Following National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard's call for the prosecution of former President Barack Obama and members of his administration for allegedly orchestrating a conspiracy to undermine President Donald Trump's 2016 election win, both Democrats and Republicans, talking heads in the media, and social media keyboard jockeys continue to weigh in, in epic proportions.
While speaking to reporters outside the White House on Friday before leaving for Scotland, President Donald Trump was asked whether presidential immunity could help former President Barack Obama avoid potential prosecution for his alleged role in the alleged Russian collusion hoax, to which he replied:
It probably helps him a lot. Probably helps a lot. The immunity ruling, but it doesn't help the people around him at all. But it probably helps him a lot. He's done criminal acts, there’s no question about it. But he has immunity, and it probably helps him a lot... he owes me big, Obama owes me big.
But does it?
Would presidential immunity help Obama avoid prosecution for criminal acts, including treason and/or sedition? We'll get to my thoughts on the question in a bit.
First, according to Fox News earlier this week, the House Intelligence Committee found that the intelligence community had zero direct information that Russian President Vladimir Putin sought to help elect Trump during the 2016 presidential election campaign, but at the "unusual" direction of then-President Obama, published "potentially biased" or "implausible" intelligence suggesting otherwise.
Even worse for Obama, Gabbard's release of formerly classified information suggested that Obama was up to his smug eyeballs in the plot to hamstring Trump. Oops.
DIG DEEPER: Obama Betrayed America: Gabbard Document Dump Shows Ex-Prez Played Major Role in Russia Collusion Hoax
Trump Posts Brutal 'No One Is Above the Law' Video About Dems and Obama After Gabbard Bombshells
Gabbard told Newsmax on Thursday it's not difficult for her to determine that Obama and members of his administration engaged in a "treasonous conspiracy" to undermine Trump's first term.
While Gabbard chose — carefully, I believe — to reference "treason" as an adjective ("treasonous") to define an alleged conspiracy rather than a noun ("treason"), social media keyboard jockeys across America continue to charge, convict, and sentence Obama for the act of treason — one of only three crimes mentioned and defined in the U.S. Constitution. (Piracy and counterfeiting don't appear to be in play here.)
Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution defines treason, thusly (emphasis, mine):
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
While I'm not a constitutional lawyer, given the definitions and constitutional standards as highlighted above, it seems probable that Obama would be convicted of treason based on revelations that we've seen so far.
While I'd like nothing more than to see the ever-smug, always the smartest guy in the room (he thinks), Mr. Obama charged, convicted, and sentenced to federal prison for the commission of treason, for the rest of his life — I just don't see it as a slam dunk.
Would presidential immunity protect Obama if he were to be charged with treason?
In a July 2024 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court held that presidents (including former presidents) have immunity from criminal prosecution for their "official acts" while in office, but not for "unofficial acts." The decision in the case of Trump v. United States essentially shields former presidents from prosecution for actions taken within the scope of their official duties.
Only time — and/or additional information — will tell whether or not presidential immunity would come into play if Obama were charged with treason.
Here's a bit more information on the House Intelligence Committee report, via Fox:
The report, which was based on an investigation launched by former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., was dated Sept. 18, 2020. At the time of the publication of the report, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., was the chairman of the committee.
The committee focused on the creation of the Intelligence Community Assessment of 2017, in which then-CIA Director John Brennan pushed for the inclusion of the now-discredited anti-Trump dossier, despite knowing it was based largely on "internet rumor," as Fox News Digital previously reported.
According to the report, the ICA was a "high-profile product ordered by the President, directed by senior IC agency heads, and created by just five CIA analysts, using one principal drafter."
"Production of the ICA was subject to unusual directives from the President and senior political appointees, and particularly DCIA," the report states. "The draft was not properly coordinated within CIA or the IC, ensuring it would be published without significant challenges to its conclusions."
Those are serious charges; serious charges that an Obama spokesman scoffed at and ridiculed — by taking a cheap shot at Trump's White House:
Out of respect for the office of the presidency, our office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation flowing out of this White House with a response. But these claims are outrageous enough to merit one.
These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction. Nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes.
Blah, blah, blah, dude. Declassified documents and other materials suggest otherwise.
READ MORE: Obama Finally Responds to Russiagate Accusations With Lame Statement, Calls Them 'Bizarre’
While we still don't have the full truth of who in the Obama administration did what, when — though more damning information is likely to be revealed — there's one thing you can take to the bank with certainty:
The lapdogs of the quasi-official Democrat state media will gird their loins like they've never been girded, as they circle the wagons around Barack Hussein Obama, whom they will no doubt defend to the bitter end.
That is, whatever the bitter end might be.
