This is a few months old at this point, but I'm not sure how I missed it:

 

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/01/judge-sufficien.html

 

The saga of Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation v. Bush continues. Basically, two guys working for an Islamic charity were accidentally sent a top secret document which shows they were being spied on by Bush's warrantless wiretapping program. They sued. Previously a federal judge ruled Bush was guilty, but the case was appealed and has now reached the district court level (i.e. one level below the Supreme Court)

 

A US district court judge has ruled sufficient evidence exists for the case to continue.

 

I wonder if it will reach the Supreme Court, and wonder more specifically what would happen if the Supreme Court found Bush to be guilty.

Unlike the Justice Department stuff we talked about earlier, I'm in favor of allowing this to continue.

 

(Not that it particularly matters what I think, I suppose, but I just thought I'd go on record.)

I ... wonder more specifically what would happen if the Supreme Court found Bush to be guilty.

A bit pedantic, but the Supreme Court can't find Bush to be guilty in the case of Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation v. Bush for the simple reason that this a civil lawsuit, not a criminal case.

A bit pedantic...

 

Yes, that's incredibly pedantic. You want me to rephrase it as "rule in favor of Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation"? Does it really make any difference?