Who got it right

Powerline compares the Washington Times story on the FISA judge testimony to the NY Times story and sees a conflict. The Washington Times quotes the judges as sayingf that FISA does not override the President's inherenet authority to intercept enemy communications. The NY Times says the judges were skeptical of the Presidential authority. However this direct quote from the Washington Times suggest the NY Times is trying to mislead its readers and protect its rearend:

"If a court refuses a FISA application and there is not sufficient time for the president to go to the court of review, the president can under executive order act unilaterally, which he is doing now," said Judge Allan Kornblum, magistrate judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida and an author of the 1978 FISA Act. "I think that the president would be remiss exercising his constitutional authority by giving all of that power over to a statute."

The NY Times wants to ignore this part because if it admits what Judge Kornblum has said, then the paper has no defense to its violation of the espionage act. Its slender thread of a defense is to argue that the President acted illegally therefore it was not a crim to disclose classified information. That thread has always been tenious, since every court case on the issue backs the President. It now appears unteniable.