Obama can't be prosecuted. You can thank Trump for that.

[Doc7505]

Obama can be prosecuted for anything he did after he left office, whether they were official acts or not. What he did before he left office, if criminal, is not an official act.

~~~~~~
Indeed, If evidence proves that Obama continued to conspire to usurp the Trump presidency and re-election after he his presidency was finished then he could be prosecuted for those acts between Jan 21, 2017 to present day.

 

[Marener]

wrong as usual perhaps you should stick with your buddies claim no evidence is needed in an impeachment.

I mean, we had the readout of the phone call with Zelensky where he’s asking him for a favor to go after Biden during the campaign.

If a democratic president had done that, you guys would freak out.

 

[Skylar]

Maybe obama should hire you as one of his defense lawyers

Because as my old friend Eyebrows who was constantly in trouble with the law used to say “As long as you dont admit it they cant prove a thing”

Obama could get by with reruns of Suits and youtube clips of Mike Ross drinking beer and talking about Harvard. As this isn't a serious legal argument. Its dipshit theater for MAGA.

Gabbard and Trump are LITERALLY arguing if Trump or Gabbard disagree with the assessment of intel leadership from 2016, that they can EXECUTE the intel leadership from 2016.

Nope. This will go nowhere. The only one I think they might actually try to go after is Brennan. And not based on his assessment, but on testimony before congress. And even that is weak.

The entire 'treason' bullshit is just red meat for MAGA to distract them from Epstein. Something shiny so they won't ask questions.

 

[MarathonMike]

Dude, an ICA report revision isn't war against the united states. An ICA report revision isn't an attempt to destroy overthrow the US government. Nor is it even possible for an ICA report in January to rig an election in November.

That's hysteric pseudo-legal panty shitting nonsense. These claims aren't serious nor do they make the slightest sense.

This is just theater for dipshits to try and distract MAGA from Trump's refusal to release the Epstein list.

That's really funny from a knee jerk Trump Hater who leaps at whatever bait the Democrats toss in the water. Now that the intelligence data is in the hands of real Americans like Tulsi Gabbard and Pam Bondi instead of traitors like Brennan, Clapper and Comey we'll just see, won't we?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I mean, we had the readout of the phone call with Zelensky where he’s asking him for a favor to go after Biden during the campaign.

If a democratic president had done that, you guys would freak out.

that didn't happen as you claim.

 

[Mac-7]

But instead of releasing them, his administration refuses and suppresses the evidence.

Yes, and lib’s severe case of TDS convinces them trump is trying to protect trump

But I suspect it has to do with 3rd parties, maybe even foreign dignitaries

Anyway I dont think trump can hold out much longer so we may soon find out

 

[Mac-7]

Jesus, if I had a nickel every time you guys claimed the real story was coming.

It never does. You guys just move onto the next bullshit story.

And if so you could buy a bigger share of the Brooklyn Bridge

 

[Marener]

that didn't happen as you claim.

We have the readout of the phone call. It’s excerpt what it says.

Meanwhile you guys freak out because Obama published an accurate intelligence report that said Russia helped the Trump campaign.

 

[Skylar]

That's really funny from a knee jerk Trump Hater who leaps at whatever bait the Democrats toss in the water. Now that the intelligence data is in the hands of real Americans like Tulsi Gabbard and Pam Bondi instead of traitors like Brennan, Clapper and Comey we'll just see, won't we?

Bondi and Gabbard are certainly welcome to interpret intel data differently than the intel leadership team from 2016. But their ex post facto disagreement with the 2016 intel leadership team doesn't magically transform that assessment into a capital crime.

Or any crime.

Nor does Bondi and Gabbard's disagreement with the previous assessments give them the authority to execute the 2016 intel leadership team.

Its just a dipshit pseudo-legal argument to fuel MAGA fantasies. Its not a serious legal argument. It will go nowhere.

The ONLY plausible legal argument they could use would be with Brennan. And not based on this treason fantasy. But on his testimony to congress. And that is a long shot.

 

[Independent thinker]

then don't hold back. spit them out.

They are already out there. You are just a fact denier.

 

[Mac-7]

Obama could get by with reruns of Suits and youtube clips of Mike Ross drinking beer and talking about Harvard. As this isn't a serious legal argument. Its dipshit theater for MAGA.

Gabbard and Trump are LITERALLY arguing if Trump or Gabbard disagree with the assessment of intel leadership from 2016, that they can EXECUTE the intel leadership from 2016.

Nope. This will go nowhere. The only one I think they might actually try to go after is Brennan. And not based on his assessment, but on testimony before congress. And even that is weak.

The entire 'treason' bullshit is just red meat for MAGA to distract them from Epstein. Something shiny so they won't ask questions.

Nope. This will go nowhere.

I would not bet the rent money on that if I were you

 

[Independent thinker]

There's zero proof of any crime. Revising an ICA document is not making war against the United States. Revising an ICA document isn't attempting to destroy or overthrow the US government. There's literally zero evidence that this was attempted, or that there was even remotely plausible.

Its a story, backed by jackshit. A story tthat doesn't make the slightest sense and would be laughed out of any court they ever tried to front it in.

Ummmmmmmmmmm, they were after Trump to overthrow a legitimately elected president. That's something you can't deny. It happened.

 

[buckeye]

The decision makers in the intelligence community, the people whose job it is to make these make these calls, came to the conclusion that Russia's unambiguous help for the Trump campaign constituted a preference by Russia to elect to Trump over Hillary.

That some lower ranking officials may have disagreed with them is irrelevant. Its their job of the intel leadership to make that assessment and apply their best judgment on the evidence they have before them.

The argument being offered by Gabbard and Trrump is LITERALLY if Trump or Gabbard diagreee with the assessment of intel leadership from 2016, that they can EXECUTE the intel leadership from 2016.

Laughing.........no. No they can't.

Trump ex post facto disagreeing with a previous administration's intel assessments does not magically transform that assessment into a capital crime. Or any crime.

This will go nowhere. Its just theater for morons to distract them Epstein and isn't a serious legal argument.

You need to familiarize yourself with the House Report that Tulsi just released.

https://www.odni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/DIG/DIG-Declassified-HPSCI-Report-Manufactured-Russia-Hoax-July2025.pdf

Also read Tulsi's statement as you are unfamiliar with the actual events, who did what and how it played out.

https://singjupost.com/transcript-tulsi-gabbard-remarks-on-russia-hoax-from-the-white-house/

 

[Marener]

And if so you could buy a bigger share of the Brooklyn Bridge

You actually think there’s any more here? They don’t even have a coherent story.

 

[Meister]

This thread doesn't discuss how horrible you might think Obama is, or if he is guilty of treason. None of those thing matter. The SC granted trump, and all presidents immunity from prosecution for anything that can remotely be tied to his powers as president. Can you think of a legal reason why trump was able to walk, but Obama should be charged?
If so, now is the time to educate us all. I look forward to your reasoned legal opinion.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

Works for me, but a 100 years from now people will not have a high opinion of Barry
and his legacy. Kind of like Woodrow Wilson and his wife.

 

[AntonToo]

You need to familiarize yourself with the House Report that Tulsi just released.

https://www.odni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/DIG/DIG-Declassified-HPSCI-Report-Manufactured-Russia-Hoax-July2025.pdf

Also read Tulsi's statement as you are unfamiliar with the actual events, who did what and how it played out.

https://singjupost.com/transcript-tulsi-gabbard-remarks-on-russia-hoax-from-the-white-house/

Did you read it?

Don't lie, just honestly answer.

 

[buckeye]

Putin PUBLICLY ADMITED that he supported Trump over Clinton.

Yet he held back damning information about Hillary. Why would he do that if he supported Trump?

And Putin publicly saying he supports Trump is not helping Trump, it's helping Hillary, goofy.

 

[Doc7505]

No to both, the Constitution spells out exactly what constitutes treason. it doesn't apply on the allegations against maobama.

.

