Maybe I missed it. Maybe no one reported it. Or maybe no one asked a key question.
"Why were security clearances denied DoJ lawyers investigating the NSA wiretapping program?"
He claims to be in favor of oversight.
He admitted he helped design the program.
He was the top dog at NSA while the program was implemented.
He claims he has never intentionally testified in a misleading way.
He claims to respect the need for limiting programs to lawful operations.
He claims he sought and received legal advice for the program from many sources -- including the DoJ.
How do you reconcile all his claims with the fact that legal oversight was shut down? And that is just for starters.....
Who authorized the denial of clearance?
What role did he play in the process?
What role did political pressure play in the process?
How can DoJ lawyers be cited as a source for legal opinion BEFORE the program is initiated, but denied clearance to examine it after it is initiated?
Given his adversity to archeology, what assurance do we have that he will behave any more responsibly at the CIA?
So many unanswered questions because no one asked the obvious one. I'm guessing the fix is in and the hearings were just a kabuki dance.