(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

[nathanbedford]

Again, you make a very good point about which I agree. But if I had better expressed my point, the matter becomes murkier.

If instead of the act alleged to be criminal was ordering the investigation, it is alleged that Obama instructed his subordinates to leak to the press within hours the content of a false report that he was ordering to be made, has he committed an official act?

It can be argued both ways when a president leaks to the press whether he is committing an official act. But does not his motive in doing so weigh in deciding whether it is truly official?

Presumably a president, as commander-in-chief, can leak to the press to maintain national morale in time of emergency and that, even a lie, would be considered an official act.

But if the act itself is empty of intrinsic association with the office of the president, cannot motive determine?

So the leaking to the press of a lie is not an official act if there is no official purpose connected to the leak because leaking is not inherently an official act. While ordering up a security analysis, on the other hand, is. Ordering a drone strike in a foreign country on an American citizen under color of fighting terrorism, is an official act that bars further inquiry because killing alleged terrorists is definitionally part of official duties.

Leaking, on the other hand, is not. Indeed, leaking in furtherance of a seditious conspiracy without acting in color of official duties is perhaps not. If we broaden the definition of official duties to cover leaking of any sort, have we not so broadened the scope of "official act" to indue every executive leak with immunity?

So the act of criminal sedition complained of is not the ordering of an investigation, but leaking a bogus report. Worse, testimony might show that the president ordered a bogus report leaked before it even existed.

At this point one would anticipate Obama's defense that he was warning the public that a new president posed a national risk because he was liable to Russian blackmail. In doing this, he would contend, his leaking was an official act.

I see a presidential inquiry of a state official about election integrity properly barred by its subject matter from further inquiry because such communications are typically among the official acts of a president. Is it an official act of the president of the United States to order the creation of a bogus intelligence assessment and further order its leaking before the bogus report had even been compiled?

If leaking always and everywhere is defined as an official act, at that point we have blanket immunity and the entire tripartite analysis of the court is meaningless. Perhaps a better test would be leaking which is not necessary because transparent publication would serve the purpose, is not an official act. Interestingly, the crime is a criminal syndicate to commit sedition and several acts in furtherance of that conspiracy, such as leaking, may or may not be otherwise considered official acts.

On the one hand we want a test that frees presidents of personal concerns for criminal liability for actions taken but one that is not a handy shield behind which to commit crimes.

As I said in my initial note, the answer is not clear so conclusions were cast in conditional language and should be considered in the context of the political motivations behind Trump's observation that Obama is immune.

[eeriegeno]

Excellent summation of today's America....

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

But if the act itself is empty of intrinsic association with the office of the president, cannot motive determine?

If there was a subsequent criminal case, sure. But the Supreme Court was very blunt on intent when it comes to whether or not immunity applies:

In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such an inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose, thereby intruding on the Article II interests that immunity seeks to protect. Indeed, “[i]t would seriously cripple the proper and effective administration of public affairs as entrusted to the executive branch of the government” if “[i]n exercising the functions of his office,” the President was “under an apprehension that the motives that control his official conduct may, at any time, become the subject of inquiry.”

Trump v. United States, No. 23-939 at P. 18 (2024).

That's pretty clear, isn't it?

In any case -- and I'm sure people are going to go off on me for this -- I think what Obama told his subordinates isn't quite as black and white as "I want you to create something that I know to be false." It's being spun that way, but nothing I've seen actually supports that he made a statement like that.

What this seems to come down to is that intelligence findings that should have been presented as uncertain and lacking support was presented without those qualifiers, and that dissenting opinions were omitted. And as sleazy and reprehensible as that was, I'm doubtful it will arise to the level of criminal intent against anyone, much less be sufficient to overcome presidential immunity under Trump v. United States.

Attaching a label such as treason or sedition to leaking an unreliable intelligence report doesn't change what the case is really about.

I know I'll get blasted for that, but I also am pretty damn sure that at the end, there won't be a single conviction coming out of that, and a better than 50-50 chance that none of it event gets to trial.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

‘Crimes are not core constitutional powers.’ Everyone not a democrat

Ah, just saw this. Okay, I'm trying to say this politely without being an a-hole, and asking you to just try for a second to keep an open mind about what you just said because you are not understanding what immunity is..

Your point is that if it is a crime, there is no immunity. But your position renders the entire issue of immunity completely irrelevant. The only time immunity matters is when the President has been accused of a crime, but if the crime wipes out immunity, then the entire idea of immunity makes no sense.

[nathanbedford]

I know I'll get blasted for that, but I also am pretty damn sure that at the end, there won't be a single conviction coming out of that, and a better than 50-50 chance that none of it event gets to trial.

