There has been speculation regarding the possibility of Barack Obama being charged with alleged treason.
It is well-known that Obama and his successor in 2017, Donald Trump, have had their differences, but they have generally maintained a civil demeanor, at least until recently.
On July 20, Trump stirred up controversy by posting an AI-generated video depicting Obama being arrested.
Before releasing the unusual video, Tulsi Gabbard, the US Director of National Intelligence, accused Obama of a ‘treasonous conspiracy’ aimed at undermining Trump’s initial presidency.
On July 18, Gabbard stated: “Over 100 documents that we released on Friday really detail and provide evidence of how this treasonous conspiracy was directed by President Obama just weeks before he was due to leave office after President Trump had already gotten elected.”
The alleged ‘conspiracy’ involves claims of Russian interference in Trump’s 2016 election victory. However, the Obama administration asserts that Russia was unsuccessful in any such attempts.
Gabbard has since declassified a report on the issue. She claims it shows ‘egregious weaponization and politicization of intelligence’, according to BBC News.
Gabbard further alleges that the documents contain ‘irrefutable evidence’ implicating Obama and other officials in orchestrating an intelligence community assessment ‘they knew was false’.
To cut to the chase: no. As you might recall from the controversy surrounding Trump’s role in the January 6 Capitol riots in 2020, a president is shielded from prosecution for actions deemed ‘official’.
This legal protection was a topic of debate for some time, as no president had ever been charged while in office. However, the issue gained attention last year when Trump was indicted by a federal grand jury on four counts for actions taken during his presidency following the November 2020 election.
This situation compelled the Supreme Court to clarify the extent of presidential immunity.
Last year, the Supreme Court declared: “Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.”
Since the alleged actions took place during Obama’s presidency, he remains immune from prosecution.
To advance criminal proceedings, it would be necessary to demonstrate that Obama’s actions were unofficial.
Patrick Rodenbush, spokesperson for Obama, recently responded to the allegations on behalf of the former president.
“Out of respect for the office of the presidency, our office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation flowing out of this White House with a response,” Rodenbush stated. “But these claims are outrageous enough to merit one.”
He went on to say: “These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction.
“Nothing in the document issued last week (by Gabbard) undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes.”