Nancy Pelosi's
letter to then-NSA head Michael Hayden has been declassified and is available on her web site (in redacted form) along with Hayden's semi-response.
Discussion follows.
This letter, together with Rockefeller's hand-written letter, seems to confirm suspicions that the "briefings" given to a handful of Congressional representatives was short on facts and long on misdirection. Her letter makes it clear that she was unconvinced that an adequate case had been made for expanding the NSA's surveillance activities, and ends with the following statements:
Therefore, I am concerned whether, and to what extent, the National Security Agency has received specific presidential authorization for the operations you are conducting. Until I understand better the legal analysis regarding the sufficiency of the authority which underlies your decision on the appropriate way to proceed on this matter, I will continue to be concerned.
The unredacted portion of Hayden's response is almost completely nonresponsive:
In my briefing, I was attempting to emphasize that I used my authorities to adjust NSA's collection and reporting.
So, as a result of this briefing, at least, Ms. Pelosi was unclear as to the actual extent of the surveillance, and the authority under which the surveillance was conducted. Despite Hayden's invitation to approach him with concerns, Pelosi was unable to review the additional information she required to formulate those concerns. ("For several reasons, including what I consider to be an overly broad interpretation of President Bush's directive of October 5 on sharing with Congress "classified or sensitive law enforcement information" it has not been possible to get answers to my questions.") Should MS. Pelosi have followed up more aggressively on her concerns, or her quest for additional answers from the administration? Probably. Was it clear to her from this briefing what was going on? Absolutely not.