Previous post
We used to hear it all the time: America doesn’t have the stomach to indict a former president. That was the polite excuse for letting things slide. Well, that excuse is gone. We’ve done it. Questions about Obama’s presidential immunity are now on the table, and Donald Trump’s name is in the history books as the first former U.S. president to be hit with criminal charges. Multiple times. Which means Obama might not be sleeping quite as soundly these days.
So, now that we’ve proven we can go there, let’s ask the question nobody in D.C. wants to touch: If Trump can be indicted, why can’t Barack Obama? Especially if new questions about his role in Russiagate keep bubbling up.
But, but, but Presidential Immunity, Carol. Yes, I know. We all know. All the hoaxing that occurred happened while Obama was still President. So, why are we even bringing any of this up now?
Some in the legal crowd say presidential immunity only protects what you do while you’re president. Once you leave the White House, that shield comes off. Mike Davis, who’s clerked for a Supreme Court justice, puts it simply: it covers your official acts, not anything shady you do later.
That’s where things get messy.
Quick backstory: Russiagate didn’t just drop out of the sky. It started during the Obama years and rolled right into Trump’s presidency. Intelligence bosses under Obama — Clapper, Brennan, Comey — crammed the Steele dossier into an official intel report even though it was a political hit job. Then the FBI leaked and spun it to cripple Trump before he even took office.
So here’s the real question: if Obama helped push that story or kept it alive after he left, is that still covered by immunity? Or is that exactly the sort of thing immunity doesn’t protect? Claim immunity, plead the fifth, lie under oath — whatever. At this point, it’s all a blur of legal talk and I’m not pretending to follow every twist. Ask ten legal experts and you’ll get ten different answers, which means this fight isn’t about to cool down.
Newly declassified Top Secret emails sent on December 22, 2016 complying with President Obama’s order to create the manufactured January 2017 ICA about Russia expose how DNI James Clapper demanded the IC fall in line behind the Russia Hoax. Clapper admits that it was a “team… pic.twitter.com/fVHq9E1no7
— DNI Tulsi Gabbard (@DNIGabbard) August 13, 2025
Since leaving office, Obama has been accused of helping keep the Russiagate story alive, even directing or influencing intelligence reports after Trump was sworn in. New evidence and a criminal referral from DNI Tulsi Gabbard claim he worked behind the scenes with former intel chiefs to push a false narrative. If that happened after January 20, 2017, it’s outside his official duties as president, meaning immunity likely wouldn’t protect him.
Yes, the cases (Trump) are different. But if Tulsi’s right, Obama kept his hands in it after leaving office, and that’s where immunity runs out.
The thought of indicting a former Democrat president makes the D.C. elite break out in a cold sweat. They mumble about the statute of limitations. They say it is bad for the country. But that is politics talking, not the law.
Trump’s indictments proved that post-presidency actions are fair game. If that is true, then Obama’s role in Russiagate after leaving office should be on the table.
If we can drag one former president into court, why not another? The answer should not depend on your party. It should depend on the facts.
I know, it’s Hannity, but it’s the best clip I could find that actually fits the topic—just skip to the 1:45 mark.
Trey says if we can’t nail Obama legally, we can at least shame him. That was two weeks ago. Now Tulsi’s got the receipts.
The media didn’t want you to forget that Trump was indicted. They couldn’t stop talking about it. They replayed every perp-walk angle, every courtroom sketch, and acted like it was the Super Bowl.
But now that talk of indicting one of their own is on the table? Suddenly, it’s all about healing the country and moving on.
That old “America doesn’t have the appetite” excuse is gone. We have proved that we will put a former president on trial if we believe the crime is significant enough. Trump’s wasn’t. It was a fishing expedition by the Democrats. Which leaves one question. Do we actually believe in equal justice, or does it all come down to party politics?
Because if justice is really the point, Obama is not off-limits.
This is not about reliving 2016. It is about whether no one is above the law actually means what it says. Trump’s indictments blew that old excuse to pieces. The door is open now, and so is the debate over Obama’s presidential immunity.
So here is the thought that should make a few people in Washington nervous. Does Barack Obama still get a free pass, or has presidential immunity quietly expired for everyone?
My prediction is that we won’t see one single person from the Obama administration standing for a mugshot or doing a perp walk.
Feature Photo Credit: Obama graphic photo via Pixabay, propped and modified
Tim says: Forget it, it’s Chinatown.
Jack says: None of this is going to be prosecuted. They are untouchable. i.e. Democrats
Jack
Rick554 says: I have 5 bucks that says Obama gets indicted, loses his security clearance and jumps on a plane at midnight to parts unknown. And I’ll be happy
The Russiagate hoax was late 2016, early 2017, which was 8½ years ago. Any attempts at prosecution now are going to run afoul of statutes of limitations. Had President Trump gone after this during his first term, perhaps something could have been done, but not now.
4 Comments