I feel like I'm getting first hand experience of ambiguity being used to promote an idea I didn't mean, which makes me more sure that you're misconstruing his meaning.
His statements in question had no nefarious intent as far as I can tell. He wasn't calling any previous President a 'dictator' as you seem to suggest, nor is he being a hypocrite as you're suggesting.
Sure, there are *some* things that a President can get done by himself, without getting congressional approval before hand, but those powers of the President are *limited*. To affect major change in our democracy requires that the Congress present a President with bills to sign. That's all he meant. Period. Full stop.
But go ahead and read whatever you want into his sentences, because clearly nothing I'm likely to say is going to make any difference on how *you* choose to interpret those few sentences.
I've tried hard to explain my position. All politicians misrepresent the facts at times. They're all hypocrites to some degree or another. In *this particular* case however, none of that happened as far as I can tell. All that's happening is you seem to be taking the worst possible 'spin' a two or three sentences, and from my vantage point at least, you didn't correctly understand what he was trying to convey. That's all that's going on here IMO.