TPMM has this exchange, which deserves parsing:

Conyers: "Do you feel that the Unitary Theory of the
Executive allows the President to do things over and above the stated
law of the land?"

Addington: "The Constitution binds all of us,
Congressman, the President, all the U.S. members of Congress, all of
the federal judges. We all take an oath to support and defend it. I
frankly don't know what you mean by the Unitary Theory of Government"

Let's put aside, for the moment, Addington's claim he doesn't know what the Unitary Theory of Government means.

I. Reviewing the Question

Here's the question:

Do you feel that the Unitary Theory of the
Executive allows the President to do things over and above the stated
law of the land?

II. Reconsider separately what Conyers was asking, and break down the question into separate elements. Conyers is raising multiple issues, and his comment has two simple issues: Whether the President is above the law; and what legal theory would explain why the President views himself above the law.

First, Conyers is asking

A. Whether the President is above the law (He is not);
B. Whether the President can do things outside the law (He cannot);
C. Whether the law does or does not control Presidential programs, powers, activities, and orders (It does, per Article I Section 8)

AI S8:

"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this
Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any
department or officer thereof."

Recall, the Supreme Court said this President's use of power was not, as the Constitution requires, appropriate: "Inappropriate".

Conyers is not asking whether someone took an oath to the Constitution; or whether anyone is supposed to follow the law.

Second, Conyers is then asking whether the Unitary Theory of Government would explain why the President views himself as above the law. Conyers is not asking for a diversion from the President's conduct, nor an explanation why illegal conduct is justified, merely asking what legal theory might explain why this President views his actions as above the law.

III. Considering What A Reasonable Response Should Be

Let's develop a standard or benchmark to evaluate Addington's response. A reasonable response to this question,

Conyers: "Do you feel that the Unitary Theory of the
Executive allows the President to do things over and above the stated
law of the land?"

Would be:

"The President has willfully violated the Supreme law and Geneva Conventions with full legal consultation with government lawyers. The President views himself as being above the law for various reasons. One of those reasons is the legal theory that the President may direct his personnel to do things outside the law. However, this only partially explains why the President (incorrectly) views his actions as being outside legal review.

"The President incorrectly and illegally views his power as being something Article I Section 8 does not apply; and strictly views all legal requirements as something that do not apply on the President's assertion alone. This claim to unreviewable power is not consistent with the Framer's intent to have overlapping jurisdictions with separate, but equal government branches."

IV. Reconsidering Addington's Response

Let's consider the problems with Addington's response:

Addinton: "The Constitution binds all of us,
Congressman, the President, all the U.S. members of Congress, all of
the federal judges. We all take an oath to support and defend it. I
frankly don't know what you mean by the Unitary Theory of Government"

Addington has not answered why this President's activity is linked with DOJ OLC memoranda saying the President's actions are unreviable, nor bound by FISA or Geneva.

Whether the Constitution binds us to something is unrelated to whether the President agrees his actions must fall under the Article I Section 8 rules or Geneva Convntions. This President agrees he took an oath; he does not (lawfully) agree that he is bound by Geneva or Article I Section 8-sourced rules. The President and his legal counsel do not, by their actions, respect the Constitution; they only say they took an oath. Their real loyalty is not to the Constitution, but to the President's agenda of unchecked Executive Power.

V. What Addington Missed

Let's compare (a) what Conyers is really asking, at II; with (b) the above benchmark, at III; and (c) with what Addington said:

Addington: "The Constitution binds all of us,
Congressman, the President, all the U.S. members of Congress, all of
the federal judges. We all take an oath to support and defend it. I
frankly don't know what you mean by the Unitary Theory of Government"

Addington's response does not address any Constitutional questions, but misdirects the question by asserting a requirement. That standard or requirement has no relationship with:

A. The President's actions;

B. The President's views of the law;

C. The President's policies, programs, and orders which violate the law or intent of Article I Section 8; or

D. The legal theory the President is using to put himself above the law

Addington defected attention from the illegal activity, did not address the questions about compliance with the Constitution, and merely asserted -- as if it were proof -- that the President and others took an oath to the Constitution. Addington's assertion is irrelevant, and unrelated to Conyers question.

Addington's comment about the oath is meaningless. An assertion of a legal requirement is unrelated to the question, not connected with a reasonable answer, and does not address:

A. Whether the law has or has not been followed (the law was violated);

B. Whether there is or isn't evidence of illegal activity (There is);

C. What legal memoranda or lawyer-related work product the President used to "justify" ignoring FISA, Geneva (They exist) ;

D. The President's  clearly promulgated legal obligations under the laws of war and Nuremberg precedents (These were illegally explained away).

Addington is appealing to confusion, creating a smokescreen, and has
not adequately discussed any information which might be expected of a
reasonable response to Chairman Conyers' question. Whether the Senate or House agree or disagree with the above conclusions in no way explains the House refusal to investigate these war crimes. The House can only credibly justify they made "the right decision" after they investigate this President's war crimes.