Or we can refer to Wikipedia in which Clapper’s excuse is (paraphrases) “I forgot” and “they weren’t supposed to ask about something classified” to which Wyden replied “he got the questions in advance so he could tell us not to ask about classified stuff.”

Wyden then asked Clapper, "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" He responded, "No, sir." Wyden asked, "It does not?" and Clapper said, "Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but not wittingly."

[…]

In Clapper's 2018 memoir, he provides a fuller explanation of the incident:

...because the NSA program under Section 215 was highly classified, Senator Wyden wouldn't or shouldn't have been asking questions that required classified answers on camera....my error had been forgetting about Section 215, but even if I had remembered it, there still would have been no acceptable, unclassified way for me to answer the question in an open hearing. Even my saying, "We'll have to wait for the closed, classified session to discuss this," would have given something away. ...I ought to have sent a classified letter to Senator Wyden explaining my thoughts when I'd answered and that I misunderstood what he was actually asking me about. Yes, I made a mistake – a big one – when I responded, but I did not lie. I answered with truth in what I understood the context of the question to be.

On June 11, U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) accused Clapper of not giving a "straight answer," noting that Clapper's office had been provided with the question a day in advance of the hearing and was given the opportunity following Clapper's testimony to amend his response.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clapper

Michael Flynn plead guilty to the charges. He signed the statement of offense[0] with his personal lawyer. Simply because Mr Flynn chose to write a book of fiction afterwards does not change the fact that he admitted his guilt to the courts under penalty of perjury.

"The preceding statement is a summary, made for the purpose of providing the Court with a factual basis for my guilty plea to the charge against me. It does not include all of the facts known to me regarding this offense. I make this statement knowingly and voluntarily and because I am, in fact, guilty of the crime charged. No threats have been made to me nor am I under the influence of anything that could impede my ability to understand this Statement of the Offense fully.

I have read every word of this Statement of the Offense, or have had it read to me. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, after consulting with my attorneys, I agree and stipulate to this Statement of the Offense, and declare under penalty of perjury that it is true and correct."

[0] - https://www.justice.gov/file/1015126/download

Wait, he says in his book that he didn't commit perjury? Well, that lets him off the hook then.

Please don't make false claims. You can argue that he should have lied (for whatever reason) under oath, but you cannot argue that he didn't lie under oath.

"No perjury was committed." is true if you believe he was bound to lie under the circumstances. Is there a law that says so, or that says such a lie does not constitute perjury?