In fairness, “If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person, and he orders the military or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?” applies to drone strikes of foreign nationals too. Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden all fall under that category. While we should be scrutinizing all of our leaders, I feel the argument will be made that it would make all of our presidents open to “frivolous”(their word, not mine) lawsuits for their actions in office.
And it damn well should. But instead it will be “well this is how a US president functions 🤷♂️”
In fairness, “If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person, and he orders the military or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?” applies to drone strikes of foreign nationals too. Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden all fall under that category. While we should be scrutinizing all of our leaders, I feel the argument will be made that it would make all of our presidents open to “frivolous”(their word, not mine) lawsuits for their actions in office.
And it damn well should. But instead it will be “well this is how a US president functions 🤷♂️”
In the military, you are obligated to not follow unlawful orders. Does that go all the way to the CIC?
The argument is being made that at a certain level, the orders automatically becomes legal. Trump is arguing that the president has supreme authority.