If you design a health care law without anywhere near adequate regulation and oversight, then morally, if not legally, yes.  How a law is implemented (the regulatory and oversight framework) is to a significant degree, the actual law.

In any case, the analogy is inapt.  This was not passing a law(s), but indeed establishing the regulatory and oversight framework for their unconventional and innovative implementation.  A health care law empowers a class of vendors, not specific ones.  Here specific vendors were selected to implement a controversial interpretation of existing law.  One can reasonably take their selection as a reflection of both the stated and unstated goals of the program.

I dunno.  My short term memory of the DC quote you provide in his defense seemed sincerity challenged when I watched it - I'll go back and see what I think now.

But in support of my original interpretation is the end of the interview where he says that  no prosecutions should occur because no crime had been committed.  Horrifying chaos and amateurism are at best minimally mitigating if the program was legally constructed with the care he describes.  For the legal care to be operative as mitigation, evidence of an operational care must be evident.  The care with which he reports the program was legally  constructed indicates he thought criminal acts were a possible outcome of the activity they were designing.

Since the program was designed to go right up to the line of criminality, if the line is crossed there is,  at least, criminal negligence in its execution.  Perhaps one could assert that "chaos" justified a pardon of unlawful acts, but not that unlawful acts had not occurred.

At the time of listening to the interview I took his assertion  that great legal care had been taken in the program's construction to mean it was a feature of the program operationally, to design it so it in fact would cross the lines it established without consequence to the program's designers and operatives.

While unprovable at this point, I think it is implicit in much of the critics arguments.