H/T
Oratam
Article I, Section 9, Clause 3:
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
Commentary
Separate provisions of the Constitution ban enactment of ex post facto laws by the Federal Government and the states, respectively. The Supreme Court has cited cases interpreting the federal Ex Post Facto Clause in challenges under the state clause, and vice versa, implying that the two clauses have the same scope. The Court has construed both clauses to ban legislatures from enacting laws that impose criminal liability or increase criminal punishment retroactively. The constitutional prohibitions of ex post facto laws are closely related to the prohibitions of bills of attainder—legislative actions that determine guilt or impose criminal punishment on specific persons or groups without a judicial trial. In some cases, the Court has held that a single legislative action may violate both the ex post facto and bill of attainder prohibitions.
Would the actions of the Executive fall under this? Perhaps the Supreme Court will need to determine if they do.
Did the President order a criminal act weaponize the law to destroy a rival?
In so doing, did he forfeit his right to life by betraying the Oath of Office and the Republic