Turley should be careful, people might take him seriously. The mind reels when reading this non-sense from the Nixon and Nazi eras:

. . . [L]awyers cannot commit crimes when they act under the orders of a president -- and a president cannot commit a crime when he acts under advice of lawyers....

When reduced to its purest form, Mukasey's Paradox is that government officials cannot violate the law -- but that because executive privilege is also a law, it's sometimes necessary to violate the law in order to uphold the law.

Let's dispense with the non-sense that "just because a lawyers said something" that it's lawful. No, the Nazi lawyers were prosecuted for making the same argument. If you would like to read more about this, it's called the Nuremberg Justice Trial where legal "experts" like Mukasey were prosecuted.

The Nazi lawyers argued for the final solution or Holocaust. That "argument" proved frivolous, illegal, and contrary to human rights. Enough of this non-sense!

1. Executive privilege cannot lawfully hide evidence of illegal conduct, especially when the conduct is a public act; and the President has openly admitted to those illegal acts.

2. The flaws with the Mukasey comments related to executive privilege are outlined here.

3. Lawyers, when they make frivolous legal arguments, can be attached to the subsequent illegal activity. There is no merit to any assertion that, "A lawyer said so, so it's legal."

4. Executive privilege is not a "law," it is a judicially-recognized privilege that the court can deny/not recognize, especially when that privilege is abused, as is the case here. The assertion of executive privilege is one that the President must make, and not one that anyone can assert to shield them from other inquiry.

5. The Nixon era reminds us that the White House counsel does not work for the President, but the United States. The real attorney-client privilege is not between the WH Counsels office and the President; but between the President and his personal legal counsel.

It doesn't matter what his "reasons" are for doing this; it's evidence of an oath of office violation. The oath is to enforce the Constitution, without any mental reservation.

Yes, the State AGs may prosecute the DOJ AG for refusing to preserve the guarantees to the States: An enforcement mechanism.

Mukasey Paradox solution:

- Impeach Mukasey

Rather than Turley making a cute editorial, without mentioning "what do we do," I would prefer he spent time addressing:

Where do we go from here: Given this paradox the DOJ finds hismelf, what do we do to enforce the law against the DOJ AG and President, outside Congress and outside impeachment?

Turley's written on this:

Jonathan Turley, “From Pillar to Post”: The Prosecution of American Presidents, 37 American Criminal Law Review 1049, 1064-66 (2000).

Turley does not appear to have responded on his blog to requests that he comment on prosecuting a sitting VP, President, or AG outside Congress outside impeachment.

I wish Prof Turley would use his editorial clout, and ability to get editorial published in high profile newspapers to outline how a sitting President, VP, or DOJ AG can be prosected at the state level; and discuss the legal basis for a town in Vermont to indict a sitting President. The problem is the Vermont town's clerk incorrectly stated that this indictment was "outside" their jurisdiction. Turley might have used his editorializing to correct the Town Clerk, and open the hearts and minds of the State AGs.

Prof Turley's editorializing isn't help solve the problem, but merely states what is self-evident: There is no legal basis for the DOJ AG's legal assertions. The time to make this argument is before a court during a prosecution, not isolating it to an editorial. Let's get the DOJ AG prosecuted by the State AGs using the method Turley outlined at the his article cited above. Until then, DoJ OPR has fair warning that it needs to expand its review of the DOJ AG.

This is too clever by half. We are toying with sophistical notions, but the catalogue of crimes of the Administration is long:
Displaying contempt for new laws it dislikes through the use of signing statements.
Approving and carrying out torture which resulted in the deaths of prisoners.
Invading a country which posed no threat to the U.S., then issuing one pretext after another for staying.
Conducting extremely broad illegal surveillance of American communications.
Destroying the independence of Department of Justice prosecutors; requiring the DOJ to improperly prosecute Democrats because they are Democrats and to level baseless charges of voter fraud.
The list goes on and on.
Now tell me, should we waste more time on academic pursuits, or are we going to insist that Mr. Bush be brought to justice?

Are they getting bought off or blackmailed?

Cheney began data mining the internet long before 9/11... wonder why???

Impeach Mukasey.

His statements regarding the protection of illegal acts are sufficient for a House impeachment, and a conviction in the Senate.

It's never too late to drive corruption out of the governmnet.

St John is Little Shrubbies newest and tightest BFF. Link the overarching corruption of Little Shrubbie and the Big Dick to St John. Even Kucinich could win that race in a landslide.

Impeach Muckasey.

I'm confused as to why any of us expect that a congress full of "representatives" who think they have the authority to repeal Constitutional provisions by simply legislatng them away, would do anything about any high crimes & misdemeanors being committed by the executive branch. They are all complicit.

Our only salvation will have to come from the States. That's where we need to start putting pressure; after all, amending the Constitution is a function of the States, not Congress. Maybe all the states need to start suing for THEIR (an our) rights.