"I told ya so!"

In a previous post (What's REALLY wrong with Mukasey) I argued that Mukasey's most worrisome flaw was his willingness to grant the President extra-legal authority, arguing,

"That would have to depend on whether what goes outside the statute nonetheless lies within the authority of the president to defend the country."

Well, guess what?

USA Today reports today:

CONYERS: Well, are you ready to start a criminal investigation into whether this confirmed use of waterboarding by United States agents was illegal?

MUKASEY: That's a direct question, and I will give a direct answer. No, I am not, for this reason: Whatever was done as part of a CIA program at the time that it was done was the subject of a Department of Justice opinion through the Office of Legal Counsel and was found to be permissible under the law as it existed then.

Apparently, DoJ opinions provide the Executive a "get-of-jail-free" card.

I wish Conyers had followed up on this:

[note: this is an imagined exchange - please do not mistake it for a transcript of actual Committee hearings!]

Conyers: "If DoJ issued an opinion that the FBI could lawfully assassinate the President's political enemies, would you be willing to investigate the ensuing assassinations?"

Mukasey: "DoJ would never issue such an opinion."

Conyers: "I'm not prepared to guess what DoJ might or might not opine, and that's not the question. I am trying to understand the limits of your argument that a DoJ opinion grants the Executive immunity from any subsequent law-breaking undertaken based on that DoJ opinion."

Mukasey's argument seems patently absurd - why not push it to its logical conclusion... and make him defend it!

BUT: We shouldn't be surprised that he asserts this argument - he told us he would!

"That would have to depend on whether what goes outside the statute nonetheless lies within the authority of the president to defend the country."

Stop the madness!