Today we're reminded the FBI discovered the NSA's illegal wiretaps within hours. Indeed, the lawyers were so concerned the program was illegal, senior lawyers advised leaders against signing the warrants.
However, Hayden during his Senate confirmation hearings for CIA Director left the opposite impression: He thought the actions were lawful. Hayden's asserted beliefs about the legality of the activities belie the legal community's explicit rejection of that program's lawfulness. There does not appear to be a reasonable basis for Hayden to have asserted under oath that he believed the surveillance, program, or warrants were lawful.
It appears, contrary to Hayden's assertions under oath, his belief had no basis in fact. Legal memoranda was hardly controversial, but explicit: The activity was illegal. There appears to be a material inconsistency between what we've learned about the FBI discoveries and what Hayden told the Congress under oath. When will Congress revisit Hayden's testimony for alleged perjury?