Thank you for the citation (citations are not limited to documents, but often and especially in a large document of hundreds of pages, direct one to specific passages, as you did did here).

Your citation is exactly the bit that makes the President immune for directing Seal Team 6 to execute a political rival -- directing the military is within the President's "conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority". According to the Supreme Court, such a direction is now "absolute immunity from criminal prosecution".

Again, removing elected officials by any other process other than the what the Constitution provides for is not within the Presidents' power.

This is clearly an unlawful act that all military members are obligated not to obey.

But the President can declare a person an enemy combstant, or have them arrested in the name of national security, and their private records are now inadmissible.

> Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial. Pp. 30-32.

> But the President can declare a person an enemy combstant,

"Citation needed"

Read the judgement and stop making assumptions.

I did, cite the relevant part that I missed then.

Trump's influencers work around that in a different way: by singling out individuals for military tribunals[1], he is not using the pardon power to deprive them of due process, or excuse someone else from doing so. The military tribunal deprives them of due process. But trying a civilian in a military tribunal is only constitutional if a civilian court is unavailable, which happens out of convenience in places like Guantanemo Bay.

[1] nytimes, https://archive.ph/fz52u

Influencers are not official agents of Trump as a President... You're making a non-sequiture