I have listened to both sides of the debate on Bush and the NSA wiretaps. I still contend that a decision of guilt or innocence at this point is premature, but if the facts are as we now have them (that Bush had the program reviewed and there was congressional oversight), then Bush cannot be considered to be guilty of any crime as regards the NSA wiretaps. Whether or not the individual congresspersons are guilty for not taking the matter before the full House and Senate is another matter entirely, and one that would require greater scrutiny.

You see, the President is the head of the Executive branch of the federal government. As such, he is required to carry out laws enacted by the Congress, and to uphold the Constitution, among other duties. And Congress is SPECIFICALLY authorized by Article I, section 8 of the United States Constitution, "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;" .

Now, here's the kicker. You can't regulate without oversight. The Constitution was written in a time when electronic communication was over a century away, and they could not have foreseen the fact that much commerce would be so dependent on electronic media such as telephones and the internet. But they clearly established that Congress had the authority to regulate commerce between the states and with foreign nations.

The NSA wiretap "scandal" revolves around international calls, which fall within the scope of Constitutional authority. Congress clearly has authority in this area, and the president has authority to carry out the wishes of Congress.

As I review the information as we have it, I am forced to conclude that Bush did no wrong in this instance. Ths NSA wiretaps are NOT a "smoking gun", but if Bush did, in fact, lie about consulting Congress, that might be. If he consulted Congressional leaders as he continually asserts, they should be required to answer for why the authorization was not put to a full vote.