XPost: alt.politics.republicans, talk.politics.guns, sac.politics
XPost: alt.sodomites.barack-obama
This week, investigative journalist John Solomon told Steve Bannon
that despite all the evidence that has been declassified linking
Barack Obama to the Russiagate hoax, Obama won’t and can't be
indicted for his role in the Russian collusion hoax.
“Anyone who thinks Barack Obama’s going to be indicted: It’s not
going to happen,” Solomon admitted. “President Trump’s immunity
victory last year in the Supreme Court’s gonna protect Barack
Obama. Barack Obama should send a thank-you card to Donald Trump.”
But is Solomon right?
The case Solomon is referring to, Trump v. United States (2024),
was, of course, extremely consequential, but also widely
misunderstood. Democrats branded the ruling as the Supreme Court
granting “blanket immunity” for presidents, but that’s not what it
does at all. While the Court recognized a degree of immunity for
official acts of the presidency, it drew a sharp line between what
a president does in his constitutional role and what he does as a
private individual or political actor.
From the ruling itself:
It is these enduring principles that guide our decision in this
case. The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and
not everything the President does is official. The President is not
above the law.
With that in mind, the ruling does not give presidents the power to
break the law with impunity. If a president lies to federal
investigators, commits fraud, or abuses power outside the scope of
his official duties, he can still face prosecution.
The Court explicitly left the door open for criminal charges—even
against sitting or former presidents—if the conduct in question was
personal, political, or unrelated to the legitimate functions of
the presidency. And, let’s be honest: What Barack Obama did during
the Russian collusion hoax wasn’t just political—it was a
calculated abuse of power far outside the bounds of his official
role.
If a president lies to federal investigators, forges documents, or
uses the office for personal or political revenge, those are not
protected actions. He can be charged under the same criminal
statutes as anyone else. For example, 18 U.S.C. § 1001 makes it a
crime to lie to federal officials. Wire fraud, under 18 U.S.C. §
1343, covers schemes involving deceit through electronic
communication. Other statutes—like aiding and abetting (18 U.S.C. §
2), being an accessory after the fact (18 U.S.C. § 3), or even
seditious conspiracy (18 U.S.C.§ 2384)—can all apply if the
president helps orchestrate or cover up unlawful acts.
That brings us to the documents released by Director of National
Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, which suggest Barack Obama may have
done exactly that. The material is nothing short of explosive. It
confirms that Obama’s inner circle—including James Clapper and John
Brennan, under Obama’s direction—engineered a political smear
campaign disguised as an intelligence assessment. According to the
files, a high-level meeting in December 2016, led by Obama’s top
national security officials, launched the coordinated leaks to the
media about so-called Russian election interference—even though pre-
election intelligence assessments found no such evidence.
“The evidence that we have found and that we have released directly
point to President Obama leading the manufacturing of this
intelligence assessment,” Gabbard stated.
So obviously, the evidence suggests Obama is not innocent. The only
real question now is whether he’ll ever be held accountable—or if
the system will once again protect one of its own. That’s an
entirely different question.
https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2025/07/25/actually-obama-can-be- indicted-heres-why-n4942091
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)