Attorney general nominee Michael Mukasey signaled Thursday he shares the administration’s expansive view of President Bush’s authority to withhold information from Congress, skirt federal statutes and authorize harsh interrogation techniques.

The retired federal judge’s statements, during the second day of his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, put him at odds with the Democrats who will decide whether Mukasey succeeds Alberto R. Gonzales as the head of the Justice Department.

“I think what is being fleshed out is that he has a much more heightened view of executive power,” said California Democrat Dianne Feinstein.

Mukasey faced sharp questions from panel Democrats. Feinstein pressed him about whether the president could violate the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA, PL 95-511), which many lawmakers say he did when he ordered the National Security Agency to conduct warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens. Mukasey echoed the administration’s legal argument that federal laws cannot trump the president’s constitutional authority to protect the country from an attack.

Russ Feingold, D-Wis., told Mukasey that “it sounds like, overnight, you’ve gone from being agnostic, as you and I have gone back and forth since our first meeting on this question, to holding what is a rather disturbing view.”

Richard J. Durbin, D-Ill., asked Mukasey whether some interrogation techniques the administration has reportedly used on terrorism suspects — which critics say amount to torture — violate the Geneva Conventions. Mukasey hedged, saying he did not know the Geneva articles or the techniques well enough.

That prompted Rhode Island Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse to describe the technique of simulated drowning known as waterboarding and then ask Mukasey whether it is unconstitutional.

“If it amounts to torture, it is not constitutional,” Mukasey said.

“I’m very disappointed in that answer,” Whitehouse shot back. “I think it is purely semantic.”