Peter Navarro Breaks Down How Obama Could Land In Prison
https://trendingpoliticsnews.com/new-peter-navarro-breaks-down-how-obama-could-land-in-prison-cmc/
___________________________________________
From the Supreme Court decision:
“Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.”
Peter Navarro concluded that “Obama was indeed named in a Justice Department referral over the case, though he may indeed be immune due to last year’s Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity for official acts carried out while in office.”
I’ve been noodling this in my mind for a few months now and can’t get past a couple of obstacles to Navarro’s idea. What part of a President’s official acts include spying on a rival candidate, spying on a President-Elect, spying on a President’s staff, creating false accusations against incoming officials, and undermining an incoming President’s administration/agenda? I’m unable to understand how anything Obama did to help Hillary win and hurt Candidate and then President Trump falls under the “officials acts” umbrella and be protected by the USSC’s immunity decision.
Also his (0’s) unofficial actions against PDJT —after— he (PDJT) became president .
IMHO those are not covered by presidential immunity.
In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled Q ~ Trust Trump's Plan ~ 08/01/2025 Vol.510, Q Day 2835, LittleLinda wrote: Peter Navarro Breaks Down How Obama Could Land In Prison
https://trendingpoliticsnews.com/new-peter-navarro-breaks-down-how-obama-could-land-in-prison-cmc/
___________________________________________From the Supreme Court decision:
“Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.”
Peter Navarro concluded that “Obama was indeed named in a Justice Department referral over the case, though he may indeed be immune due to last year’s Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity for official acts carried out while in office.”
I’ve been noodling this in my mind for a few months now and can’t get past a couple of obstacles to Navarro’s idea. What part of a President’s official acts include spying on a rival candidate, spying on a President-Elect, spying on a President’s staff, creating false accusations against incoming officials, and undermining an incoming President’s administration/agenda? I’m unable to understand how anything Obama did to help Hillary win and hurt Candidate and then President Trump falls under the “officials acts” umbrella and be protected by the USSC’s immunity decision.
I had the same problem with something similar said by John Solomon. He ruefully pointed out Trump's push for immunity will now protect Obama.
Maybe what they are saying is that Obama was a sitting president directing people he was legally entitled to direct (FBI, CIA etc.) regardless of whether he was directing them in criminal actions or not. If so, that's absurdly stupid!
But Obama was still working to destroy Trump when Obama was an ex president, not legally entitled to direct others. He's doing that kind of thing to this day. So, lock him up!