I remain in agreement; the odds of justice being done are slim indeed. And, sadly, I am also in agreement that you will get "blasted" as that is the lot of one who departs in the slightest degree from the requisite ardor in his support of Donald Trump. Been there, done that.

The whole game in determining immunity is to define the activity without reference, as you say, to the label being characterized by advancing allegations of criminality. I have tried to consider the dissemination of the intelligence to be the fulcrum for deciding immunity by focusing on this as a gray area. In the gray areas, the president enjoys a rebuttable presumption that his act will be defined to be official, and the burden must be carried by the prosecutor.

I have tried to play the labeling game as a matter of intellectual exercise which has to accept that there will be evidence of some kind of criminality that could be applied, not to the unquestionably immune act of ordering up intelligence, but to the act of disseminating it.

I'm afraid this is a very steep hill to climb, as you point out. I've run across this language in the court's opinion:

The Government does not dispute that if Trump is entitled to immunity for certain official acts, he may not “be held criminally liable” based on those acts. Brief for United States 46. But it nevertheless contends that a jury could “consider” evidence concerning the President’s official acts “for limited and specified purposes,” and that such evidence would “be admissible to prove, for example, [Trump’s] knowledge or notice of the falsity of his election-fraud claims.” Id., at 46, 48. That proposal threatens to eviscerate the immunity we have recognized. It would permit a prosecutor to do indirectly what he cannot do directly—invite the jury to examine acts for which a President is immune from prosecution to nonetheless prove his liability on any charge. But “[t]he Constitution deals with substance, not shadows.” Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277, 325 (1867). And the Government’s position is untenable in light of the separation of powers principles we have outlined.

With this language and with what follows, the court puts to bed my idea of advancing criminality to determine the definition of an act as official or not:

If official conduct for which the President is immune may be scrutinized to help secure his conviction, even on charges that purport to be based only on his unofficial conduct, the “intended effect” of immunity would be defeated. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 756. The President’s immune conduct would be subject to examination by a jury on the basis of generally applicable criminal laws. Use of evidence about such conduct, even when an indictment alleges only unofficial conduct, would thereby heighten the prospect that the President’s official decision making will be distorted. See Clinton, 520 U. S., at 694, n. 19.

There is an unfortunate tendency among many on this forum to resort to ad hominem attacks when they sense a threat to their champion that are not threats that matter but the essential process that makes conservatism worthy - and make a forum worthy of the name conservative. I applaud your contribution to this subject.

[nathanbedford]

If you have the slightest personal commitment to honest inquiry and honest debate, you will read the balance of the posts on this thread, especially those written by Bruce Campbells Chin, and try to deal with them, not by attacking the writer, but by contending against the ideas.

[sit-rep]

lol... based on one person’s comment...

[sit-rep]

personally, I wouldnt bet a dime any of them will face justice...

[central_va]

The writer is pushing the point that a President can do no wrong. I say that because he thinks Obama has immunity for sedition. He is wrong and Trump is getting BAD advice. This is a threat to the republic . It turns us, codifies a third world dictatorship. A will never throw away common sense because a jackass lawyer tells me too. So please stay out of it.

[nathanbedford]

So please stay out of it.

The record shows you brought me into it.

he thinks Obama has immunity for sedition.

I'm sure he can speak for himself but it is quite clear that he thinks that the Supreme Court thinks that a president has immunity for his official acts and, clearly, ordering up intelligence assessments is an official act.

It turns us, codifies a third world dictatorship

I am a loss to understand the logic that says to oppose a Supreme Court decision that immunizes official acts of a president somehow codifies a third world dictatorship. The decision immunizes the president and protects him from criminal liability for his actions. How does opposition to that decision codify a dictatorship?

[central_va]

Is ordering fake intel to destroy Trump an official act? The law is an ass. This is Ida Amin level of stupidity.

[central_va]

Your failure to understand is a failure of having and possessing common sense.

[central_va]

Wingnut, the threat is to freedom not our “champion” you long winded useless poster.

[nathanbedford]

Is ordering fake intel to destroy Trump an official act Is ordering Intel an official act?

Yes! Therefore ordering fake Intel, or even ordering fake Intel to destroy Donald Trump is an official act because motive may not be considered when defining the nature of the act.

[central_va]

Common sense:

Ordering fake intel to smear a political rival would only be considered an official act in the old USSR.

[nathanbedford]

Wingnut,… you long winded useless poster

See what I mean?

[central_va]

Well move to Cuba because that is how they operate.

[central_va]

Wow short and to the point! Well done!

[nathanbedford]

Common sense has been overridden by the Supreme Court to protect a higher value to them, to leave the president free to make hard decisions without fear for his personal liberty.

[central_va]

So was Harod ordering the killing of babies in Judea an official act?