Right from the start

"This is not a private attorney that is making the opinion of law - it is a federal employee charged with that as the person goes about doing their assigned tasks."

The OLCs job is not to interpret the law. The OLCs job is to understand the law and provide (wait for it) counsel. They are exactly what the office says they are: counselors.

The findings of the OLC are not law, any more than the findings of my lawyer, or for that matter, my accountant. In the United States of America, the sole power to interpret Law, in the sense that their decision is the law in the sense that it is binding and enforceable is the judicial branch. Not any other. That the OLC has in its title 'Legal Counsel' does NOT make it part of the judiciary, any more than the tort lawyer down the street is part of the judiciary.

If there is collusion between any government counsel office (in or out of the white house) and any government agency, whereby the office of counsel deems things legal that are illegal, and the governmental branch acts accordingly and with a wink and a nudge- that does not make it legal. In fact, quite the opposite- it means that both the office of counsel and the governmental agency are in breach of the law.

You have, in essence, advanced a 'mob gangster' notion of the law. That one hires lawyers so that they can do what they want to, regardless of the law, and give it the patina of legality. Except worse, you take it further. By your argument, the mob lawyer is making the law.

Your argument concerning intent is absurd on the surface. intent is a narrowly defined legal notion whose primary role is in determining the severity of a breach of law, not if a breach of law took place. You are talking out your ass, and its obvious. Intent has no role here, no more so than the OLCs decisions are legal, enforceable and binding under the constitution.

Yeti