Well the soviet sleepers where trying to make Friends and contacts with people in government so if a congressman or Senator had an "aide" like "Katia" Zatuliveter an Aide to the MP for Portsmouth who is on the defense committee
I bet the FBI counter espionage guys would be interested
And in the Past MI5 did catch a US diplomat working for the nazi's s well as catching an MP spying for the opposition John Stone House for the STB.
Congress can fuck up the country far more effectively than terrorism. See: Congress' response to terrorism. The scrutiny on them should be ENORMOUS but instead it is exactly the reverse, they are using a billions-dollar world eavesdropping device to parallel-construction convict petty pot dealers.
Yes but I don't think closed door NSA style surveillance of congress people would be helpful. Government open data programs? Probably a better direction.
> Acknowledgement that it has collected the communications records of American lawmakers and other officials is likely to make it harder for the NSA to argue that it needs such broad collection powers to defend against terrorism.
If the answer is no,
> The letter’s authors include surveillance skeptics like Sensenbrenner as well as those who voted against an earlier curtailment of NSA authorities, like Franks and Issa, the chairman of the House oversight committee.
> “There can be no disagreement, however, on the basic premise that congressional witnesses must answer truthfully,” read the letter, which requested a reply by 10 January.
That's not remotely what I'm saying. I'm saying that getting a lie on record is valuable because it makes it more likely that desirable consequences will occur.
If the no is true, then there isn't actually an issue. The point of such a request is to have someone give a public statement committing themselves to a position. Is this really so challenging to grasp?
> The point of such a request is to have someone give a public statement committing themselves to a position.
That's clearer, thanks, though a "public statement committing themselves to a position" is not in itself useful unless it has consequences. It seems that you can only state the usefulness by enumerating the possible outcomes.
The link to "denial and lie on record" to positive consequences is a tenuous one. The consequences of "truthful denial on record" are that the status quo of widespread scepticism continues, i.e. no new consequences.
> Is this really so challenging to grasp?
it is not useful for you to get upset and offensive when you aren't being understood. It would be useful for you to be clearer.
> a "public statement committing themselves to a position" is not in itself useful
This is how contracts work. This is how courts work. This is what people mean when they say, "Get it in writing." This is why we force confrontations. This is what Sun Tzu meant by picking your battleground. This is an essential utility that pervades the entirety of history and daily life.
> It seems that you can only state the usefulness by enumerating the possible outcomes.
I enumerated the possible outcomes when you asked how it would be useful.
It is not terribly surprising that utility is explained by listing the ways in which it is used.
> it is not useful for you to get upset and offensive when you aren't being understood. It would be useful for you to be clearer.
Honestly, I am having a hard time deciding whether or not you're a troll. That I'm responding at all is giving you the benefit of the doubt. I've discussed challenging concepts on here before, and I recognize when I'm being unclear or when I have an inadequate grasp on the subject to give a clear answer. That is not the case here. This is not a challenging concept. It is a core part of social interactions for anyone who has access to HN.
> This is how contracts work. This is how courts work. This is what people mean when they say, "Get it in writing." This is why we force confrontations.
And yet it doesn't work if you're James Clapper and can lie to congress without fear of consequence. This is why it's worth asking if there would in fact be consequences in this case.
