[dylan604]

You seem to want to write this off like we're all small children and have no ability to rational thought. You can be under questioning by congress while under oath and receive a question that would require revealing of sensitive information. At that point, you can lie like a small child, or inform the congressional panel that the conversation is approaching sensitive material and in order for questioning to continue, it would have to be done in a private session.

Please, don't treat me like I'm an imbecile. That's congress' job

Edit: also, that's such a shit parenting job. take the opportunity, and tell your significant other that it's not time for cookies and it'll spoil your dinner. there's no reason to lie about it. you have a teachable moment, and you've chosen to teach that it is okay to lie rather than something more valuable.

[lesuorac]

Clapper could not have answered that Yes/No question with "That's classified" without revealing whether the answer is Yes.

Going on TV and Clapper saying _he just made a mistake_ is really what I think you have issue with. But none of this TV statements are under oath.

[AnthonyMouse]

> Clapper could not have answered that Yes/No question with "That's classified" without revealing whether the answer is Yes.

If the answer to a question is classified then it is classified regardless of whether it is yes or no.

But the answer to that question being classified is objectionable, because a large proportion of the public would have taken issue with not knowing, because they would have objected to the program.