(VIDEO) “Obama Owes Me Big” – Trump Says SCOTUS Immunity Ruling Helps Russiagate Ringleader Barack Obama, “But it Doesn’t Help the People Around Him AT ALL” – “He’s Done Criminal Acts, There’s no Question About it”

Gateway Pundit ^ | July 25, 2025 | Jordan Conradson

[caddie]

Obama can get away with stuff so long as he's POTUS. But my take is he kept directing his various goons to keep up the sedition and treason AFTER Trump took office.

I hope 47 is just saying this nonsense to get Obungo to let his guard down.

Plus if there's any crime that should not have immunity attached to it it's treason/sedition.

I would also re-dig-up Obongo's fake birth certificate. People today are not going to merely turn a blind eye to it.

That was then, this is now..

Obama's acts as pseudo-POTUS are all potentially illegitimate. He's a walking auto-pen like 46.

[CodeToad]

I am bored with Trump’s amping people up to be angry about something to gain support but then drops the issue and moves on to the next issue to amp people up.

[SunkenCiv]

• DNI Tulsi Gabbard Torches Media for Spreading Obama's Russia Hoax -- Says Press Complicit in "Historic Lie" to Sabotage Trump: 'They Printed What the Deep State Told Them to Print' [07/25/2025]
  • Flashback: 7 Media Mouthpieces Who Repeated The Lie That Russia 'Hacked' The 2016 Election [07/25/2025]
• 'The View' Goes on Hiatus After White House Calls for It to Be Canceled [07/25/2025]
  • The View Goes on Hiatus After Joy Behar Anti-Trump Rant [07/25/2025]
• EXCLUSIVE: 'This Should NOT Be Included' -- Read Intel Officials' Objections To 'Extremely Sketchy' Steele Dossier [07/25/2025]
  • X: Trump Calls out Bill Clinton for Going to Epstein Island "28 Times" [07/25/2025]
• Why Speaker Johnson and Sen. Thune are calling the House and Senate into session every 4 days during August recess [07/25/2025]
  • Speaker Johnson: Epstein files 'Not a hoax' [07/25/2025]
• Biden memoir sells in $10M range [07/25/2025]

[bigbob]

If Obama has immunity then he can’t take the 5th right? Because he can’t incriminate himself

And if the big fish has immunity, there’s no reason to give it to any of the little fish.

[milagro]

Prosecuting Obama would make Trump a hero in the eyes of his voters but would also make Obama a “martyr” in the eyes of an also large—and maybe even larger—number of other voters.
I think the last thing we—and Trump—need is to turn Obama’s grift into a GIFT!

[Cold Heart]

How to play Good Cop, Bad Cop:)

[Political Junkie Too]

Obama telling subordinates to prepare an intelligence report is squarely within it. Feel free to believe otherwise, though.

What about Obama telling subordinates, after Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton, to change an already prepared intelligence report to say the opposite of what had been written, and then NOT sharing that altered intelligence report with the President-Elect?

-PJ

[nathanbedford]

Obama telling subordinates to prepare an intelligence report is squarely within it.

On its face, true. This would probably be held to fall within the official acts of a president, but if a whistleblower comes forth or, better yet, a co-conspirator flips and implicates Obama in a conspiracy of which telling subordinates to prepare an intelligence report is but a part, it might well be held to be otherwise.

Trump is not stupid, not uninformed of the law, as some on this thread assert, he is making a political judgment that Barack Obama would be likely held to be immune and even if charged he no doubt would be acquitted by a blue state jury.

In sum, Trump concludes that charging Obama would only motivate Democrats to defend their champion. But they would be less defensive about letting his Confederate subordinates fall. Concerning Obama however, the Democrat party knows it would be difficult to recover from a felony conviction of their black champion, so they will fight hard to protect him-and themselves. They saw what happened to the Republicans post Watergate.

Trump knows that indicting Obama would cost Republicans much of the black vote.

Finally, Trump just might be ensuring a tranquil post election life for himself.

[central_va]

Trump is getting bad advice. Him saying that Obama has immunity puts sedition as an official act. THIS IS DANGEROUS TO THE REPUBLIC

[central_va]

You’re an ass.

[central_va]

So doing the right thing has no value?

[central_va]

Your post would make sense to a raving lunatic.

[central_va]

Bingo Dave, bingo.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

On its face, true. This would probably be held to fall within the official acts of a president, but if a whistleblower comes forth or, better yet, a co-conspirator flips and implicates Obama in a conspiracy of which telling subordinates to prepare an intelligence report is but a part, it might well be held to be otherwise.

The Supreme Court was very clear to point out that the concept of Presidential Immunity that going into the President's intents and motives is improperly at the immunity stage. That requires evidentiary hearings, etc., all of which undermine the purpose of having immunity in the first place.

So, "at face value" is as far as you go. It's the bare nature of the act itself, not the motive or intent behind it.

Remember the allegations in the Georgia case against Trump. There, the Democrats argued that Trump's communications with Georgia election personnel were an improper attempt to suborne false testimony to undermine the election. Trump's argument was that he was attempting to determine if election fraud had been committed in Georgia.

But the point for the immunity analysis is that which of those two was correct did not matter. What mattered was only the face value nature of the act itself - the President calling a state official regarding alleged election malfeasance in a national election. And that, in all likelihood, would have fallen within the definition of an "official act".

Way too many freepers in all these threads are confusing the immunity analysis with whether or not Obama committed a crime. If he committed a crime, then he can't be immune.

But that logic ignores why we have immunity in the first place. Because if the determination of whether or not the president gets immunity is based on whether or not he committed a crime, then why have immunity at all? It would be swallowed up in the ultimate question of whether the President is guilty or innocent of the underlying crime.

Immunity is something that kicks in at the pleading stage, not after massive fact-finding and discovery-type issues regarding issues of intent, or conspiracies, or plans.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

Your post would make sense to a raving lunatic.

Perhaps, if that particular raving lunatic actually understood the law, and had moment of lucidity.

But it won't make sense to people who have no understanding of the law and just make up whatever crap makes them feel better.

[central_va]

There is no law or ruling that makes conspiracy to commit sedition an official duty of the POTUS. I don’t think you are morally capable of understanding that.

[central_va]

If a president can do no wrong then SCOTUS would have not specifically said “official act”.. Again sedition is not an official act.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

If a president can do no wrong....

Nobody has said that.

I was going to try to explain Trump v. U.S. more thoroughly, but honestly, I give up. Feel free to believe whatever you wish about the decision and what it said about Presidential immunity.

I've come to the conclusion that the people with whom I have been discussing it very likely have not read the actual decision itself. So, there's no point in even trying to discuss it.

[JohnnyP]

Obama told the IC to scrap the intelligence report and create a FALSE one, to frame the incoming president.

Violating his oath of office.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

Obama told the IC to scrap the intelligence report and create a FALSE one, to frame the incoming president. Violating his oath of office.

Is there any criminal act that you would consider still to be an "official act" that would be covered by presidential immunity as described in Trump v. United States? Or does the fact that it is a criminal act mean that it is not covered by immunity?