ace....the difference between us is clear.
As you have stated in the past, you think its ok to give the President the benefit of the doubt (and his actions are the "right thing to do" - as you stated above), in the name of national security, when he:
* allegedly violates the FISA law as he did for 2+ years by authorizing wiretaps without a warrant and demands immunity for telecomms for their illegal actions during that same period.
* issues a signing statement on the Patriot Act that unilaterally overturns the intent of Congress regarding several provisions of the law, including the FBI's use of national security letters
* unilaterally interprets US obligations under the Geneva Conventions, without consulting Congress or the Judiciary
* allegedly violates the Presidential Records Act by destroying 5,000+ e-mails during the time when the WH was discussion the outing of a CIA operative and the use of intel to justify the invasion of Iraq
*uses the executive privilege argument to withhold information from Congress resulting from conversations between two EOB aides, when in the past executive privilege has been limited to information/conversations between the President and an aide.
I'm not aware that FDR committed similar acts, without at least consulting Congress (your straw man argument)
And I still value the separation of powers and checks and balances.
My question to you:
Would you give Hillary the same benefit of doubt if/when she is President?