Supreme Court (finally) takes up Presidential Immunity

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-29-2024, 11:06 AM)Dill Wrote: In the more normal, pre Trump era, it would have been difficult to call the Al-Awaki killing a "murder," since he declared himself an enemy of the US and was actively abetting the killing of Americans in the US. And the president is sworn to protect the US from such enemies. That's a very different act from trying to coerce the head of a foreign country to investigate a rival presidential candidate. Tying a president's hands with a murder charge in such a case would open a bigger can of worms, limiting a potential defense of the US.
 
I think there should have been Congressional hearings on the matter, which resulted in legislative checks creating more transparency and accountability in the targeting process. 

But so unstable, unpredictable and politicized is the system now that it is not impossible that GOP controlled House/Senate could re-open a case like that and charge Obama, or Clinton, because "Dems did it to Trump."  The legal guardrails are falling away as millions of Americans are fine with setting aside evidence of Trump's criminality because they are so worried Biden has "weaponized" the DOJ by upholding rule of law.

It really doesn't matter if he declared himself an enemy of the state or not. He was a USC and the POTUS ordered the death of a USC with out due process. I'm not a fan of the precedent it set. Should have been captured and tried in the US.