When the regime in Iraq failed, I wonder how many people went after judges and prosecutors to settle scores. These people use decorum to present themselves as righteous arbiters of justice and civility, but often are nothing more than political hacks destroying countless lives.

> I don't understand what you're getting at. She was given discretion and she misused it.

Discretion means that you're permitted to make whatever decision you think is best. Misusing discretion is an oxymoron.

> Misusing discretion is an oxymoron.

IANAL (are you?) but "abuse of discretion" seems to be a thing

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/abuse_of_discretion

https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-5-government-organization... (2-A)

But showing someone has poor discretion is the point.

As an example, defending someone that had such generally agreed poor discretion is not, generally, showing good discretion either.

You're conflating the colloquial use of the word "discretion" with the legal term.

Nothing about either use makes her decisions immune to criticism.

She is a lawyer, not an official in the medieval church.

I don't really follow. The claim wasn't that she did something she wasn't allowed to do, by law. The claim is that she crossed moral lines by choosing to do so. Or am I missing some context here?

Or do you have a different meaning on what discretion means? Legally and otherwise.

That's disingenuous, "Discretion" is also defined as "the quality of making good judgements" and "the ability to make responsible decisions" and "the ability to make intelligent decisions". I don't think Carmen exhibited any of those qualities of discretion.

I think a better word for Carmen is unethical bully.

That's fair, imo still a technicality. A better phrasing would be "she was given discretion which she used for her own personal gain."

Sorry, are you arguing that the mere fact that something you do isn’t illegal means you can’t be criticized for it?

Would it follow that you can’t criticize Joe Biden for any of his decisions as long as they aren’t actually illegal? I seriously can’t make sense of your position. What’s under dispute is not whether the act was legal but whether it was a horrible idea.