Does this mean that the Executive is liable for not freezing aid to nations engaged in genocide, if they have power to freeze foreign aid?

How did they obstruct the Leahy Law investigation that should have prevented further funding for genocide?

Does this judgement affect the president's international liability per the Laws of War and IHL International Human Rights Law?

Before such ruling, a president could have argued that Congress is also or instead liable for war crimes.

Does such autocratic control - here granted by a court - enable effective prosecution for war crimes?

	▲	stopbulying 10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Did the executive intentionally request that the court would find them accountable (for genocide, for example) by erring in granting autocratic, singular authority (when it is clear in the Constitution that the President and Congress should work together on the budget and war declarations, and it is very clear that there should be Separation of Powers)?