> It's not at all clear that Clapper committed perjury. He took an oath long before he testified at that hearing to not reveal certain secrets to unauthorized people, and that oath was backed by laws passed by Congress.
This is true, but it's bizarre that that the "Unauthorized people" would include Congress.
> When those oaths conflict, which one takes priority?
That might be a relevant question for whether or not he should be pardoned for committing perjury, but it's not a relevant question to deciding whether he committed perjury.
> That might be a relevant question for whether or not he should be pardoned for committing perjury, but it's not a relevant question to deciding whether he committed perjury.
I'm not a lawyer, but it could perhaps be an affirmative defense [0].
This is true, but it's bizarre that that the "Unauthorized people" would include Congress.
> When those oaths conflict, which one takes priority?
That might be a relevant question for whether or not he should be pardoned for committing perjury, but it's not a relevant question to deciding whether he committed perjury.