[inquest]

Why should a president... or ANY politician, for that matter... order a government agency with a history of leaking to monitor citizens uninvolved with non-national security situations when it would be so much safer, both politically and security-wise, to just hire a hacker to do it?

It would hardly be safer. If the hacker is caught, and the trail is leaked back to the President, he'd be impeached in two seconds. But if he has the NSA do it, he can always deflect investigations by appealing to national security.

[MamaSwami]

re: "It would hardly be safer. If the hacker is caught, and the trail is leaked back to the President, he'd be impeached in two seconds. But if he has the NSA do it, he can always deflect investigations by appealing to national security."

Not for long... or even for sure. It's my contention that the NSA would be far more likely to get caught than a hacker. The reason is that a loyal citizen within the NSA would rat. The more people involved, the more chances for leaks there are. The fewer people who are involved in a conspiracy, the safer it is.