Newsmax reporting it’s time to arrest Barack Obama
“It should shake every single American in their shoes. I hate to say this, but President Barack Obama, there is now incontrovertible evidence that he was the spearhead of a seditious conspiracy to subvert the will of the… pic.twitter.com/myzvFpctKD
— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) February 3, 2026
Why SOB Barack Obama Would Likely Face No Criminal Punishment Even If Found Guilty of Directing the Russia Collusion Hoax: The Shield of Presidential Immunity
Even if SOB Obama is found guilty of the 2016 Russia collusion hoax to undermine or topple Trump administration, he… pic.twitter.com/32nNvqawlE
— Raymond Ng (@rayngls) July 25, 2025
“It should shake every single American in their shoes. I hate to say this, but President Barack Obama, there is now incontrovertible evidence that he was the spearhead of a seditious conspiracy to subvert the will of the American people and overthrow the United States government back in 2016. We must, absolutely must, hold every one of these criminals accountable for the crimes that they committed. They are the most heinous crimes committed in American history. James Comey, John Brennan, Clapper, Rice, Biden was in the meeting on July 28th in the Oval Office. They briefed Barack Obama on Hillary Clinton’s plan to tie Trump to Russia collusion lies. It consumed our national discourse for 5 years. It undermined a sitting, duly elected president. It sabotaged administration. It framed a three-star general. It destroyed and ripped this country apart. We had a constitutional crisis, the likes of which I don’t think any American can fully comprehend. It is atrocious, and every single one of them must be held accountable”
Everyone knows SOB Obama is guilty of sedition & conspiracy to bring down Trump’s government in Russiagate hoax but he can’t be touched because the same presidential immunity that protects Trump also protects Obama. Sadly, that SOB will get away scot-free.
Why SOB Barack Obama Would Likely Face No Criminal Punishment Even If Found Guilty of Directing the Russia Collusion Hoax: The Shield of Presidential Immunity Even if SOB Obama is found guilty of the 2016 Russia collusion hoax to undermine or topple Trump administration, he would almost certainly face no criminal punishment. This protection stems from the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 2024 ruling in “Trump v. United States”, which grants broad presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts taken while in office. 1. The Supreme Court’s Framework for Presidential Immunity The “Trump v. United States” decision, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts and decided 6-3 along ideological lines, establishes a three-tier system of immunity to safeguard the presidency as an institution. The ruling emphasizes that presidents must act “boldly and fearlessly” without the constant threat of criminal prosecution distorting their decision-making. It draws from Article II of the Constitution, which vests executive power in the president, and historical precedents like “Nixon v. Fitzgerald” (1982), which provided civil immunity for official acts. – Absolute Immunity for “core constitutional acts”: These are actions within the president’s exclusive authority, such as pardoning, removing executive officials, or directing national security and law enforcement agencies.
No criminal prosecution is possible here, regardless of motive or outcome. The Court prohibits any inquiry into the president’s intent, arguing that such scrutiny would undermine the separation of powers. – Presumptive Immunity for other “official acts”: This covers actions within the “outer perimeter” of presidential duties, like broader executive oversight. Prosecution is barred unless it poses “no dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.” The bar is high—prosecutors must prove the case wouldn’t impair future presidential functions, which is rarely feasible. – No Immunity for “unofficial acts”: Only purely private conduct, unrelated to the office (e.g., personal financial crimes), can be prosecuted. Importantly, the ruling applies retroactively to all former presidents, including Obama. It doesn’t condone wrongdoing but prioritizes protecting the executive branch from “undue caution” or political weaponization through the courts. As the majority opinion states: “The President must be able to undertake his constitutionally designated functions effectively, without fear that a subsequent administration might prosecute him for decisions made in office.” 2. Why Obama’s Alleged Actions Qualify as “Official Acts” The core allegations against Obama involve directing Brennan and Comey to generate or politicize intelligence on Russian election interference during his presidency in 2016. This included overseeing assessments that allegedly exaggerated or fabricated ties between Russia and the Trump campaign, with the intent to cast doubt on Trump’s legitimacy and hinder his transition. Under the Court’s framework, these actions fall squarely within Obama’s official capacity: –
