"In most of the circuits, the law is clear that the President has the authority to do warrantless surveillance if it is to collect foreign intelligence and it is targeting foreign powers or agents. If the facts support that, then the district judge could make that finding and admit the evidence, just as they did in Truong-Humphrey."
At least the Wash Times was in the ball park. But I agree they overstated it.
The Wash Times had two paragraphs that summarized their finding. The first one in the article is the "overstated" proposition - but I think it's technically correct because it refers to a power of the President to issue an EO.
The second paragraph in the Times article says,
The five judges testifying before the committee said they could not speak specifically to the NSA listening program without being briefed on it, but that a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not override the president's constitutional authority to spy on suspected international agents under executive order.
I think this is exactly correct.
More transcript snips at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1605480/posts?page=96#96