This week, investigative journalist John Solomon told Steve Bannon that former President Barack Obama is unlikely to face legal consequences for his alleged role in the Russia collusion hoax. According to Solomon, the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Trump v. United States effectively shields Obama under presidential immunity. “President Trump’s immunity victory… is gonna protect Barack Obama,” he remarked, suggesting the decision created a precedent that insulates former presidents from prosecution. But this interpretation doesn’t align with what the Court actually ruled.
- Supreme Court Ruling Does Not Grant Blanket Immunity: The 2024 Trump v. United States ruling clarified that while presidents have immunity for official acts, they can still be prosecuted for unofficial, political, or personal misconduct. This undercuts claims that Barack Obama is immune from indictment for actions related to the Russiagate affair.
- Obama’s Alleged Role Was Political, Not Presidential: Investigative findings, including declassified documents from DNI Tulsi Gabbard, suggest Obama directed a political smear campaign against Donald Trump, involving intelligence officials like James Clapper and John Brennan. Such conduct falls outside protected presidential duties.
- Possible Criminal Statutes Apply: If Obama engaged in activities such as lying to federal investigators, orchestrating fraudulent intelligence, or participating in a political cover-up, he could potentially face charges under statutes like 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (false statements), § 1343 (wire fraud), and § 2384 (seditious conspiracy).
- Indictment Is Legally Possible, but Politically Unlikely: Although legal pathways for prosecuting Obama exist, journalist John Solomon argues that the political system is unlikely to hold him accountable. Still, the constitutional framework allows for prosecution if compelling evidence shows he acted outside his official role.
Obama likely to face trial and do prison time, despite his arrogance and assumed “untouchable-ness”
Contrary to some public perception, the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States did not grant blanket immunity for all presidential actions. The ruling specifically drew a legal boundary between official presidential acts—those tied directly to the duties of the presidency—and unofficial acts, which include personal, political, or illegal actions taken outside the scope of constitutional responsibility. As the ruling made clear: “The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts… The President is not above the law.”
This distinction is critical. If a president engages in unlawful activity unrelated to official duties—such as lying to investigators, committing fraud, or manipulating intelligence—he can still be prosecuted like any other citizen. Several criminal statutes remain applicable regardless of one’s former office:
- 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (false statements to federal officials),
- 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud),
- 18 U.S.C. § 2 and § 3 (aiding and abetting, accessory after the fact),
- and even 18 U.S.C. § 2384 (seditious conspiracy), if applicable.
Recent revelations from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard have only fueled calls for legal accountability. Documents declassified by Gabbard reveal that Obama’s top intelligence officials—James Clapper and John Brennan—may have coordinated a media campaign designed to frame Donald Trump with unsubstantiated claims of Russian interference.
These efforts reportedly began during a December 2016 meeting attended by senior national security officials under Obama’s direction. According to pre-election intelligence, there was no conclusive evidence of Russian collusion, yet leaks to the media continued, casting suspicion and undermining the incoming administration.
Gabbard’s findings suggest that what unfolded was not just political maneuvering, but a deliberate misuse of intelligence agencies to serve partisan ends. “The evidence... directly point[s] to President Obama leading the manufacturing of this intelligence assessment,” Gabbard stated. If Obama indeed orchestrated or authorized these actions for political purposes, that would fall outside the boundaries of presidential immunity.
Therefore, while Solomon is correct in saying Obama won’t be indicted—given the entrenched power structures and political hesitance to prosecute former presidents—he is wrong to claim Obama can’t be indicted. The legal pathway exists. Whether the justice system has the courage to pursue it is another matter.
For many, the possibility of holding Obama accountable remains alive. The Supreme Court has not placed him above the law. Now it’s up to the institutions of justice—and public pressure—to ensure the law applies to everyone equally, including former presidents. Tune your apocalypse dial to preparedness.news for updates on real news about surviving the Democrat wasteland and treasonous players like Obama that want to wreck America forever.
Sources for this article include:
Please contact us for more information.