~~~~~~
I found this bit of legal goop that may be counter to your statement:
Read more:

Usurpation: The Weapon By Which Free Governments Are Destroyed | Tenth Amendment Center

Whenever the people who make up the federal government, either as individuals, as departments or as branches, exercise power not expressly delegated to them as specified in the Constitution, they are usurping the authority of either the states or the people.

tenthamendmentcenter.com

"Usurpation is the unauthorized, unlawful exercise of power. Whenever a person, department or branch of the government (federal, state, or local) usurps, they assume undelegated powers and are therefore acting outside the law.​

Our Constitution (the supreme law of the land), created a federal government of strictly limited, enumerated powers when it was ratified by the people’s delegates in their respective state conventions. These states were not created by the Constitution, because they already existed."​

Whenever the people who make up the federal government, either as individuals, as departments or as branches, exercise power not expressly delegated to them as specified in the Constitution, they are usurping the authority of either the states or the people. Why? Because as the 10th Amendment makes it clear:
George Washington warned against the dangers of usurpation. He called it ‘the weapon by which free governments are destroyed”. Â He urged Americans to guard against it and reject it for the evil that it is. In his farewell address, he wrote:

“If in the opinion of the People the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”​

So, Although Obama may be immune from his decisions as president from 2009 to 2017, his acolytes and cabinet members do not have the same protections.
Additionally, any conspiracies that Obama continued or entered into after his presidency are not covered by presidential immunity...

 

[Skylar]

Yes, and lib’s severe case of TDS convinces them trump is trying to protect trump

But I suspect it has to do with 3rd parties, maybe even foreign dignitaries

Anyway I dont think trump can hold out much longer so we may soon find out

Its not 'TDS'. Its just plain old critical thinking skills.

Trump is taking serious political damage over this. His own party members are rebelling against Trump in the house, voting with democrats to release the Epstein list. Trump is angering his own base. Trump has had to change his story on this repeatedly, lying about the Epstein list. His base has noticed. Everyone has noticed.

Trump's approval rating has tanked, with the last 2 polls showing him 11 and 13 points underwater on favorability, the worst performance of any president in US polling history, save one: Donald Trump in his first term. Trump is sliding in his core demographic: MEN. Now 6 points underwater.

We've got reports from the Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal that Trump's name did come up repeated in the Epstein files. So we have ample reason to believe that Trump is protecting himself by suppressing the Epstein list.

The logical conclusion, using our critical thinking skills, is that Trump will take MORE political damage from the release of the Epstein list than he has from suppressing it.

 

[struth]

I mean, we had the readout of the phone call with Zelensky where he’s asking him for a favor to go after Biden during the campaign.

If a democratic president had done that, you guys would freak out.

Full Document: Trump’s Call With the Ukrainian President (Published 2019)

Trump is accused of pressing Ukraine to investigate his political rivals.

www.nytimes.com

Here's the transcript...nowhere does he say do him a favor and go after Biden

This is what he said about the Xiden family, which I might add, lead to Hunter being indicted, and exposing the corruption in the Xiden family...it's no wonder you all impeached him

The other thing, There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.