No. of Recommendations: 3
The scenario of concern is the President internally decides to assassinate X but engages in actions which appear to direct action Y. The President may even announce action Y in an Oval Office address to the American public, one of his unique Constitutional powers of communication, thus establishing a presumption that X merited action Y and Y did not involve killing X. However, the President also has a direct conversation with the head of a department (DOJ or DOD) instructing that action Y get "rough" and skip any normal protections that might better ensure a safe capture of X. "I NEVER SAID KILL ANYONE. JUST DON'T WORRY ABOUT PROTECTING THEIR HEAD WHEN YOU SHOVE THEM INTO THE SQUAD CAR." (That's nearly a direct quuote from Trump campaigning in 2016 by the way...).
If party X winds up dead from action Y, the President's preparation for the Oval Office address and his communications with department heads are now subject to this new evidentiary rule that prevents information about those communications from being used in any criminal prosecution of the President because they would require inferring INTENT from conversations the President had engaged in or preparing for duties unique to his Constitutional powers (speaking to the public, directing cabinet / department officials regarding duties).
So as Albaby Tells us, follow the process. For the DOJ or DOD there is a process whereby a judge reviews the warrant and evidence and approves it. This process can be reviewed by others, there is a process for that. But the presumption is going to be the evidence isn't false for the issuance. Later, whether the evidence was false is a good question for the review. (Remember FISA?)
So then you interview those that made the arrest. Were they told to not be nice and rough the fellow up? If you tell 8 people one of them will squeal, then hopefully, dominoes. But most likely no officer will tell them that, so there isn't anything to follow up on. But Epstein didn't commit suicide will go on forever. :)
