President Donald Trump just dropped a bombshell about a Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity that might just give his old rival, Barack Obama, a get-out-of-jail-free card.
According to Breitbart, in a fiery exchange with reporters, Trump weighed in on the recent Supreme Court decision, alleging it could protect Obama from accusations of misconduct tied to the Trump-Russia collusion narrative, while new revelations from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard add fuel to the controversy.
Let’s start with the Supreme Court ruling that’s got everyone talking. Trump, never one to mince words, told reporters that this immunity decision “probably helps [Obama] a lot.” And yet, in the same breath, he pointed out it offers no such shield for those around the former president—a subtle jab at the inner circle.
Trump didn’t stop at legal analysis; he went straight for the jugular with accusations of “criminal acts” by Obama. “He’s done criminal acts,” Trump declared, leaving no room for doubt about his stance. One has to wonder if this is less about law and more about settling old scores.
According to Trump, the alleged wrongdoing ties back to the origins of the Trump-Russia collusion story—a narrative he’s long called a sham. He insisted the Department of Justice should target Obama directly for these supposed misdeeds. It’s a bold demand, but will it hold up under scrutiny?
Adding weight to Trump’s claims, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has stepped into the fray. She recently submitted a criminal referral to the DOJ, alleging the Obama administration fabricated intelligence to craft the collusion hoax. This isn’t just gossip; it’s a formal accusation with serious implications.
Gabbard’s referral paints a damning picture of deliberate manipulation at the highest levels during Obama’s tenure. If true, it suggests a coordinated effort to undermine Trump’s campaign and presidency—a charge that could shake public trust even further. But let’s be fair; these are allegations, not convictions.
Trump, seizing on this development, named not just Obama but also Joe Biden, James Comey, and James Clapper as key figures in the alleged scheme. “The leader of the gang was President Obama,” he asserted with characteristic flair. It’s a laundry list of heavy hitters, but evidence will be the ultimate judge.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, a staunch conservative from Louisiana, has also hinted at congressional action. He suggested that Congress might subpoena Obama to answer for these claims. That’s a political thunderclap if it happens, though subpoenas don’t always lead to accountability.
Back to the immunity ruling—Trump’s take is a curious mix of resentment and resignation. “Obama owes me big,” he quipped, suggesting the ruling might let his predecessor off the hook. It’s a witty jab, but it also reveals Trump’s frustration with a system he sees as uneven. Trump’s comments reflect a broader conservative concern that legal protections like immunity can be weaponized to shield questionable actions. If a president can hide behind such rulings, what’s stopping future abuses of power? It’s a valid question, even if asked with Trump’s signature bravado.
Yet, Trump was clear that this immunity doesn’t extend to Obama’s associates. “It doesn’t help the people around him at all,” he noted, perhaps hoping the DOJ will focus on those without such a shield. It’s a strategic nudge—go after the lieutenants if you can’t touch the general.
For many on the right, this story isn’t just about Trump versus Obama; it’s about holding powerful figures accountable, no matter their status. The idea that a former president might have orchestrated a hoax to sway an election is deeply troubling to those who value fair play. But let’s not rush to judgment—due process matters.
Trump’s rhetoric, while sharp, taps into a real frustration among conservatives who feel the system often protects the elite. “They tried to steal the election,” he charged, capturing a sentiment that resonates with many who distrust establishment politics. Still, fiery words must be matched by hard evidence.
As this saga unfolds, the clash between legal immunity and political accountability will likely dominate headlines. Will Gabbard’s referral lead to action, or will it fizzle under the weight of presidential protections? Only time will tell, but one thing is certain—Trump isn’t letting this go without a fight.
