The problem, Scott, is that Michael Hayden (who is not a former DNI, by the way) has a much greater conflict of interest than Eric Lichtblau and James Risen. Michael Hayden was the Director of the National Security Agency (NSA) when the illegal surveillance program was hatched, and he became the Director of Central Intelligence in the latter years of the Bush administration. He, more than any other unelected official, is directly responsible for ignoring Americans’ Fourth Amendment Rights in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, and denying Congress access to information in violation of the National Security Act of 1947. It’s also quite possible that he is guilty of perjury before Congress.
Therefore, it is kind of ridiculous for you to take his word on the effectiveness of the crimes he committed in keeping the country safe. What is he supposed to say? And, if you take away Hayden’s testimony, you’re left with almost nothing to hang your hat on. The overall conclusion of the IG’s report is that the illegal surveillance may have made some minor contributions in a few cases, but they are not willing to be definitive about that.
If you are going to willfully break the law in the interests of national security, you would hope to compile a stronger record of utility than that your crimes may have made a small contribution. Just saying…