National Security and Intelligence Oversight: As president, Obama had constitutional authority under Article II to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” which includes protecting U.S. elections from foreign threats. Directing the CIA and FBI—executive agencies under his command—on intelligence priorities is a “core constitutional act.” The Court explicitly immunizes similar conduct, such as a president’s communications with the Department of Justice about investigations, noting that these “implicate [the President’s] ‘conclusive and preclusive’ authority.” – No Distinction Based on Motive or Criminality: Even if Obama’s directives were motivated by partisan intent (e.g., to “topple his successor” by undermining Trump), the Court bars probing motives for official acts. As Roberts wrote: “Courts may not inquire into the President’s motives” because it would expose routine executive functions to endless litigation. Furthermore, the ruling clarifies that an action isn’t deemed unofficial “merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law.” In other words, the potential criminal nature—such as conspiracy or falsification—doesn’t strip the act of its official character if it’s tied to presidential duties. –
Contrast with Unofficial Acts: If the allegations involved post-presidency conduct (after January 20, 2017) or purely personal actions (e.g., campaign-related misconduct outside White House channels), immunity wouldn’t apply. However, the declassified documents primarily point to in-office directives in 2016, making them immune. Directing “minions” like Brennan and Comey, even if it is to commit crimes, aligns with the president’s power to appoint and oversee executive officials. In essence, what might seem like a criminal conspiracy is reframed legally as an exercise of executive discretion in national security matters. Prosecuting it could deter future presidents from addressing real election threats, like foreign meddling, for fear of retroactive criminalization. 3. The Practical Barriers to Punishment Even if the DOJ pursued charges under a Trump administration, the immunity ruling creates insurmountable hurdles: – Absolute Shield for Core Acts: Obama’s involvement in intelligence briefings and agency directives would likely receive absolute immunity, halting any trial before it begins. – High Bar for Overcoming Presumptive Immunity:
For any borderline official acts, prosecutors would need to show no risk to executive functions—a near-impossible standard, as the Court designed it to favor immunity. – Other Accountability Mechanisms: The ruling notes that impeachment (which Obama wasn’t subjected to), public scrutiny, or civil suits provide checks, but criminal punishment is off the table for official acts. – Political and Institutional Realities: Under a potentially sympathetic administration, the DOJ might not even indict, but if they did, courts would dismiss based on immunity. 4. Criticisms and the Ethical Dilemma This outcome highlights a profound tension: Committing crimes is undeniably wrong, and many argue immunity enables abuse. The dissenting justices in “Trump v. United States”—Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson—lambasted the majority for creating a “law-free zone” around the presidency. Sotomayor warned it could protect extreme hypotheticals, like ordering assassinations, if framed as official. Jackson called it a “five-alarm fire” for democracy, arguing it invites “egregious criminal behavior” without consequence.
This is not to give any credit to Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson — these are still very low IQ justices, put there as the Left’s lackeys just to further the radical Left’s causes in the Supreme Court, regardless of the merits or truths. As stupid and partisan as they were, these imbecilic justices were just lashing out recklessly at the Supreme Court’s majority opinion because it favored Trump (who did nothing wrong) but as a twist of cruel fate, their dissent now rings so true for Obama who did commit the crime those moron leftist justices so vehemently warned against in their dissents at that time. Unfortunately, SOB Obama Will Get Away Scot-Free Piece-of-shit Barack Obama would likely face no criminal punishment for allegedly directing the Russia hoax because his actions—overseeing intelligence on election interference—constitute official presidential acts shielded by the Supreme Court’s immunity framework. This doesn’t mean the conduct was ethical or justified; it reflects a constitutional design prioritizing the presidency’s independence over individual accountability for in-office decisions. While other forms of reckoning (e.g., historical judgment) might apply, criminal consequences are barred to avoid paralyzing future leaders. The recent Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity underscores the limits of legal recourse against former presidents, fueling ongoing debates about power and accountability in America where a criminal like useless-garbage Obama will escape scot-free.
- Obama orchestrated the first soft coup in American history because he feared the exposure of his regime’s corruption. The peaceful transition of power was a myth. They weaponized the intelligence apparatus to sabotage the incoming administration before it began. Every Democrat who supported this hoax is complicit in treason. They ripped the Constitution apart to protect their power. Arrest them all or accept that the republic is already dead. The entire Democrat party functions as a criminal syndicate. – SE
