It's entirely material as to whether it was forced. Clapper knowingly permitted himself to be in a situation where his only options were to break one of two laws. He can't then use that as an excuse. He chose to break one of those laws when he chose (when reviewing the questions) that he was going to permit the question, and he's plainly guilty of breaking the law.
"And since Wyden and Udall both knew the actual answer, if they were so convinced the answer should be made public then either could have simply put it in the Senate record thanks to their Constitutional privilege and taken the risk that would come with that."
Agreed, and I would think more highly of them if they had. I'm not sure what the game was. That still does not change the fact that Clapper is guilty, though.
> Clapper knowingly permitted himself to be in a situation where his only options were to break one of two laws.
That makes no sense whatsoever. One does not simply refuse to show up to testify to Congress! I mean, if you want to talk about things which are disastrous for a democracy, having the Executive routinely ignore their responsibility to testify on their actions to the Legislature would be right up near the top of the list!
> That still does not change the fact that Clapper is guilty, though.
Of course not, that was the whole idea. If he had told the truth you'd be able to rightly say "That still does not change the fact that Clapper violated his oath, though". There's a reason that he isn't being charged with anything, unlike Helms before him.
"That makes no sense whatsoever. One does not simply refuse to show up to testify to Congress! I mean, if you want to talk about things which are disastrous for a democracy, having the Executive routinely ignore their responsibility to testify on their actions to the Legislature would be right up near the top of the list!"
Of course it makes sense. If the questions were pre-approved as I stated, he would not have had to refuse to show up in order to avoid being put in this situation. He would simply have had to not approve the question - which would have been the most in line with his obligations and least misleading to the rest of congress and the American people.
There is apparently some dispute as to whether the questions were, in fact, pre-approved. But as you hadn't contested it, I think it's fair that it remain the assumption for this sub-thread.
"And since Wyden and Udall both knew the actual answer, if they were so convinced the answer should be made public then either could have simply put it in the Senate record thanks to their Constitutional privilege and taken the risk that would come with that."
Agreed, and I would think more highly of them if they had. I'm not sure what the game was. That still does not change the fact that Clapper is guilty, though.