He admitted he knew of the requirements (hardly an admission; the law says what is says). He also said he didn't think it applied to the activities he authorized. He said that before and after the court's ruling. Saying he doesn't think the law applies is a far cry from him saying he knowingly broke the law.
If he had knowledge of FISA--which was enacted with the specific legislative intent of curbing PRESIDENTIAL excesses of power re domestic spying--I would say that he knowingly broke the FISA law.
Surely his legal advisors could apprise Pres. Bush of the fact that FISA was enacted in direct response to the spying efforts of President Richard Nixon.
For Mr. Bush to claim that didn't think the law applied indicates he thinks we are imbeciles or that he really is as stupid as people allege.
In any event, this is not "black and white" as you claimed. I'm sure I could find more people who agree with this guy, but his credentials are pretty darn good:
Of all of Bush's presidential excesses, legally, this one is the closest to a slam dunk.
Bryan Cunningham served in senior positions in the CIA and as a federal prosecutor under President Clinton, and as deputy legal adviser to the National Security Council under President George W. Bush. He is a private information security and privacy lawyer at Morgan & Cunningham LLC in Denver, Colorado, and a member of the Markle Foundation Task Force on National Security in the Information Age. Along with the Washington Legal Foundation, he filed an amicus brief in this case, and has testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the Terrorist Surveillance Program.
So he is a friend of the defense, he lost and now he airs his sour grapes about the matter. That's fine. But as Calmus pointed out, this fellow overstates his contentions--he seems to fail to grasp that, even in a 'war time' situation where the president's power is high, that power is not absolute.
The president cannot make up his mind that a law designed to curb his domestic spying power just doesn't apply. He doesn't have the constitutional power to do that.