Yes, and this is the problem. I have no doubt that the Attorney General made the certifications. But if he said under oath that "there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party;" and there is proof otherwise (and there seems to be, according to sources at the New York Times) then that is illegal. If they are not doing anything illegal, they can just come out and say "there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party;" But if the New York Times is able to find out that hundres of American citizens have been spied on without a warrant, then there is cause for concern, and we'll need hearings (even if they are secret) by Congress to get to the bottom of this.
"But if he said.."
And if he didn't?
What then for your point?