By Tony Bruce & Ben Emos | Thursday, August 7, 2025 | 6 min read
The Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling in Trump v. United States granted sweeping immunity to presidents for “official acts,” a decision that seemed designed to shield Trump from prosecution but now looms as a potential safeguard for Barack Obama—if the Court applies its own logic consistently. Yet with a 6-3 conservative supermajority, including Justices Alito and Thomas, who have shown remarkable deference to Trump’s legal arguments, there’s no guarantee the Court wouldn’t carve out an exception to target Obama.
The Court’s ruling held that presidents enjoy absolute immunity for core constitutional duties (e.g., military actions, diplomatic decisions) and presumptive immunity for other official acts unless prosecutors can prove they fall outside the “outer perimeter” of presidential authority. This standard is so broad that, as Chief Justice Roberts wrote, even ordering SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival could be immunized if framed as an “official act.”
Trump’s lawyers successfully argued that prosecuting a president would “chill executive decision-making”—yet now, Trump and his allies (like Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard) are pushing to indict Obama over his administration’s Russia investigation, which was undeniably an official national security function. Legal experts agree that Obama’s actions—reviewing intelligence on foreign interference—fall squarely within protected presidential duties, meaning immunity should apply.
But consistency isn’t this Court’s strong suit. The same justices who ruled that Trump’s pressure on the DOJ to overturn the 2020 election was immune might suddenly discover that Obama’s Russia probe was a “personal” or “partisan” act—especially if Alito or Thomas, both of whom dissented in cases limiting Trump’s power, invent a new justification.
Alito has already shown a willingness to embrace fringe legal theories, citing a 17th-century British jurist who believed in witchcraft to justify unchecked executive power. Thomas, meanwhile, has resisted recusing himself from cases involving Trump despite his wife Ginni’s activism in the January 6 “Stop the Steal” movement. Both justices could easily twist the immunity doctrine to argue that Obama’s actions were somehow “unofficial,” particularly given their track record of bending precedent to favor conservative outcomes.
For example:
Selective Motive Analysis: The Court’s ruling explicitly barred inquiries into a president’s motives, but Alito could claim Obama’s Russia inquiry was “politically motivated” and thus unprotected.
Fabricated Evidence: Trump’s DOJ could manufacture claims that Obama acted outside his role (e.g., by falsely alleging he conspired with the Clinton campaign). The Court might accept such claims at face value, as it did with Trump’s voter fraud lies in 2020.
As you noted, the louder the media chatter about Obama indictments, the quieter the scrutiny of Ghislaine Maxwell’s cushy prison transfer to a low-security Texas facility—reportedly with “five-star hotel” amenities—and her recent 9-hour DOJ interview, where she notably cleared Trump of any wrongdoing. The timing is suspicious:
Maxwell’s sudden cooperation with Trump’s DOJ (after years of silence) aligns with Trump’s efforts to suppress Epstein-related revelations.
Her prison transfer, which violates Bureau of Prisons policy for sex offenders, suggests a backroom deal to keep her compliant.
By dangling the spectacle of an Obama prosecution, Trump ensures the media obsesses over partisan warfare instead of asking:
Why is Maxwell being shielded?
What did she tell the DOJ about Trump’s ties to Epstein?
Why won’t the administration release the full Epstein files?
Pushing for an indictment against former President Obama isn’t just reckless—it’s laughably absurd. The facts simply don’t align with the narrative being spun. Anyone paying even modest attention to the timeline can see it. The notion that Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton had anything to do with the creation or concealment of the Epstein files falls apart the moment you consider that all of that unfolded during Donald Trump’s own presidency. Not before. Not under Obama. But on Trump’s watch.
And when it comes to the intelligence investigations swirling around the 2016 election, Obama wasn’t orchestrating anything behind the scenes. That’s not speculation—it’s backed by official findings, including those from a Senate Intelligence Committee led by none other than Republican Marco Rubio. That committee, hardly a bastion of liberal bias, concluded that it was Trump’s own 2016 campaign that posed a “grave counterintelligence threat” to the United States.
Let that sink in: a Republican-led investigation found Trump’s campaign to be the problem, not Obama’s presidency.
In any normal era, a competent and independent Department of Justice wouldn’t touch this kind of politically motivated circus with a ten-foot pole. But we’re not living in normal times. We’re living in an era where the man who might once again be president seems to be governed less by principle than by rage. Reports from inside the White House describe a man who lashes out when things don’t go his way, who obsesses over his enemies and erupts in fits of anger—sometimes quite literally throwing food or drinks against the walls of the Oval Office.
This isn’t justice. It’s retribution dressed up in legalese. It’s not leadership; it’s grievance politics at its most dangerous. The Department of Justice is being strong-armed to serve personal vendettas, not the country’s laws. That’s not how democracies function. That’s how strongmen operate—when they’re more interested in settling scores than upholding the Constitution.
Regardless of where you stand politically, weaponizing the justice system to chase made-up crimes while ignoring real failures is a dangerous path. Trying to haul former President Obama into court—not based on facts, but to satisfy one man’s vendetta—isn’t just weak legal ground; it undermines the very idea of equal justice under the law.
Let’s be honest: the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on presidential immunity wasn’t about upholding some noble principle. It was about shielding Trump. And if he decides to turn that same shield into a sword against his political rivals, the Court could very well back him again. After all, this isn’t a bench known for consistency. When the interests of powerful conservatives are on the line, accountability suddenly seems optional.
So while Trump continues to dominate headlines with threats of indictments and fantasies of revenge, the deeper scandal—the one involving Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and the powerful people who’ve managed to vanish from scrutiny—gets pushed further into the shadows. It’s a classic misdirection: stir up chaos so the public looks the other way.
President Obama warned that this kind of legal manipulation invites “perverse incentives.” He was right. The problem now isn’t just whether the law will be applied fairly—it’s whether those in charge even feel the need to pretend it will be.
Google are now ranking Mein Kampf & Trump: A Dangerous Resemblance among trending political books and articles. What’s fueling the attention? Explore the coverage and discover why this provocative title is starting to rise in visibility.
- Yahoo Ranking: https://bit.ly/4lmhSCz
- Google Ranking: https://bit.ly/44LFppG
More From FeDlan News:
Justice Department Reopens Wounds of Trump-Russia Saga with New Criminal Probe
Epstein and Ghislaine Are Weirdly More Popular Than Trump — And He Definitely Won’t Like It
The GOP’s Serious Approach to Comedy Led Them to Be Fooled by Rush Limbaugh, Trump, and Alex Jones
Copyright 2025 FN, NewsRoom.
