And you know how the courts will rule on the legal questions how?
If it's not a hearing as such, why have him sworn in? That would increase the burden, because then Gonzalez would necessarily have to answer he couldn't recall in any situation concerning anything he had not gone back and specifically reviewed. If they want his candid initial impressions to their questions, that would indicate they wouldn't require a swearing in.
Really? Given that there aren't any documents that OK torture tactics, that's quite a feat.
Straw man. The argument isn't that the president can spy on whomever he wants. The argument is that the president has inherent Constitutional authority to collect intelligence related to the agents of foreign powers.
You need to bone up on your history. Firstly, Nixon wasn't impeached. Secondly, the trouble he was facing at the time of his resignation stemmed more from his attempts to cover up what he was doing than from anything else.
The rest of the above paragraph is essentially paranoid fantasy masquerading as assured prediction.
Actually, hard-core libertarians would cede that one of the only functions the central government is supposed to provide is protection against external enemies. One can make an excellent case -- and indeed, the DOJ has -- that this program falls under that function.
Your supposition of course is that it would change the answer. But if President Hillary Clinton were using the NSA to collect intelligence on numbers connected to al Queda, I'd be fine with it. Remember, from what we know about this program, it involves listening in to both sides of international calls made to or from phone numbers linked to al Queda.