also, the order to have the rival killed is itself an official act (directing the military, commander in chief power) so you can't introduce evidence of that even if you could somehow find a way to prosecute the assassination
how do you rebut presumption of immunity? nobody knows. but you can't consider the president's motive in rebutting it or the fact that murder is against the law. doesn't matter if president says to his advisors "I would like to kill rival because I hate them." inadmissible
But that's only true for the (disallowed) prosecution of the president, right? As far as I can see, Trump v US disallows using evidence of official acts to prove a criminal unofficial act. It does not say that the same evidence can't be used to prosecute people down the line. (Another can of worms.)
In the NYT, Kate Shaw points out that a president can now give an illegal order and pardon his subordinates. But my Q is not quite moot, esp. in the military. Soldiers have to follow legal orders, but I don’t think a promised pardon can make them (or in theory allow them to) follow an illegal order.
I think it's murky but your point is valid. I also think that when it happens and gets to SCOTUS (which it will if Trump wins) they will make it clear that in order for a president to do president stuff the subordinates can't fear prosecution from following his orders.
It’s definitely murky. Seems to me that anyone who wants to follow the orders will escape prosecution by one means or another. What I don’t know is whether an unwilling soldier can be compelled to follow an otherwise illegal presidential order.
I'm convinced that the Founders were smarter than anyone currently on the bench. I always assumed that studying the Constitution gave everyone a sense of humility and history. Appears not.
