Yesterday, the New York Times’ Charlie Savage reported that in a recent letter, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, top aide to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), said McCain believes that the Constitution gave President Bush the authority to wiretap Americans without warrants. The actions “were Constitutional and appropriate in the wake of the attacks on September 11, 2001,” Holtz-Eakin said.

At a news conference yesterday, a reporter asked McCain whether Bush’s warrantless National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance program, exposed in December 2005, was illegal. McCain said it’s unclear whether Bush broke the law by spying on Americans without court approval. The Times reports:

“It’s ambiguous as to whether the president acted within his authority of not,’’ he said, saying courts had ruled different ways on the matter. “I’m not interested in going back. I’m interested in addressing the challenge we face to day of trying to do everything we can to counter organizations and individuals that want to destroy this country. So there’s ambiguity about it. Let’s move forward.’’

It’s not ambiguous as to whether spying on Americans without a warrant is illegal. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 specifically states that the President can authorize spying without a court order only if:

–”There is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party”

– “The acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers“

In contrast, Bush’s warrantless spy program, as the New York Times explained in December 2005, authorized “warrantless eavesdropping on those inside the United States – including American citizens.”

In fact, in August 2006, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor declared the program unconstitutional, as it “violates the separation of powers doctrine, the Administrative Procedures Act, the First and Fourth amendments to the United States Constitution, the FISA and Title III.” Taylor added that “the president of the United States…has undisputedly violated the Fourth [amendment] in failing to procure judicial orders.”

McCain has also recently embraced retroactive immuity for telecommunications companies that helped the Bush Administration target Americans without court orders. As the Electronic Frontier Foundation noted yesterday, McCain’s campaign is staffed by aides with close ties to the telecom industry.

I grabbed this shot from his website yesterday. There’s literally nothing on the agenda except fundraisers. That shows one of the advantages that Obama’s money edge is going to give him — constant fundraising can help McCain close the gap, but it requires him to engage in constant fundraising. Meanwhile, much as McCain prizes his reformer persona, it’s simply very difficult to be a real reformer when you’re spending all your time begging big-dollar donors to write you checks for $2,300. Either you can grow a massive base of small donors (Obama) or you can stay in office without facing competitive election battles (McCain pre-2008) or else you become just another money-grubbing politician.

I’m hearing that some people feel Clinton spoke too much about herself and her campaign in her speech. I think that’s totally wrong. It’s the very fact that the speech dwelled at length on the Clinton movement, its meaning, and its accomplishments that it becomes an effective endorsement of Obama. Absent that stuff, it’s just another speech about why you should vote for Barack Obama. With the Clinton-specific stuff, it becomes specifically a speech about how, given the outcome of the primary, the logic next step for Clinton supporters is to join Clinton herself in supporting Obama.

Far from an egocentric outburst, the talking about herself and her supporters made the speech the great speech that it was and helped a lot, I think, to break down the mutual barriers of bitterness that had built up. Something nominally more focused on Obama might well have come off as half-hearted. What she delivered was perfectly sincere and utterly in keeping with the main themes of her campaign, but also led to the desired conclusion. I think it was very skillfully put together.

I think this is very good stuff and certainly explains better than I could why her supporters ought to line up behind Obama. Genuinely moving, and excellent overall — really a total home run.

Bloomberg reports:

Former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who was forced from his job amid a controversy over the firings of federal prosecutors, has been hired to provide assistance to a special master on a patent case.

Gonzales will help former U.S. District Judge Layn R. Phillips oversee settlement talks in the case of a Texas company which claims banks such as Wells Fargo & Co., Citigroup Inc.’s Citibank and Bank of America Corp. are violating its patents for taking and transmitting digital images of checks.

Phillips, in an order signed yesterday, said he needed Gonzales’s help because of the number of parties in the case and the “overall complexity of this litigation.”

C&L’s Logan Murphy adds, “Times are tough, with the recession, mortgage foreclosure crisis and rising unemployment, but it appears former Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales has finally landed on his feet. Well, if you’re trying to find evidence of illegal activity, why not hire someone who has experience in breaking the law?”