Posted on 07/29/2025 8:35:40 AM PDT by Red Badger
President Trump’s former impeachment attorney David Schoen dropped a legal nuke on the legacy of Barack Obama — declaring that the 44th President of the United States can still be impeached, and if so, could lose his post-presidential immunity and face indictment for criminal conduct tied to the Russia Collusion hoax.
This explosive revelation came just days after President Trump remarked that Obama owed him “big” for the recent Supreme Court decision affirming presidential immunity for official acts committed while in office.
But Schoen isn’t letting Obama off the hook.
Let’s not forget — during their second failed impeachment attempt against Trump, Democrats moved the goalposts, claiming impeachment could apply even after a president leaves office.
They did this in a desperate bid to disqualify Trump from running again — a tactic that could now come back to haunt their golden boy, Barack Obama.
“President Trump is right when he said the immunity decision would help President Obama,” Schoen said on Newsmax. “But you know what it doesn’t help him with? Impeachment.”
Schoen pointed directly to Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 of the Constitution — the very clause that Democrats used during their second sham impeachment of President Trump to argue that a former president could still be tried and barred from holding office again. In doing so, they opened the door for the same standard to apply to Obama.
“According to the Democratic Party and the House managers in the second impeachment trial, a former President, once out of office, is still subject to impeachment,” Schoen explained.
“In other words, they’ve argued Lincoln could be impeached, George Washington impeached. Certainly, as I predicted at the time, this would come back — they would rue the day — because President Obama could be impeached if this evidence really says what it says. And that could also strip off the immunity, because under Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 of the Constitution, the Democrats argued it bars one from holding further office. The language itself says you’re still subject to criminal prosecution or indictment. We’ll see how that plays out.”
WATCH:
VIDEO AT LINK.........................
Constitutional watchdog and founder of the Article III Project Mike Davis recently told Benny Johnson in a separate interview that Obama has zero legal protection from prosecution for any criminal conduct after leaving office.
Mike Davis explained that presidential immunity only protects actions taken while someone is actively serving as President.
Once they’re no longer in office, they lose that protection. So, if a former president is involved in a criminal cover-up after leaving office, they can be held legally accountable—immunity no longer applies.
This comes on the heels of newly declassified documents released by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, which allegedly show Barack Obama personally orchestrated the Russia Collusion Hoax.
They did it to themselves! Bet they didn’t think he’d ever get a chance to flip the scales on them!
Bkmk
I bet Obama wishes that he hadn’t engineered Biden off the 2024 ticket and installed Harris. Their whole plan was sabotaged by this.
Nice technical point, but they still don’t have 67 Senate votes.
Yes, well, when the prospect of Obama being impeached and convicted becomes more than an acid trip, maybe I’ll pay attention.
Impeachment of Obama is a collosal waste of time and effort. He is guilty, as a private citizen now, of having attempted a coup. Prosecute him on that... in our dreams, at least.
DEMOCRATS ARE LAW-LESS BECAUSE REPUBLICANS ARE BALL-LESS!!!!
WAKE UP PUBBIES!! YOU WILL LOSE IF YOU DON"T START MOVING TRUMP'S AGANDA!!
They don’t need 67 votes.
Just a two-thirds majority of the members PRESENT is required for conviction.
So, if several Democrats are in jail at the time..............................
Republicans will not impeach.
All it takes is an Attorney General with stones.
Well, Trump vs United States shot to Hell the Democrats’ arguments for criminally prosecuting the president... or did it?
Wikipedia reasonably well summarizes the ruling:
“Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024), is a landmark decision[1][2] of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court determined that presidential immunity from criminal prosecution presumptively extends to all of a president’s “official acts” – with absolute immunity for official acts within an exclusive presidential authority that Congress cannot regulate[1][2] such as the pardon, command of the military, execution of laws, or control of the executive branch.”
The catch is Obama sought to control the executive branch’s actions taken AFTER he left office. OK, it’s threading a needle because Obama did it while he was still in office, but I believe it’s relevant that he sought to control the actions of people like FBI director James Comey and CIA director John Brennan that they would make after he left office, not only through continuing policies until they were changed, but in maintaining fealty even after they were responsible to another administration.
BTTT
Another way to look at it is that SCOTUS intended to immunize OFFICIAL ACTS, which they defined as including control of the executive branch and execution of laws. But when Obama sought to maintain control of the executive branch after he left office those acts were unofficial, even though they otherwise fit the description of acts which were official.
Now, you may suppose that passing a policy on your way out the door is attempting to control the future acts of the executive branch, but the issuance of that policy is a present act. In that sense, the executive branch isn’t taking new action, but merely continuing an action what had already been started during the incumbent administration, until such time as the incoming administration undoes that action. (The fact that its inherently difficult is why the Administrative Policies Act creates some Constitutional problems, but the creation of those problems is an action of Congress, and therefore doesn’t make the President’s actions unofficial.)
The Trump legal team includes many brilliant people, and I would never presume I just came up with an angle they wouldn’t’ve, but JUST IN CASE, anyone know how to put under their nose this way around the Supreme Court’s finding of Presidential immunity?
Couldn’t Trump file a civil lawsuit ? Like the lawsuit against CBS ??
Barry would have to testify under oath.
It looks like Trump is on the way to a solid win in 2026. Republicans could add to their majorities in the house and senate. They could get very close to having enough votes to impeaching Obama. Meanwhile Brennan, Comey, Hillary, et.al, stand trial for conspiracy to overthrow the president. That would be 7x24 fun.
as a flower child of the 1960's and having done a lot of acid trips in my time, you should know ONLY BECAUSE of those experiences, that ACTUALLY SAVED MY like, back mid 1980's when I was getting certified for deep scuba diving.
scuba diver / diving and Nitrogen Narcosis.
I was down to a depth of approx. 125 feet, and got "NARCED," (nitrogen narcosis.) as fast as you can say the word BOO or as fast as you could turn on a light switch, that's how it hit me, and only because of my acid trips, am I here today. Figured I share for what it's worth.
Organizing and directing, while in office, the subversion of your successor is hardly within the penumbra of “official acts”.
No immunity. Arrest. Prosecute. Jail.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.