reasonable to me. Again, you would have to be reading his mind or find more evidence to say with any confidence that Clapper was being dishonest with the “wife beater” interpretation of Wyden’s data question.

Q3: Was the question about email?

According to Wyden it was not, but a reasonable alternative interpretation (possibility 2 above) exists.

If the meaning of a question is decided by the beholder of the question, then Clapper is as correct as Wyden; otherwise, Clapper was wrong but would not be lying if he believed his reasonable interpretation (and which actually might be the interpretation of many in intelligence gathering communities).

Q4: Could Wyden be construed to have been asking a loaded question of the wife-beating variety?

Well, if “collect” refers to *policy* of the NSA (a very reasonable interpretation of that embedded question Wyden asked), then the answer would be “no” (remember, Clapper is ignoring meta-data).

But if the question means, has the NSA *ever* collected any data…, then the answer would be “yes”.

So, depending on which of the above two interpretations one takes of Wyden’s question (assuming the no meta-data view), the answer would differ, although you can try to answer more thoroughly to cover each case.

And that is what Clapper ended up doing through the follow-up brief explanation.

Q5: Did Clapper admit to lying?

He said:

“I thought, though in retrospect, I was asked– “When are you going to start– stop beating your wife” kind of question, which is meaning not– answerable necessarily by a simple yes or no. So I responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or least untruthful manner by saying no”

In the above context, that can hardly be considered an admission of committing perjury. I doubt anyone who believed s/he gave the most accurate answer to a loaded question is admitting guilt/perjury/lying.

Specifically, he said he gave the “most truthful, or least untruthful” reply. He didn’t say he lied or committed perjury. Above, it was argued that he would not be lying if he had a certain reasonable interpretation of Wyden’s question, so it would make no sense in that context to believe he was confessing to anything resembling perjury.

*****
To Summarize the argument above that can get Clapper off the hook:

Q1: Did he lie to Congress?

No. He answered correctly the question he thought he was being asked, with “no, sir, not wittingly.” It’s not a lie unless it is untruthful and intentional.

Q2: Could Clapper possibly have thought that “any type of data at all on” Americans was not referring to meta-data but only to emails and the like?

Yes, according to the following reasonable interpretation of Wyden’s question. Random unprocessed data in bulk does not constitute a dossier on anyone. The data must be specific and linked to a person to be considered data collected on that person.

An analogous situation supports this view. Filming and storing everything in front of your store does not mean you are collecting data on “Mike” if Mike happens to pass by. You would be collecting data on Mike only when you process the bulk data and link it appropriately with a person named “Mike”.

Q3: Was the question about email?

If the meaning of a question need not be unique, then Clapper can have a good argument that it was about email.

Q4: Could Wyden be construed to have been asking a loaded question of the wife-beating variety?

Yes, because two different ways to interpret his question (while also interpreting it as referring to emails) exist yet each comes with the opposite answer. “No, sir, not wittingly” answers both of these interpretations. One interpretation is solely about the policy of the NSA. The other interpretation is about the achieved results of the collection process and would include errors.

Q5: Did Clapper admit to lying?

No. He never stated literally that he lied, and it would make no sense for him to admit to something that he likely believes is not true. He admitted to giving the best answer to a loaded question. He used the words “truthful” and “untruthful” but not “lie”, which is a word that means something different.
*****