Obama produced EO that were unenforceable and deemed overreaching (i.e. not legal to enforce). Yet, he was seen as acting in good faith during the DAPA[1] dispu

Obama produced EO that were unenforceable and deemed overreaching (i.e. not legal to enforce). Yet, he was seen as acting in good faith during the DAPA[1] dispute, and no one in their right mind would propose that then President Obama should have been called out by his AG, and imprisioned for attempting tyrannical action. I think mostly its because Obama's acts were considered "compassionate" and right by some. Others with a more cynical view would say that issuing an EO that is entirely to the benefit of foreign nationals who are guilty of illegal acts against the United States is bordering on treason. [1] What was DAPA? It ensured that federal funding could be used to provide benefits such as healthcare and schooling to migrants who did not comply with immigration law.