A number of national news organizations are suddenly picking up the story of how the Bush Administration and its Justice Department refused to support Congressional legislation in 2002 that would loosen the parameters for obtaining FISA warrants; a fact which obviously flies in the face of most of their recent rationales for implementing their wiretapping program.  The DOJ official who went before Congress at the time was one James A. Baker and he told Senators a.) FISA worked fine and there were no impediments to getting warrants as needed and b.) certain aspects of the proposed change might actually be unconstitutional. 

Now, if this story gets wider scrutiny and suddenly appears on say CNN, MSNBC, Fox and the nightly news, I predict in addition to the McClellans, Mehlmans, Bartlett's and Gonzales' you'll probably see Mr. Baker, or one of his colleagues at the time, trotted out to refute the suggestion that what he said is actually what he said.  Doesn't matter if they have video of the proceedings, memos or any other evidence regarding this matter, somebody's gonna get up and lie about it, and not just lie but tell you you're crazy to think that their previously stated and recorded position was actually what they meant.  In fact they'll probably take it a step further and suddenly break into some sort of legalese revolving around various federal regulations or statutes and even rarely talked about passages in the Constitution until the anchors become too scared to ask anymore questions.  A picture of a fatigued George Orwell spinning around in his grave suddenly comes to mind.

Update (1/26/06):  The likelihood of the above scenario happening increases exponentially if the above named James Baker turns out to be this man, but I don't think it is.