According to NYTs reporters (there's your disclaimer up front) ERIC LICHTBLAU and SCOTT SHANE's article today in the not-so-unbiased rag , comes a report by the Congressional Research Services who finds Bush's legal authority to authorize intercepting calls between terrorists on int'l-domestic calls "may represent an exercise of presidential power at its lowest ebb,..." (quote unfinished in article... surprise, surprise).
Well now... if you're anything like me, the first question that comes to mind is who the heck is the CRS anyway, and what's their claim to fame?
Shall we investigate that further?
As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS works exclusively and directly for Members of Congress, their Committees and staff on a confidential, nonpartisan basis.
Is this a conglomeration of lawyers working for Congress? Nope...
The CRS staff comprises nationally recognized experts in a range of issues and disciplines, including law, economics, foreign affairs, public administration, the information, social, political sciences, natural sciences. The breadth and depth of this expertise enables CRS staff to come together quickly to provide integrated analyses of complex issues that span multiple legislative and program areas.
So a bunch of not-legal-experts who work for Congress came together to form an opinion on an issue that boggles the most expert of Constitutional legal minds, and quickly issued a "we don't think so"... after which the NYT's jumps on it like it's liquid gold.
Give me a break....
As we've learned from other "non-partisan" independent investigations (uh hum... can you say 911 Commission?), they tend to leave out pertinent info (i.e. ABLE DANGER), and not possess the right credentials to be up to the tasks given to them.
Just another case of the fox guarding the hen house, it appears.