The difference between allowing US Presidents to kill others and their authorization of an assassination is vast. The world in which we live requires extreme action to protect citizens of democratic societies, and that includes the elimination of key targets. There should be limits (killing reports should be acceptable) but the line gets fuzzy, fast.
I don't think any reasonable person thinks that a President should be able to kill another person. Of course this is against the law and morally wrong. Regardless of how high of a position someone holds, no one should ever feel like they are above the law, especially when it comes to murder.
This is question is not debatable. Even the President of the United States of America is not above the law. Many have thought they were, and we do have two candidates who think they are, but the truth remains that the Clinton "murder count" is just a way of connecting anything to Hillary Clinton, much like the seven degrees of Kevin Bacon game, if you know enough people, you're bound to find some connections.
Presidents have one of the most important jobs in the world. This is a reason for them to not be able to kill people to set a moral example for everyone else. There are a few instances where anybody should be able to kill somebody but not to get ahead, not because you dont like the person, or because they will win the next race. There should be guidelines of when you would be able to kill a person. Rape, murder of a loved one. Very heinous crimes should be punishable by death, executed by the person most directly affected only!