Verizon, AT&T, and Bell South-- did they or didn't they?

I've been a little reluctant to mention this story because of some strange timing. Timing that I thought might just mean I'm paranoid. But I'm not the only one to have pondered this issue, apparently.

Just as the three large telecom companies began to start issuing denials of their reported willingness to comply with non-legally binding government requests and hand customer records over to the government (apparently in violation of federal law), White House spokespeople were already going on the defensive, saying that the program isn't illegal, that even if it appears to be illegal the president has been granted powers to violate the law, and even if it does violate laws they wouldn't have to tell us the truth, because that's their right as well.

Second, the combination of the administration's corporatism (not to mention committment to domestic spying) and the quick announcement of class action suits against the telecoms made me wonder if the companies wouldn't be rushing to the White House for aid. Speculation on my part, but hardly implausible given the massive potential costs of the lawsuits, and the White House's staunchly pro-corporate policies.

As Think Progress notes, on May 5, a presidential memorandum "allows the Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte, to authorize a company to conceal activities related to national security."

This is in perfect accord with the admin's strategy to date. Namely, that even if surveillance activities are illegal, they reserve the right to deny that they've taken place-- and to block investigations.

So I'm withholding judgment on the telecoms based on the administration's own position. If they claim that theirs is the right to break the law and lie about it, how seriously can we take any denials?